Milicent Cranor passed on the following note:
“On March 23, 2015, at 2:08 p.m. [in the JFK Facts Comment section], Jean Davison ended a message to someone named “Willy” with this comment: ‘This is what you get when you rely on secondary sources instead of reading the original testimony and documents: a distorted version spun through someone else’s head.’ ”
Does Jean Davison read original testimony? Are the people she quotes truthful? Take a look at what she posted at 9:39 on March 23, and compare it with expert testimony.
Quoting Duncan MacPherson: “The bullets used in this assassination are much more resistant to deformation than most rifle bullets. The major effect in bullet 399 is ‘toothpasting’, i.e., a small amount of the lead core has been squeezed out of the jacket base like toothpaste from a tube. This probably occurred when the bullet hit Connally’s ribs at a high yaw angle …”
A “high yaw angle?” That would mean the bullet struck sideways. But the evidence, both internal and external, proves the bullet did not strike sideways. Why have supporters of the Single Bullet Theory been promoting this false information for decades?
Rationale: It struck sideways because it was tumbling; it was tumbling because it first went through John Kennedy’s neck—and, presto, proof of the SBT. The lie started with John Lattimer’s false claim that the wound in Connally’s back was 3cm long, the result of a sideways hit.
REALITY CHECK
External Damage: Original size of Connally’s back wound, before debridement, was only 1.5 cm—the same size allegedly as the entrance wound in Kennedy’s head. It was 3 cm after cleaning and enlarging—as Connally’s surgeon, Robert Shaw, M.D., testified. (4 WCH 104, 107; 6,WCH 85-86, 88) In his operative report, Shaw simply described the wound’s size after surgery, but in his testimony he said the original size was only 1.5 cm. And the holes in the back of Connally’s shirt and jacket were also 1.5 cm, per the FBI. (5 WCH 64)
Internal Damage: According to Shaw, 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 WCH 116)
So, obviously, MacPherson was promoting the SBT with false information…. As for this particular lie, its author is John Lattimer. Wounds and bullets are a bit like locks and keys, and Lattimer was an amateur locksmith. Since a tumbling bullet did not fit into Connally’s back wound, Lattimer changed the lock.
I googled and arrived at the this thread to refresh myself on the nature of Connally’s back wound, which I always thought was enlarged after the surgical procedure, and that Dr. Shaw said it could be either from a tumbling bullet or a tangential strike.
In any event, we must not forget what the Warren Commission stated after their experiment about the course of a bullet if fired through the neck (page 91 of the WCR):
“A photograph of the path of the bullet traveling through the simulated neck showed that it proceeded in a straight line and was stable.” 192
From the above statement, it is doubtful that a bullet fired from the rear through the President’s neck would have tumbled.
From Ronnie Wayne:
“Fact’s are hard to find here but Weitzman signed a signed affidavit on 11/23 and later reiterated to the WC “I Said it was a Mauser type Action, DIDN’T I”.”
—————————————————–
Yes, I am quite familiar with this part of Weitzman’s WC testimony. He is getting quite defensive at this point, and throws this item of information out in an attempt to get the WC lawyer off his back.
It is almost as if Weitzman deeply regrets the initial identification of the rifle as a 7.65mm Argentine Mauser, and is working very hard at establishing that he only observed the rifle to have a “Mauser-type action”; referring, of course, to the bolt and receiver.
While the 7.65mm Argentine Mauser certainly had a Mauser-type action, this is not enough to establish it as a Mauser, since virtually all bolt action sporting rifles and the majority of 20th Century military bolt action rifles have a Mauser-type action. The only military exceptions I can think of are the British Lee Enfield and the Russian Mosin Nagant. The 6.5mm Carcano most definitely had a Mauser-type action, as well.
What should be examined is at just what point the rifle went from merely having a Mauser-type action to actually being identified as a very unique 7.65mm Argentine Mauser.
Bob, all of what many of have discussed here on this subject is very important (to me at least). But it leads met to, why was the Rifle not properly ID’d on Friday. Hell it was supposedly used to kill a President! But on Friday it was a Mauser. Not until Saturday when the FBI tracked the Mauser to Klien’s Sporting Goods in Chicago did it become a Carcano.
One thing that was never stamped on any Carcano rifle was the actual word “Carcano”. I should also point out here that it is incorrect to call these rifles “Mannlicher-Carcano” and that the name Carcano is sufficient.
Beside the serial number C2766, the date 1940 and the name “TERNI” (plant the rifle was made in), there were, according to the FBI, two other things stamped on the assassination rifle. Just forward of the fixed rear sight was stamped “CAL 6,5” and “MADE ITALY”. While this last bit of information is upheld by the WCR, and would seem to be “common” knowledge among JFK researchers, I have recently been studying this matter, and have discovered something puzzling. While photos clearly show the calibre on the rear sight of post-1938 Carcanos, either as “CAL 6,5” or “CAL 7,35”, I have been unable to find the words “MADE ITALY”, either on C2766 or any other post-1938 Carcano.
I may be mistaken on this matter, and am more than willing to have someone prove me wrong but, until that time, I believe I have discovered another example of FBI evidence tampering that has escaped detection for 51 years.
Does it have the “TERNI” plant stamp on it? This is the rifle in the National Archives and can be examined?
Ronnie Wayne
You asked about Roger Craig identifying the rifle as a 7.65mm Argentine Mauser. Here is an interview with Craig in which he describes the discovery of the rifle and, just past the 5:00 mark, explains how he was no more than 8 inches from the rifle, and saw 7.65mm Mauser stamped on the barrel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XNHtUDEDAI
As I stated earlier, the only 7.65mm Argentine Mauser that resembles a 6.5mm Carcano short rifle, due to its protruding box magazine, is the Model 1891 7.65mm Argentine Mauser carbine, and I believe this unusual magazine design is what led to the two rifles being confused. Examination of any Model 1891 will show neither the calibre nor the word Mauser to be stamped anywhere on the barrel. The word Mauser is stamped on the side of the receiver, but not the calibre.
At 5:46 of this video, or thereabouts, a second rifle can be seen lying on the floor, behind the 6.5mm Carcano being examined. The makers of this film outline this rifle in red, and I assume we are to believe this is the second rifle, the so called 7.65mm Argentine Mauser. However, if you look closely at this rifle, it can be seen to be a Remington Model 8 semi-automatic rifle. It is nowhere close to being a bolt action Mauser and, in fact, this rifle was a favorite of the Texas Rangers and other law enforcement agencies since the days of Bonnie and Clyde.
One of these Remington Model 8’s, and likely the one seen in the Craig interview, can be seen being carried out of the TSBD by DPD Detective Jim Leavelle in this photo.
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQgJwhpke4Qri46pqk9vyrNB3bBxrFgBqP_WfZ-E_kEPTAjHvM3vNEqvYE
Just to avoid confusion, I should point out that the Model 1891 Argentine Mauser was manufactured in Germany, but used mainly by South American armies, plus Belgian and Turkish armies. Later models of the 7.65mm Argentine Mauser were manufactured, under licence, in countries utilizing these weapons.
Thanks Bob. Guess I can’t really argue with Craig’s own words. Odd that he was the only one of the four to stick by his word. Especially in light of the later problems in his life it contributed to.
The Remington Model 8 Semi is interesting. If a officer brought it in during the search of the building would he have laid it on the floor behind them as opposed to standing it up out of the way? In my former life when I hunted some I never recall me or anyone else laying a rifle on the floor to be tripped over.
It’s also interesting in light of the many witnesses who heard two shots too close together to have come from a single bolt action. The only alternative to me is two (or more) shooters or a semi automatic.
I’m still curious. Why was this Semi Automatic laying on the floor? Anybody?
“Frankly I am still thinking how incredibly “coincidental” it was that there was a Mauser in the TBDB two days before the assassination. I have never been one for coincidence theory.”
\\][//
Hi Ronnie
Just to be sure, I checked out other models of the 7.65 Mauser, such as the Model 1909, which did not have the protruding box magazine (similar to the 6.5 Carcano) and they did not have the calibre stamped on the barrel or receiver either. See link below:
http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/14389/14553525_2.jpg?v=8CF89B4155463E0
It seems that the Mauser people assumed everyone would know the calibre if they saw the model number. As there were only three main calibres of Mauser employed by military forces in the majority of the 20th Century, those being the 7mm, the 7.65mm and the 7.92(8)mm, and the 7mm was abandoned early on prior to WWI, it is not hard to understand why the calibre was not stamped on the barrel of the 7.65mm Mauser.
Your question about the Remington Model 8 seen lying on the floor is a good one, and I must admit the same thought crossed my mind, as well. I actually made a mistake about the detective seen leaving the TSBD with the Remington Model 8, just ahead of Fritz. I identified him as Jim Leavelle, when in reality it is another detective named Elmer Boyd.
Considering the witness statements, the last two shots would seem to have been very close together; possibly less than one second apart. While it is possible for a semi-automatic, such as the Model 8, to discharge rounds at this speed, re-acquiring a moving target in a scope (or open sights) and taking aim at it requires a little more time than that, at least in my experience, anyways. I still lean toward more than one shooter.
To be fair to Roger Craig, and to those who believe there actually was a 7.65mm Argentine Mauser found on the 6th floor, there is another possible scenario that may have occurred.
From what I have read, Seymour Weitzman had worked in his family’s sporting goods store. He was supposedly quite familiar with rifles, including surplus military rifles, and may have seen surplus 7.65mm Mausers in his family’s store. As Italian 6.5mm Carcano imports were also very common by 1963, he should also have been just as familiar with this rifle, and his inability to identify such a unique looking rifle has always puzzled me.
When the rifle was found, there may have been a good deal of excitement and confusion going on, and exact memories of events may not have been correctly recorded in each person’s mind. Weitzman may have looked at the rifle, seen the words “MAUSER MODELO ARGENTINO 1891” and, knowing all Argentine Mausers are 7.65mm calibre, have pronounced it to be a 7.65mm Argentine Mauser, just as Craig was looking at it. Craig may have sincerely believed he actually read 7.65mm Mauser, when in fact he only read Mauser Modelo Argentino 1891, and his mind created the false memory of having read the calibre, as well, from Weitzman’s singular suggestion.
Well, there’s your psychology lesson for the morning, anyways. 🙂
Sounds more logical than the WC dismissal of the subject and the officers testimony/statements. What I understand thus far is DPD Homicide Captain Fritz holds up the rifle in poor light (and maybe says whats that say?). Former rifle store family employee Dallas Deputy Sheriff Seymour Weitzman, looking over Fritz’s shoulder says it looks like a 7.65 Mauser. Others relate it to the only Mauser they have ever heard of. From WW II, the popular German version.
Fact’s are hard to find here but Weitzman signed a signed affidavit on 11/23 and later reiterated to the WC “I Said it was a Mauser type Action, DIDN’T I”.
Not as a distraction but it should be noted that Officer Seymour Weitzman, a motorcycle cop, was also one of the first on the Grassy Knoll where he encountered a Secret Service Officer (I know, none were there per them) he later identified as Watergate burglar/CIA operative Bernard Barker.
Photon
April 21, 2015 at 5:59 pm
Ed,I am calling you out on this. I believe that I can quote the medical literature that states a startle reaction to a loud sound,eg. a gunshot wound can lead to flexion of the forearms in less than 50 milliseconds.
Your 200-300 millisecond reaction time is pure hogwash.
Quote the article.
Quote the journal.
I get $300 an hour for this stuff.
—————————————————————
You make this too easy for me. Honestly.
If what you say is true, how do you explain the total lack of startle reaction (and flexion of forearms) in the bystanders on the sidewalk in the Altgens 6 photo? They would have been exposed to the same loud startling sound as JFK, and by the time this photo was taken, two rounds had supposedly been fired almost 4 seconds before.
Photon
April 21, 2015 at 2:12 pm
Not if the lapel flap was not caused by the bullet itself pushing against the lapel but instead the shock wave and air movement from the round passing inferior to the lapel.
———————————————————————
So, my wise and eloquent friend, if what you say is true, why did just the lapel flip out? Why did that whole side of the suit coat not push out from the “shock wave and air movement”?
First of all, I want to compliment all of you for this and other discussions you take part in concerning the JFK assassination.
I just recently started discovering all this information which I didn’t even know existed.
I want to ask a simple question relating to Connally’s back wound that maybe has already been addressed and answered.
I keep on reading here that Connally’s clothes in relation to the back wound were looked at after they were cleaned for the size of the holes in them.
Were the clothes ever looked at before they were cleaned?
I would think that the clothes in question would be considered evidence, so why would they be cleaned before the holes in them were examined for size?
“I would think that the clothes in question would be considered evidence, so why would they be cleaned before the holes in them were examined for size?”~Antonio D’Antonio
That is a good question. The fact is whoever is responsible for letting Connally’s wife take the close is liable for “Despoliation of Evidence”
However the dry cleaning of the suit, and the laundering of the shirt did not change the size of the holes, nor alter their positions.
The only thing lost was the possibility of determining which were entries and exits. The actual wounds to Connally cleared that up.
\\][//
Thanks Willy and Ronnie for the information.
And speaking of evidence, was it true that the SS started cleaning the limo in the hospital parking lot and that the car was sent to Ford in Detroit the following week for refurbishing?
If that is true, it just absolutely blows my mind how the assassination evidence was so blatantly mishandled/tampered with!
Also, if those things about the limo are true, how do the the WC supporters explain such behavior?
Let me guess, they say it didn’t happen!
“was it true that the SS started cleaning the limo in the hospital parking lot and that the car was sent to Ford in Detroit the following week for refurbishing?”
Yes, the limousine was evidence and it was ‘despoliation’ of that evidence to clean out the limo.
It was ‘alteration’ of evidence to send it to Detroit for refurbishing – especially replacing the windshield that had a bullet hole in it and destroying the bullet hole evidence.
The cover-up proves the perpetrators of a crime. As is obvious Oswald’s ghost didn’t perform all these machinations.
\\][//
Yes, they were cleaned. Primarily because the DPD, FBI and Secret Service all neglected to secure this evidence in a timely fashion. Two ladies whose names I can’t remember took his & Mrs. Connally’s Pink Neiman Marcus dress/coat (also spattered with blood) and had them dry cleaned. Actually one had the dry cleaning done and the other went and got her another dress.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M53b_Connally.pdf
I’m not sure I believe the “mole” stuff, but this was, ah, convenient:
http://nodisinfo.com/nellie-connally/
Dictabelt Controversy:
A Rebuttal to Ramsey
Under contract by the HSCA, the firm of Bolt, Beranek, & Newman(BBN) analyzed a tape recording of the JFK motorcade in Dealey Plaza and found 4 possible shots The most controversial was the shot from the grassy knoll, which would imply that a conspiracy was involved. Because BB&N could only state the probability for that shot was 50%, HSCA asked acoustics experts Weiss and Aschkenasy (W&A) to refine the data on that shot in order to reduce the uncertainty either way. W&A stated with a 95% confidence that the impulse on the DPD tape recording was a gunshot fired from the grassy knoll. The HSCA relied quite heavily on that conclusion in issuing its finding of a conspiracy.
The U.S. Justice Department (DOJ), instead of then investigating the conspiracy, attempted to discredit the HSCA findings. Its first attempt using the FBI bugging experts failed due to the lack of competence in the necessary disciplines. DOJ then had to assign the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) the task of discrediting the HSCA’s acoustical findings. To be sure of the outcome, only government connected scientists, most with ties to the intelligence community, were selected and they worked in total secrecy without any challenge from independent researchers. It was hoped that their prestige would end the debate and their mandate was only to discredit the acoustical analysis of the HSCA, not to find the truth. The budget they were given was so limited that they could not do the necessary tests beyond those needed to discredit the HSCA. The DOJ was highly successful. It’s been over a year since the issuance of the NAS Report and not one scientist has dared challenge it. It’s a national disgrace for a country Which prides itself on freedom of thought that the challenge has to come from an ordinary blue-collar worker, rather than the scientific community.
Note: Bolt,Beranek and Newman is an important defense contractor, especially to the Navy. If their basic understanding of science is as flawed as Ramsey suggests the implications are frightening. In that case, they couldn’t tell a Russian sub from a whale by sonar. No intercepted code could be decrypted, because the noise reducing or filtering algorithms would be suspect.
http://www.jfk-assassinat.com/index.php?module=pages&type=user&func=display&pageid=180
\\][//
Broken Chain of Custody of hulls found on 6th TBDB
https://youtu.be/25QiW5K9U9c?t=754
\\][//
The TSBD bullet hull story could prove that the man at the “Sniper’s Nest” fired 2 shots, not 3. Key issue, as it would mean that the 3rd shot obviously came from another direction, another weapon, another shooter.
Why hasn’t anybody else confirmed Barry’s allegation?
Why Bother?
Why bother countering the nonsense propagated by the Warren Commission Cult?
The point in countering propaganda is not to change the propagandist’s mind, but to lay his techniques and dissembling bare to a candid world.~Willy Whitten
\\][//
“There are actually several conflicting single bullet theories, a good reason, among many, to reject them. Rejecting them means there was more than one shooter. It also means there are problems with the ballistics evidence. This article endeavors to end assumptions about the suppression of that evidence. Notwithstanding the failure of the single bullet theories, and actually precluding them, we argue that the existence of a conspiracy is sufficiently proved by exposing two unreliable claims of the Warren Commission; by exhausting all conceivable innocent explanations for those claims; by arguing that they were instead “damage control” attempts to deflect honest inquiry; and by calling into question long-accepted theories about the alleged murder weapon and its alleged misidentification.
We demonstrate how the planting of specific evidence — a part of the weapon — was based on an error. The perpetrators quickly realized the mistake but not soon enough to correct it or hide it. All they could do was deflect attention from it. It was an error so obvious that it would have exposed, within hours of Lee Harvey Oswald’s arrest, the conspiracy to frame him. In fact, the error has never been hidden, just confused. We therefore show that damage control was the motive for the unanticipated, but criminally necessary and deliberate, prolonged misidentification of the weapon.”~Walter F. Graf and Richard R. Bartholomew
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/19th_Issue/gtds.html
\\][//
Willy, can you give one specific piece of genuine physical evidence that proves that the SBT was not possible? Not generalities, not false information but actual facts? It seems that CTers continuously parrot the “SBT is a fairy tale” line without a shred of evidence to back it up, while always ignoring the mountain of evidence that proves that it is possible-and as the simplest explanation for JFK and Connally’s wounds and actions, the most probable. For years CTers have misrepresented the positions of JFK and Connally in the limo. If the truth is on your side, why lie? For years CTers have claimed that # 399 was pristine and too undamaged to cause the wounds to the two men. Ballistics studies have proven those assumptions false- if they are not false, why lie? The Zapruder film proves that both men were reacting almost simultaneously to a shot that occurred after both men reacted to another stimulus-Connally by looking over his shoulder, JFK by looking back over his right shoulder. Why lie and claim those actions do not occur?
Photon
Quite simple. The bullet involved in the SBT reputedly went past the outside tip of the right transverse process of cervical vertebra C7, continued through the neck, and then passed through the right outside edge of JFK’s trachea.
Assuming JFK was facing forward, which the Zapruder film clearly shows he was, this bullet had to travel a right to left path through JFK’s neck at a minimum angle of 23°, this angle being measured from a centre line running lengthwise through the limo.
This presents several problems for the SBT. First, the investigators found that, with the limo at a position seen in the Z film at about z222-z224, the Sniper’s Nest in the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD was only 9° separated laterally from a centre line drawn lengthwise through the limo. JFK would have to have been turned 14° to his right, which we clearly do not see him doing in the Z film at this time.
Next, if the bullet passed through JFK’s neck at a lateral angle of 23°, it would be lined up with a position to the left side of Connally, and it would have been impossible for this bullet to have hit Connally in the right armpit.
As is painfully and comically obvious in any of the assassination cartoons, such as Dale Myers’ effort, the only way to make the SBT work is to have the bullet pass almost through the centre of JFK’s neck, where it would have smashed through vertebrae. As the autopsy report does not mention severe damage to JFK’s cervical vertebrae, we know this did not happen, and it is a certainty the SBT did not happen, either.
Photon,
The question being presented by Graf and Bartholomew is related to the misidentification of evidence. You seem unwilling to address their complex analysis. I would ask why? Do you even recognize what they are asserting?
Your fall back position in any complicated analysis seems to be to either drag out an expert, divert the argument, or to challenge any and all to prove your claim which aligns with the Warren Report is wrong rather than you accepting the logical responsibility of proving your claim to be correct. This pattern is evident in arguments offered by others on this site as well.
You persistently ask that ‘we’ prove the bullet was Not a magical bullet. That is not our job. It is your job to prove that specific bullet was full of magic, and more important, to prove from whence it came. Bartholomew and Graf are positing why it was necessary to confuse the early hours of the investigation with misidentification, eventually leading to Specter’s final card trick . . . the bullet was magic. Yet you assert that some detail which when adjusted by select ‘experts’ is sufficient evidence to support a single bullet theory should be considered legitimate and closes the case.
Without a solid record of chain of custody how can you possibly offer credible proof that No.399 caused injuries to both Kennedy and Connally? As Walter and Richard suggest, there was a real sleight of hand in play in the early days, and the Warren Commission then played out those cards and concluded the card trick with the claim ‘there is evidence that the bullet found in Parkland is a bullet that penetrated Kennedy and Connally.’ You cannot claim that for fact, they could not claim that for fact; in fact – they theorized. You can only say it is ‘possible’ that it was the bullet because it was possible that a bullet could cause those injuries. Anything is possible.
We ask that you prove that specific bullet caused the injuries you claim, and that you do so without resorting to re-construction in “similar” circumstances. Where is the proof that No. 399 passed thru both men, and then lodged somewhere – yet to be determined – and then flopped onto a gurney (of unknown provenance) which was parked in the hallway of the emergency room.
In good faith, will you speak to the conclusions of Graf and Bartholomew?
“Not generalities”~Photon
The post this short phrase is contained in is a proof of your hypocrisy, for that post itself is a set of generalities.
Further it is argumentum ad hominem, calling myself and others liars. And backing that up with general claims that are nothing but your opinions.
Yes, we have been over everyone of these points here on this very thread in the most minute detail.
You begin with the issue of the Magic Bullet, so I will address that specifically and directly. We have PROVEN that there is a broken chain of custody at the very beginning of the chain of this item. The bullet found at Parkland was an unjacketed pointed lead round. We have given citations to this fact. We have further shown that the individuals this bullet was handed over to refuse to identify CE 399 as the bullet they handled; and given citations of fact.
On top of this as I have stated clearly, and will reiterate one more time; the onus is upon those who assert a proposition to prove that proposition. The proposition proposed is that the bullet in evidence is the same one that was allegedly found at Parkland Hospital. I is not proven because there is no valid chain of evidence. Thus the evidence in question [CE 399] is invalid.
PERIOD.
\\][//
Both JFK jacket and shirt. Try to align their bullet holes with an exit wound at the throat. Please, report back to the forum.
I can. The police dicta belt tape. It PROVES acoustically that there were shots from two different directions.
As for the other evidence, which was mishandled, washed and hidden in a garage, etc. the conspirators did a good job of covering it up so that people like you could say fifty years later “show me evidence.” You cannot dispute the acoustical evidence however hard you try though.
The Dictabelt only proves that CTers can’t accept the fact that ” hold everything secure” proves that the ” shots” supposedly present occured a minute or more after the assassination. It is a dead issue.
Whenever I see the ” chain of evidence” argument from the CT side it is rarely if ever posted by an individual with any actual legal experience or training. I find it impossible to take seriously without evidence to back it up from someone who actually rules on those matters-not a sculptor or lumberjack.
Perhaps you can ask a former NE football player how far a ” chain of custody” argument goes when he could be convicted without even a murder weapon being available.
The jacket and the shirt.
“The Dictabelt only proves that CTers can’t accept the fact that ” hold everything secure” proves that the ” shots” supposedly present occured a minute or more after the assassination. It is a dead issue.”~Photon
“Hold everything secure” is bleed through, and this has been proven. The same thing happens in magnetic tape stored for a long time without being wound with a paper strip separating the tape surfaces.
The impulse sonic signature is proven to be gunfire. When was there ever gunfire in Dealey Plaza other than during the assassination?
\\][//
“There are otherwise brilliant people, some with deep and comprehensive knowledge of filmmaking and editing, who truly believe that the original film was more than tampered with. I have only a single response: the very rich tapestry of acoustic, visual and corroborative eyewitness and earwitness testimony, all synchronized to hundredths of a second in this study, makes the possibility of fraud or criminality connected to the Zapruder film a virtual impossibility.”~Dr. Randolph Robertson
http://jfkproject.org/faqs/
This is the same conclusion came to by both Rolland Zavada, and Raymond Fielding the premier experts on film stock, movie making machinery (Zavada), and special effects cinematography (Fielding).
http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf
\\][//
Do you even have the most basic understanding of how those Dictabelt recordings worked, Photon? Apparently you don’t. If you did, you’d acknowledge the existence of ‘crosstalk’ in the recordings. Since you seem to lack the understanding, I’m going to provide you with some sources to get started. I’ve asked that you read “Hear No Evil” but I’m going to bet you never read it.
So here are some quick references for an introduction:
https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Acoustics_Evidence
http://kegisland.com/zapruder-dictabelt-synchronization.html
Do you? Your first reference poo-poos the noted physics experts who destroyed all credibility of the HSCA conclusions about the Dictabelt while claiming that an insect scientist with no experience in acoustics was a real expert.
Your second source claims that there were eight shots and that he supposedly can synchronize each one with the Zapruder film.Eight shots-and you take him seriously ?
These examples are typical of the convoluted thinking and willful suspension of documented fact necessary to accept any of the Dictabelt “evidence”.JSA, can you list a single real expert not associated with the case who has confirmed any of the claims for the Dictabelt authenticity? Specifically, has any real expert confirmed any of the “crosstalk” claims made by Dictabelt advocates?
Photon:
Let’s assume for a minute that the SBT and Oswald firing that gun are true. Let’s say those are facts. Now, will you address without your usual BS why the WC used the “evidence” collected from the DPD and the FBI when the commission itself said that both agencies lacked credibility and were never believed to be competent by the commission members or investigators? Please read Shenon’s book A Cruel and Shocking Act. The WC and its investigators both believed the FBI and the DPD to be jokes. But, they accepted their evidence anyway. Can you explain how the WC calls those two agencies incompetent, but uses them anyway, without asking for INDEPENDENT investigators to do this work?
Finally, you said you have read Shenon’s book. Then you will freely admit that the CIA is barely mentioned in the WR. Then you will also freely admit that ALL of the WC members and investigators have stated—on the record—that the CIA withheld information then and continues to do today. You will also freely admit that the two men Shenon points fingers at for creating the mess we have today are Helms and Angleton. Shenon CLEARLY shows that these two jokers lied and lied and lied some more. However, you point to the WR over and over and over as evidence, but you FAIL every time to inform the people on this site that the people who gave you your beloved report ALSO say the WHOLE truth about Dallas has NOT been told. Helms and Angleton are NOT even mentioned in the WR. Why is that? Because they gave the “appearance” of full disclosure, but the TRUTH is completely different. But, YOU refuse to tell the people on this site that FACT. The WR is incomplete and you know it.
You keep calling Thomas an “insect scientist” as some crude form of a slur. Yet you haven’t read his book, nor have you countered his analysis with anything significant.
Who are those “noted physics experts” who you say “destroyed all credibility of the HSCA conclusions about the Dictabelt”?
Care to name names, or show some references? I don’t want your opinion, I just want some facts and factual analysis. I can read, and as Abraham Lincoln once quipped, I can read military strategy and determine whether General McClellan is being strategically wise or not in his attack on Richmond (Abe was self-taught in case you missed the analogy). Lincoln didn’t get a West Point education, (he was just a country lawyer) so I guess in your book he was unfit to make military decisions, eh?
Page 495:” Dated October 5, it was from a CIA informant whose information, if true, meant that Scott and his colleagues-and through them, the Warren Commission-had never known the full story about Oswald’s trip to Mexico City.”
If nobody actually knew about the full story, how could Angleton,Helms and everybody else that you claim lied to the Commission possibly be guilty of anything except missing the boat on Oswald’s potential as an assassin? How could they possibly lie about an issue when nobody in the CIA or FBI even became aware of that issue until 9 days after the report was given to LBJ?
Did YOU read the book?
Photon:
Yep, I read the book.
Try this one: page 545. “This is not speculation. Angleton and his colleagues, especially his old friend Win Scott, did muddy the facts about the assassination, making it impossible to know the full truth, especially in answering the all-important question of whether Oswald had been encouraged or even ordered to pick up that rifle in Dallas. There is example after example of how Angleton and Scott tried to shape—or rather warp—the official history of the assassination.”
And this, also on 545: “As for Scott, his former CIA colleagues in MC recall those audio tapes and surveillance photos of Oswald that Scott would later insist did not exist.”
Page 548: ” senior officials of the U.S. Government, MOST ESPECIALLY AT THE CIA, HAVE LIED ABOUT THE ASSASSINATION AND THE EVENTS THAT LED UP TO IT.”
Gosh Photon, every time you and I talk about the CIA, the words lie or liar or repeatedly lied ALWAYS appear. Why is that?
Care to step up and tell everyone on this site that the CIA in 63 was lead by a group of lying weasels and scumbags?
As you always point out , facts are facts.
Photon. Read Shenon but not Morley? Surely not.
The provenance of the dictabelt is simple and straight forward:
Acoustic impulses have distinct signature characteristics that are defined by the waveform.
Rifle fire, like any other waveform is distinct, just as the reflection waveforms in an acoustic space is unique.
Dealey Plaza has a unique reflective signature.
In the preparatory experiments, the rifles fired in Dealey by the acoustic experts for HSCA were recorded and analyzed and showed unique primary signature waveforms, as well as reflective waveforms unique to the acoustic space of Dealey Plaza.
Now going back to the police dictabelt. The impulses on that dictabelt match the acoustic signature of rifle fire, both at points of origin, and the reflective signatures of Dealey.
Finally, there is no report of, nor has it ever been suggested that there were rifles fired in Dealey plaza that took place on the day of the dictabelt recordings that did not happen during the assassination.
There was no rifle fire three minutes after the assassination. The conclusion is inescapable, the rifle fire recorded were the shots fired during the assassination.
\\][//
No, but there was ” rifle fire” about a minute after the assassination, according to the HSCA ” experts” who were so cavalier about their investigation that they never heard a voice clearly saying ” hold everything secure” when it was still audible on a cheap copy of the Dictabelt mass produced for a magazine.
They never heard it.When it became obvious that they could not ignore it, they came up with convoluted explanations that were ruled out be real experts from the National Acadamy of Sciences
Willy, how about posting an opinion from a real expert on the subject who supports your position-preferably one with a scientic degree in a physical science.
Professor Mark Weissand Mr.Ernest Aschkenasy are experts in acoustics analysis. They reviewed the work of Dr. Barger and his team of scientists at Bolt Beranek & Newman.
Weissand & Aschkenasy refined the findings of Bolt Beranek & Newman. In their testimony before the HSCA they said:
“It is our conclusion that as a result of very careful analysis, it appears that with a probability of 95 percent or better, there was indeed a shot fired from the grassy knoll.”
Now getting back to actual acoustic science and signature waveforms. As has been noted the waveforms of rifle fire are unique, the bang of a trash truck emptying a dumpster, the crash of a bus-tray, the bang of a cherry bomb all have unique waveform characteristics.
The impulses on the dictabelt are certainly rifle fire.
The only rifle fire in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 was the rifle fire that killed President Kennedy. Again, the inescapable conclusion is that the rifle fire captured on the dictabelt is that rifle fire.
I will note here that the “experts from the National Acadamy of Sciences” had the same conflict of interests that the scientists at NIST had in their proven faulty analysis of the destruction of the WTC.
Photon is again using an argument of authority, and dismissing the proven facts that the “authorities” chosen for ‘investigations’ in these high profile events inevitably turn out to be those who are involved with the government itself: NIST, the Warren Commission, the 9/11 Commiission, even HSCA, and of course, the National Acadamy of Sciences.
The Fox guarding the Hen-House.
\\][//
For Photon: I know it’s not directly related, but to what extent may we extrapolate from the following?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/21/opinion/fix-the-flaws-in-forensic-science.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region
I, for one, have very little confidence in the testimony of experts with obvious vested interests.
“I will note here that the “experts from the National Acadamy of Sciences” had the same conflict of interests that the scientists at NIST had in their proven faulty analysis of the destruction of the WTC.”
Some of us would prefer not to drag 9/11 conspiracies into this argument. I know it’s easier to find “the government” at fault all the time, but I think that argument is too simplistic. I’m just sayin’…
Wait a minute! The idea that the gunshots in Dealey Plaza could not have been picked up on that motorcycle’s open mic “because it hadn’t yet entered Elm Street” is patently stupid. You can hear gunfire from more than a quarter mile away. The fact that those impulses fit perfectly to the hits in the Z-film is irrefutable. The fact that those impulses are signature gun fire wave-forms is irrefutable. Those engaged in attempting to refute the irrefutable are obviously attempting a cover-up.
\\][//
Photon, in addition to all the other evidence (particularly the impossibility of a bullet exiting near the knot of the necktie and not fracturing the vertebral body, how about this?
Zapruder’s camera filmed at 18 frames per second, according to the FBI. Your exhaulted lapel flip occurs at 224. In the next frame (225), JFK’s arms are already at the level of the throat.
A bullet traveling at 2,000 f/p/s will strike both men in the same frame (do the math). If the bullet strikes both men at 224, there is not enough time for JFK’s arms to reach his throat level.
Q.E.D.
How do you know? Ever studied neurological reflex time, particularly involving cervical nerves in adults?
Doesn’t seem to be an issue with real experts.
As per your cervical anatomy comments, there is more to gross anatomy than laminated posters that you can show a jury. Until you can prove that you have dissected out the cervical anatomy on a cadaver your opinions simply cannot stand up to those of physicians and anatomists who have, nor to the published ER reports of hundreds of American cervical gunshot victims who never had vertebral body or cord damage despite similar wounds.
Why, yes I have, Photon.
Ever read The British Journal of the Human Brain? It published a peer-reviewed study of reflex reaction times after traumatic injury to the cervical/thoracic nerves. Such injuries required 200 to 300 milliseconds to demonstrate a reaction.
Since Zapruder’s camera exposed 18 frames per second, each frame represents about 55 milliseconds. Therefore, if JFK displays a reaction in frame 225 (which he does), he had to have been hit at least 4 to 6 frames earlier, when he was behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. I believe the HSCA found the same thing.
Your lapel flip is a red herring.
There is no such publication ” British Journal of the Human Brain”.
Ed, quote your study and the authors. If you can’t get the publication right, what does that say about your research?
Let´s go to the point: the bullet holes in both JFK jacket and shirt make impossible the magic bullet hypothesis since there is no way to align the holes with the exit wound at the throat.
“Brain,” a British medical journal.
“New Observations on the Normal Auditory Startle Reflex in Man,” (Brown,P.:Rothwell,,JC; Thompson, PD: Britton, TC; Day, BL and Marsden, CD).
Brain, 1991: 114:1891-1902.
Even your pal, Dr.McAdams, allows at least 100 milliseconds for JFK to react to the first shot. mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jfkhit.htm, citing Calvin, William, “The Unitary Hypothesis: A Common Neural Circuitry for Novel Manipulations,” in “Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evolution,” Cambridge University Press, pp. 230-250, (1993), and Woodworth, R. and Schlosberg, H., “Experimental Psychology,” p. 184.
I showed you mine; now show me yours, if you have any, Doctor Photon.
I am still waiting for that ” British Journal of the Human Brain” article- “Brain” is a recognized journal but not what you stated.But I see that you are making a good faith effort. Unfortunately your reference is nearly a quarter-century old.More relevant is Carlsen, et. al’s data from 2009:
J Neurophysiol 2009 Jan 101 (1): 306-314. ” Differential Effects of Startle on Reaction Time for Finger and Arm Movements.” Neurophysiological studies from 25 years ago?
“I am still waiting for that ” British Journal of the Human Brain” article-“~Photon
And we are still waiting for you to post ANYTHING that backs up your assertion:
“I believe that I can quote the medical literature that states a startle reaction to a loud sound,eg. a gunshot wound can lead to flexion of the forearms in less than 50 milliseconds.”
You get $300. and hour for “believing”?
Then whoever is paying you is a certified chump!
\\][//
If nothing else Photon, you could give the page number and the technique heading from your copy of Sunstein’s ‘Cognitive Dissonance Handbook’.
\\][//
Dr. Photon, thank you for the reference to the Journal of Neurophysiology (Jan. 2009, Carlsen, A., et al.)
The article indicates that the fastest time for the “arm stimulus response” was 65 ms. The chart (fig. 4) indicates a mean response time around 100 ms. The explanation was that the arm response (to an auditory stimulus) was by a direct subcortical route or, in layman’s terms, a direct pathway between nerve and muscle, short circuiting the brain.
I will not question Dr. Carlsen. I will agree to a response time of plus or minus 100 ms. That still does not explain why JFK is already reacting to a gunshot wound in frame 224, when Connally’s lapel flaps. He has 1 or 2 frames, by your reckoning, to respond to being shot by the same bullet which has struck Connally.
Curiously, Connally does not demonstrate a response to his 5 gunshot wounds, presumably sustained in frame 224, until much later. Explain that, Doctor.
Oh, did I mention that the two eyewitnesses, Gov. and Mrs. Connally, agreed that he was NOT struck by 224?
I know you experts detest eyewitness testimony, but jurors like it.
“How do you know? Ever studied neurological reflex time”
~Photon in answer to:
“If the bullet strikes both men at 224, there is not enough time for JFK’s arms to reach his throat level.”
No…really, think about what Photon just said here…
Hahahahahaha!!!!
\\][//
Not if the lapel flap was not caused by the bullet itself pushing against the lapel but instead the shock wave and air movement from the round passing inferior to the lapel.
Ed,I am calling you out on this. I believe that I can quote the medical literature that states a startle reaction to a loud sound,eg. a gunshot wound can lead to flexion of the forearms in less than 50 milliseconds.
Your 200-300 millisecond reaction time is pure hogwash.
Quote the article.
Quote the journal.
I get $300 an hour for this stuff.
“I believe that I can quote the medical literature that states a startle reaction to a loud sound,eg. a gunshot wound can lead to flexion of the forearms in less than 50 milliseconds.”~Photon
You “believe [you] can quote”?
Well then by all means, find a quote and give a source for it.
\\][//
Why sure, I will even quote Ed’s reference ( not sure he even read it).
Startle reaction time for forearm flexor in that paper ranged from 60-200 milliseconds-an average of 82 m/s.
The same response for forearm extensors was 62-173: an average of 73 milliseconds.
The paraspinal muscle response times were 48-128: an average of 60 milliseconds.
The study proves that JFK could have responded within a frame or two of being hit.
Why didn’t Connally respond faster? Are you sure? When do you think that he shows evidence of being hit? He himself stated that he never felt pain, only the sensation of being struck in the back. He didn’t even know that he was struck in the wrist, which should have been his most painful wound. Everybody reacts differently to being wounded, particularly with wounds that do not affect major nerves. JFK’s arms were already up when he was struck and were already more visible, making his reaction seem more rapid.
Connally always said that he was not hit by the first shot. He never knew in the limo that JFK had been hit by anything but the head shot. Mrs. Connally was confused about the timing- not surprising. When describing JFK she always claimed that his hands were open and that he was clutching his throat-when actually his fists were clenched and his hands never touched his throat.
So if the medical literature that states a startle reaction to a loud sound can lead to flexion of the forearms in less than 50 milliseconds.
Why didn’t all the bystanders grab their throats?
Why didn’t Zapruder drop his camera and grab his throat? Why didn’t the other occupants of the limo all grab their throats, if that is what the startle reaction to loud sound?
Kennedy grabbed his throat because of sudden pain – obviously. Connally does not collapse until just as the head shot occurred. He turns fully around from looking at Kennedy from a right turn in his seat, and is starting to turn to his left when he is hit. This is absolutely clear in the Zapruder film.
\\][//
The WC needed to prove there was only one Mannlicher-Carcano with serial
number C2766 and questioned Klein’s Vice-President William Waldman. When
Waldman told Commission Atty David Belin that Mannlicher-Carcano’s were
made by a number of ***different manufacturers*** Belin responded by
asking, “Does the ***same manufacturer*** give different serial numbers
for each weapon?” Waldman answered, “The gun manufacturers imprint a
different number on each gun. It’s stamped into the frame of the gun and
serves as a unique identification for each gun.”
*David Belin obviously asked William Waldman the wrong question. He
should have asked if ***different manufacturers could have used indentical
serial numbers.*** When the FBI interviewed William Suchet, the owner of
International Firearms Ltd. of Montreal, he said that different
manufacturers in Italy sometimes used the same serial numbers on
Mannlicher-Carcano rifles.
The Commission, using the testimony they received from Waldman, wrote in
their final report, “..the number C2766 is the serial number.” The
Commission concluded, “The number ‘C2766′ is the serial number of the
rifle, and the rifle in question is the only one of its type bearing that
serial number.”
NOTE: **The fact that David Belin failed to ask Waldman if different
manufacturers could have used identical serial numbers clearly
demonstrates the Commission’s willingness to manipulate testimony in order
to frame Oswald.**
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/QEwZ2kQkulI
\\][//
Willy,
“*David Belin obviously asked William Waldman the wrong question. He should have asked if ***different manufacturers could have used indentical serial numbers.***”
We know which manufacturer made Oswald’s rifle — the army plant in Terni, Italy. The word “Terni” is stamped on his M-C along with its unique serial number.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=144201
“We know which manufacturer made Oswald’s rifle — the army plant in Terni, Italy. The word “Terni” is stamped on his M-C along with its unique serial number.”
Jean, Have you followed the provenance of the rifle thru the official channels including Crescent Arms? Have you studied the history of that importer? Maurice Goodman? Have you studied his defense industry conglomerate?
The more honest statement would be: “we know which manufacturer made the rifle that was discovered on the 6th floor the afternoon of 11.22.63.” You seem to presume everyone reading your comment will accept your assertion that the rifle found on the 6th floor belonged to the Oswald who was employed by the depository business. You formulate your statement as a fait accompli when you know quite well there is evidence to suggest the rifle was not ordered by, nor did it belong to that person. You cannot simply “declare a victory.” In good faith, please address the contradictions in the timeline of the rifle; address the discrepancies in the paper trail including the name A. Hidell; address the obfuscations in testimony relating to the rifle.
Lest we forget, and lest you resort to ‘if Oswald didn’t do it who did,’ this is “your” case to prove. Oswald was and remains innocent until proven guilty.
“And I suspect that many critics of the WR haven’t actually read it.” Jean Davison
“But nobody reads. Don’t believe people read in this country. There will be a few professors that will read the record…The public will read very little.” Allen Dulles
(September 6, 1964, Warren Commission internal memo)
I must say that I am still concerned with the Weizman Affidavit. I still think there is something going on here that is not upfront, and may take more time to sort out.
In the meantime I suggest that this article be digested by all involved in the Mauser-Carcano debate:
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/19th_Issue/gtds.html
A teaser from the article:
“According to assassination researcher and author J.W. Hughes, who has tested this deformation over fifty times on each of his seven Mannlicher-Carcanos, “When deformed, it will not hold the rounds because the locking ridge is spread too wide to hold the round and the weapon jams.”13 The Warren Commission was apparently silent about whether expert riflemen from the U.S. Army and FBI had such difficulty firing the alleged murder weapon in 1964, and whether it was fired with its alleged clip. Whether or not those marksmen used the original clip, they were required to use any test clip in the original’s apparent “found” condition, i.e., deformed. Anyone could have tested the clip by duplicating its required abnormal behavior, and can still. But CBS News, which claimed to “duplicate the conditions of the actual assassination” in its filmed rifle test in 1967, did not. According to reporter Dan Rather, “Eleven volunteer marksmen took turns firing clips of three bullets each at the moving target.” They fired a total of thirty-seven three-round series, seventeen of which resulted in unfired bullets due to “trouble with the rifle.” Clip problems or not, all data from those seventeen troubled series was disregarded by CBS analysts. It was the other series of shots, however, with properly emptied and ejected clips, deemed worthy of analysis by CBS, that should have been disqualified. In the CBS film, clips can be seen flying out of the gun so fast as to be a blur.14 If a test clip is not bent, or ejects, or moves at all, Oswald’s alleged feat is not duplicated, invalidating the test.”
\\][//
Jean:
If I may be allowed to bend your ear one more time tonight, another line in your reply caught my eye. You said that he may have been influenced by what he had read. I think most people on this site are very much like me. I DO NOT know what happened in 63 in Dallas. I do know this: I have been to Dallas on 4 separate occasions and I have stood where all of the major players stood on 11-22-63 and I still have NOT figured out what happened.
I have read over 30 books on the subject since 80 or 81. I have asked questions, I have met Gary Shaw, and I participate in forums like this. I listen to both sides. Mr. Von Pein has been very gracious to me with his time and knowledge. You know far more about the testimony than I do. Pat Speer and Willy Whitten are far more knowledgeable than I am. Even my good friend, Photon, has more information about the testimony than I do.
Having said all of that, I still DO NOT know what happened. There are too many holes in too many areas. Take the shooting sequence. The first shot missed EVERYTHING, except a curb some 300 feet or yards down the street. I have been in the 6th floor window and you could tinkle on JFK”s head from that window when he rounded that corner. How could he miss? Photon says it was because LHO was nervous. However, in less than 5 seconds, he regains his composure and picks JFK’s head off with a bullseye. Furthermore, 90 seconds later he appears to a DPD officer that swears in testimony that Oswald appeared as if nothing happened. And, that piece of concrete? The FBI at first insists it doesn’t exist, then it has the piece cut out and sent to Washington where it is analyzed. Oh, the curb has also been patched by the time it reaches Washington. Mr. Weisberg has to file a FOIA to obtain the results of the analization of the curb. Unless that piece of concrete is going to be dropped on LBJ’s head at a later time, why is a FOIA needed to obtain the results? That makes NO sense to me on any level. (Part 1 of 2)
Why don’t you look at Jeff Meek’s interview with Curry done at about the time of the HSCA start-up? I don’t see any evidence that he didn’t think Oswald was the lone shooter-and a lot that he did.Despite Meek’s leading and often incorrect questions Curry never confirms any real conspiracy evidence and debunks several talking points. His comments about Tippit certainly weren’t what Meek wanted to hear.
Why do CTers have to resort to misidentifying the true opinions of individuals to support their viewpoint? After hearing this tape it is obvious to me that Curry was not a conspiracy supporter. Just like claiming that Ken O’Donnell was a Grassy Knoll Witness based on a claim by somebody else when O’Donnell publically stated that that was not true.Just like claiming that Carlos Hathcock said that he could never make a shot like the JFK shot-total fabrication. If your position is so strong, why resort to false claims?
Photon, are you now asserting that Curry did not say this on record to Dallas Morning News?:
“We don’t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
Nobody’s yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand.”
This rambling interview is worthless as far as I’m concerned… Curry doesn’t seem to know much of anything about anything in this video performance.
\\][//
Photon:
Let me be clear: I am not a CT. I don’t even know what that really means. If you disagree with all of the WC, does that make one a CT? I am looking for the truth. The truth that was denied to us in 63.
Why do you feel the need to not answer the tough questions about the CIA and the credibility of the “investigators” when it has been shown repeatedly that a majority of the people charged with finding the truth were either liars or deceitful? Ford, Curry, Helms, Hoover etc. Care to comment on why Ford developed a “back channel” to Hoover, when the stated goal was flushing out the truth and transparency? Better yet, how did our top cop, Mr. Hoover,keep his job? I will help. Keeping files of power players in compromising positions. That is one hell of a way to stay employed. Not by being competent, but by keeping an enemies list. And, I am supposed to have confidence in his abilities?
A RETRACTION
I feel compelled to make a retraction of my argument on the issue of the Mauser v Carcano.
I want to make clear that I make this retraction is in light of my own finding, and seeing with my own eyes that I was wrong about the issue of the scope being different on the rifle seen in the images of the rifle’s discovery in the TBDB.
My mind was not changed by the arguments against me, nor by the so-called “expert opinions” but by self visual confirmation.
However I do apologize to those who surely grew frustrated with my insistence on making my own choice for my own reasons.
The Alyea Film: Pause at 3:10. You can see the whole scope clearly with the boxes in the background. Same scope as seen in outside images. I see that scope is the same in this freeze frame, as plain as officer Day.
For my friends; “We’ll always have Paris.”
That is we still have the broken chain of custody that destroys the Magic Bullet… we have a virtual penumbra of arguments that chop the Warren Report to pieces. But the Mauser issue isn’t one of them in my view.
\\][//
Ronnie
The thing you refer to as a “magazine” is actually a clip for holding the Carcano cartridges, and it fits inside of the Carcano magazine. It is supposed to fall out of the Carcano magazine when the last cartridge is chambered, but it appears to have become stuck in C2766.
As regards roger Craig’s statement about reading the calibre of this rifle on the base of the barrel, please go back a couple of posts and read what I posted about the Model 1891 7.65x53mm Argentine Mauser. As it had a protruding box magazine very similar to the 6.5mm Carcano, I am assuming this is the reason the Carcano was mistaken or an Argentine Mauser. If this was the case, Craig was not telling the truth about reading the calibre stamped on the barrel, as this model of Mauser had no such stamp.
http://picturearchive.gunauction.com/3475083443/8979612/acfde24.jpg
Better view of the top of a Model 1891 7.65mm Mauser barrel, clearly showing no calibre stamp, as claimed by Roger Craig:
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w201/SVT-40/South%20American%20Mausers/DSC00993-1-1.jpg
Better view of the side of the receiver of a Model 1891 7.65mm Argentine Mauser. Once again, no calibre stamp.
http://www.gunvaluesboard.com/images/fbfiles/images/Argentinian_Mauser.jpeg
Excuse me for using the wrong term. I’m certainly no weapons expert but I do know he difference between a clip and magazine. I’ve read before what you said about the Carcano ejecting the clip after the last shell is loaded in the chamber, where I believe and unfired round was found. One picture seems to show the clip, the other does not.
I can see the possibility the four peace officers finding the gun were mistaken though I still doubt it.
They were both bolt actions, in this case with a scope. But nobody I’ve ever read about ID’d it as a Manlicer/Carcano/Italian rifle at the time.
Is it not possible two rifles were on the sixth floor? Two people were seen there in the windows by more than one witness. I’ve read somewhere a claim of a shot from the South end of the sixth floor years ago.
Bob, i think you can probably answer this, does a German Mauser have it’s make stamped on it?
How many police officers on the Dallas Police Department had even heard of the Carcano? How many knew what a Mauser was and what it looked like?
That is your answer.
Show an MP-44 to an average police officers and see how many would call it an AK-47.
The Carcano has similarities to the Mauser family of rifles. It is distantly different from most American rifles that members of the DPD would be familiar with.
Heck, even the guy who called it a Mauser stated that he made a mistake But I guess that you know more than real experts-a very common CT position.
Hi Ronnie
As much as I have been giving willy a hard time about the whole Carcano/Mauser issue, I am probably just as deeply perplexed by this whole thing as anyone is.
I’ll tell you what bothers me the most. Those cops and sheriff’s deputies we see in films of the 6th floor are the same breed of good old boys and farmers’ sons I grew up with and went to school with in Saskatchewan in the 60’s. When this breed of man picks up a rifle, there is a ritual that is followed. First, the rifle is held at “port arms”, the bolt opened and the chamber inspected. This establishes the rifle is not loaded and establishes the guy holding the rifle as safe and responsible, unlike some idiot from the city who might blow someone’s foot off. Next, the rifle is examined for markings that will establish make, model and calibre. Now, although Weitzman, who was not holding the rifle, remarked that it resembled a 7.65mm Argentine (not German) Mauser, no more than 5 seconds would have elapsed before some good old boy told him it was a 6.5 calibre, and made in Italy, and that if he didn’t believe him, he could look for himself, as this information was plainly stamped on the base of C2766’s barrel.
THAT is what bothers me, and I cannot for the life of me see how this mistake was perpetuated.
The 6.5mm Carcano M91/38 short rifle has some very distinctive and unique features, including its protruding magazine. I have studied the photos and films of the assassination, and I can verify that every rifle seen in these is a Carcano short rifle. The only explanation I can think of is that the film we see of the 6th floor is not original, and what we are seeing is a reenactment, and that it is just possible a second rifle was concealed at some point.
As I stated earlier, Roger Craig claimed he looked at the base of the barrel of the rifle and saw 7.65mm Mauser stamped there. I question whether he could have done this. As Weitzman most definitely said 7.65mm Argentine Mauser, and the reason he likely mistook it for this is the Argentine Mauser’s protruding magazine, we can pretty much leave all the German 7mm and 8mm Mausers out of the picture.
The problem with Craig’s story is that the 7.65mm Argentine Mauser carbine, or “Mauser Modelo Argentino 1891” does not have the calibre stamped on the base of the barrel, nor does it have the calibre stamped anywhere on the side of the receiver. It simply is not stamped anywhere Craig claimed it was, and makes a mockery of his story.
Bob,
“The only explanation I can think of is that the film we see of the 6th floor is not original, and what we are seeing is a reenactment, and that it is just possible a second rifle was concealed at some point.”
I believe that film exists. Reviewing Tom Alyea’s statements over the years does not reveal that he filmed a reenactment but I believe someone did. Alyea does indicate that photographers and cameramen were allowed into the building later, and it could be that the footage I have seen was filmed then by someone other than Alyea.
Bob,
One big problem with an Alyea re-enactment is that there is testimony from multiple witnesses describing the rifle’s discovery, and their account matches what we see on the Alyea film. No one, not even Roger Craig, claimed that more than one rifle was found on the 6th floor.
Here is Craig relating the familiar story of what happened, while the Alyea film illustrates what he’s saying. Craig relates how Deputy Boone found the rifle among boxes in the SW corner near the stairwell. He describes how Day lifted the rifle up and handed it to Fritz, adding that he and Weitzman are standing nearby — and yes, they can be seen on the film behind Fritz. Then Craig claims that “Mauser” was stamped on the barrel. As you’ve said, Bob, that’s not true. Craig lied about that, but everything else he said about this is on the film.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RGZPa8FdbA
So how would this work? After filming the discovery of the M-C, someone yells, “Cut! Okay, guys, let’s do exactly the same thing but with the Mauser this time”? Or what?
Correction: the rifle was found in “the NW corner” not the SW.
“So how would this work? After filming the discovery of the M-C, someone yells, “Cut! Okay, guys, let’s do exactly the same thing but with the Mauser this time”? Or what?”~Jean Davison
No Jean you’ve got it backwards. The first and real discovery was of the Mauser, the reenactment filmed by others, not Alyea, then staged the same thing: the film that you now see, replacing the Mauser with the Carcano.
Did Craig “lie” years later? Deputy Craig may be recalling something from years before with subconscious embellishment of what he actually saw mixed in with what he heard.
As in much of the testimonies we have read this would not be so uncommon.
\\][//
Weisberg: “The police were at least consistent. The boxes in the area, especially those allegedly stacked up by the assassin to serve as a gun rest (7H149), were treated with equal carelessness. They were moved before they were photographed. Some had been moved before the police identification people arrived. Yet these were the pictures used to re-enact and reconstruct the crime!” (Whitewash)
\\][//
Bob. I was re reading about Craig. Can you point me to where Craig says he saw Mauser stamped on the gun himself? I’ve not watched the you tube interviews. He said he was standing to Weitzmans side who was standing next to Fritz holding the rifle.
Weitzman, the family gun store employee filed the notarized statement to such. Which is odd. As he should have known if any of them Germany didn’t make a 7.65.
I don’t think Craig lied. He may have been mistaken, or believed the words of others, but I think he believed what he said.
Boy the “it” gets deep on this subject. We have 7.65 Argentine Mausers with no caliber stamped on them. The Germans or Italians didn’t make such. We have four peace officers saying it was a 7.65 Mauser, or, three parroting Fritz (who maybe needed to clean his glasses). Then today re reading some other stuff I see where Robert Morrow (not the one who posts here, the CIA electronics guy in 63) saying Tracy Barnes (JMWAVE) instructing him to get four Seven point THREE Five Manlicher Carcano’s.
I had to chuckle at Weitzmans emphatic statement to Joe Ball of the WC, “I SAID it was a Mauser type action, DIDN’T I?”
Here’s another interesting thread that discusses this a few years back.
http://jfk007.com/wowzer-a-mauser/
(Part 2 of 2:)
However, Mr. Von Pein makes a great argument when he says that a cover-up would have to be so massive in size as to be unmanageable. That makes sense to me. But, then I remember that the CIA did overthrow MANY foreign governments, so it is possible for this to have happened on our soil.
The part that concerns me the most are the members of the WC. If you read Shannon’s 9-11 book, it sounds like the same weasels who worked on the WC are still working in Washington today. The 9-11 investigators were much more concerned about careers and images than the truth—the WHOLE and complete truth. They took great pains to avoid pointing fingers, and assigning blame to those responsible. That sounds remarkably like the WC. To me, and this is only my opinion, the two biggest jokes on the WC were Ford and Specter. Career seeking, butt-kissing, lying lapdog weasels. Men who understood that to stay in Washington meant having to throw away things such as integrity and honesty. I believe NARY a word either of them said in 63 until the day they died.
So, I am still at square one. Who and what to believe? The search continues, but one thing remains constant. 9-11 happens in 2001 and the investigation of it is as flawed/filled with inconsistencies as the investigation of JFK in 63. The only common denominator? Washington D.C. corrupt politicians. Will we ever learn?
Any thoughts you would like to share?
“However, Mr. Von Pein makes a great argument when he says that a cover-up would have to be so massive in size as to be unmanageable.”
Steve and David Von Pein, precisely what would the attempt at a successful cover up be other than massive? Marginal, partial, limited, a sort of, a little bit of, just enough of a cover up?
Massive is exactly what it was initially, but to the credit of hundreds of US citizens at the very outset – having no voice in the NYTimes, the Washington Post, the Dallas Morning News, the Chicago Tribune, the LA Times – but exercising their intelligence, their integrity, their faith in freedom of speech they set out to tell the truth. And now literally thousands of US citizen activists have rowed in and the cover up is no longer manageable, not in the real sense.
Our charge is to be the unmanageable, to be dissident, to stir things for as long as it requires to ensure a new inquiry.
“However, Mr. Von Pein makes a great argument when he says that a cover-up would have to be so massive in size as to be unmanageable.”
~Steve Sirlen
. . . . .
This is a standard and bogus argument that ignores “compartmentalization”, and “need to know” basis which is applicable to not only military, but law enforcement, and even corporate guidelines.
May participants in such operations are only aware of their particular aspect, and have no idea of the larger plan afoot – which is only known to the inner circle of planners and operatives.
Such containment is standard procedure in black ops.
\\][//
Willy and Leslie,
I hope you read that my post was a 2 part post. I hope you read both parts. Willy, I state that you have far more knowledge than I do about the assassination. Leslie, you are much more versed than I in the assassination as well. I was making the point that after 30 years and 4 visits to Dallas and hours and hours of reading, I am still no closer to the truth about 11/22/63 than I was in 1979 when I picked up a book about the assassination in the library in my small Missouri hometown. I was hoping to get a balanced point of view from being on this site. There are parts of this case that appear, to me at least, to be completely unsolvable.
I do know this:on SO many levels MY government has failed this country SO many times. That bothers me a GREAT deal more than JFK’s murder. The 58,000 lives lost in Vietnam is a CRIME upon the CONGRESS and the PRESIDENT of that time SO BIG I have no idea how ALL of them avoided jail time. It is the shattering of lives for no reason AT ALL. However, the government continues to this day to de-value ALL life. If you need more proof, look at the current war in Iraq. It sickens me and saddens me that our democracy de-values human life so corporations and individuals can make incredible and obscene profits. I can only hope that there will someday be a judgement day, so those responsible may answer for their action.
Willy
If you do not believe these two rifles are M91/38 6.5mm Carcano short rifles, perhaps you would be so good as to tell us the make, model and calibre of these rifles, as you do not seem to want to listen to what the “experts” have to say about them.
https://kennedykilledhimself.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/day1.jpg?w=700
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/21/article-2236046-1623D6BB000005DC-612_634x679.jpg
Bob,
All I can tell you is that they are not the same rifle.
The scope gives it away, there is no corresponding end-piece to the eye-piece on the scope found in the TBDB, and there is on the one carried through the street. The scope on the outside rifle is more robust than the one inside the building.
This is not a matter of lighting or angle, the scope on the rifle in the building does not have anything on the far end of the scope matching the eyepiece.
Drop your “expert” posing and actually look at the pictures!
\\][//
Gentlemen, as no expert, the only things I see different in these pictures is the scope and missing magazine. The magazine could have been removed and not put back but the scope is not so easily changed. Thus the pictures are important, though in these days of photoshop what is real?
It would be nice to see them blown up and rotated to be side to side or one over the other.
As it stands none of this invalidates the statements of Boone, Weitzman (why did he feel the need to have his notarized), Craig or D A Wade on 11/22-23/63. Why were the statements of these Officers of the Law ignored by the Warren Omission?
Ronnie, (apologies if I’m telling you something you already know) if you can open both of the pics, save each to the desk top, open them both again, use the select thing on the top right and let the cursor direct you to the portion of the photograph you want to copy; go to Edit ‘copy;’ go to File ‘new from clipboard’ and you can paste each image side by side on a new clipboard. I flipped vertical (Tools ‘rotate vertical’) the photo of the rifle being carried out of the building before I got started so that the barrel is pointed down as is the one in the photo taken from inside the building. Let me know if you have a problem. I can share my email with you and send the image of the rifles side by side to you directly.
Okay Bob,
So the difference between the Mauser and a Mannlicher Carcano is like the difference between a caribou and a reindeer.
\\][//
No U.S. court would have accepted the rifle in evidence as the murder weapon used by LHO.
1. We have been told he mailed his money order in Dallas on March 12, 1963, it arrived at Klein’s Sporting Goods in Chicago and was deposited at its bank the next day. (WCR, p. 119). That’s impossible in the 1963 context of USPS.
2. According to the markings on the envelope, the money order was mailed prior to 10:30 am. The post office opened at 8:00 am (Box 50, HSCA Segregated CIA files), but LHO’s assignment sheet at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall that day shows him continually busy from 8:00 am to 12:15 pm (CE 1855, Vol. XXIII, p. 605).
3. WC said LHO ordered a 36″, 5.5 pound Mannlicher Carcano carbine, but DPD entered in evidence a 40.2″, 7.5 pound Mannlicher Carcano short rifle with a scope, which Klein’s provided for the carbine, not for the short rifle. That’s why WC entered into the record a page from the November 1963 issue of Field and Stream, which carried an ad for the short rifle, but tried to correct the mistake saying that LHO ordered the weapon advertised in the February 1963 issue of American Rifleman (WC Vol. XX, p. 174).
Thus, for hitting Connally the WC has not only the wrong bullet (CE 399), but even the wrong rifle.
“We don’t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
Nobody’s yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand.”~Jesse Curry
\\][//
I propose that the Mannlicher-Carcano, just like the Magic Bullet has no viable chain of evidence – that both are simply props provided by the authorities in the clear and obvious frame-up of Lee Harvey Oswald.
I propose as well that the ID said to be Oswald’s that had the name Hidell, was also a plant. We have gone over these issues on other threads already here – the problem of the various wallets claimed to be Oswald’s. The problems with the lack of proof of Oswald ordering that rifle.
Simply put the so-called “government” has never proved it’s case against Oswald. Again it is a matter of western jurisprudence that the accused must be proven guilty. The accused does not have to prove innocence.
\\][//
Rifle Switch Recap:
Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone and Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman both initially identified the rifle found in the Texas School Book Depository as a 7.65 Mauser. Weitzman signed an affidavit the following day describing the weapon as a “7.65 Mauser bolt action equipped with a 4/18 scope, a thick leather brownish-black sling on it”. Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig claimed that he saw “7.65 Mauser” stamped on the barrel of the weapon.
Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade told the press that the weapon found in the Book Depository was a 7.65 Mauser, and this was reported by the media. But investigators later identified the rifle as a 6.5 Italian Mannlicher Carcano.
According to Mark Lane:”The strongest element in the case against Lee Harvey Oswald was the Warren Commission’s conclusion that his rifle had been found on the 6th floor of the Book Depository building. Yet Oswald never owned a 7.65 Mauser. When the FBI later reported that Oswald had purchased only a 6.5 Italian Mannlicher-Carcano, the weapon at police headquarters in Dallas miraculously changed its size, its make and its nationality. The Warren Commission concluded that a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano, not a 7.65 German Mauser, had been discovered by the Dallas deputies.”
. . . . .
This is rather the same sorts of shenanigans we find in the official narrative concerning the Magic Bullet.
\\][//
Willy,
Is the rifle seen in the Alyea film a Mauser or an M-C?
Is the rifle seen in news photos of Day removing it from the building a Mauser or an M-C?
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4XNHtUDEDAI/maxresdefault.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/0a/7a/c4/0a7ac42919a372bc5e8a2e9e9a0b5a63.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/21/article-2236046-1623D6BB000005DC-612_634x679.jpg
If you think that’s a Mauser, please show me a photo of one that looks like that (note the shape of the trigger guard, the length of the stock under the barrel, e.g.).
Jean,
https://kennedykilledhimself.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/day1.jpg?w=700
\\][//
Jean,
Now compare the Daily Mail photo:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/21/article-2236046-1623D6BB000005DC-612_634x679.jpg
With the photo of the rifle found in the TBDB that day:
https://kennedykilledhimself.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/day1.jpg?w=700
\\][//
Very interesting, Willy. Those do indeed appear to be two different rifles. Can anyone explain this?
Yes, they were switched. But the word of Boone, Weitzman (a former sporting goods store owner, who sold rifles, if memory serves), Craig (a former soldier, Sheriff’s Office man of the year 1960) or DA Wade aren’t good enough for the Lone Nutters or the WC. It’ became a Manlicher after the FBI discovered “Oswald” ordered one even though there’s no proof he or anyone else ever picked it up.
So, is this a trick of light? In the first photo there is nothing in the area immediately in front of the trigger guard … or it is white. In the other photo there is a clear black extension to the trigger guard. Is that where the “clip” went? This non-expert seeks an clarification.
Willy
I hate to burst your bubble but, both photos clearly show either a 6.5mm Carcano M91/38 short rifle or a 7.35mm M38 Carcano short rifle. The two rifles are indistinguishable, except that the M91/38 rear sight is zeroed at 200 metres, and the M38 rear sight is zeroed at 300 metres.
I hate to bust your bubble as an “expert” Bob, but I do not accept your judgement on this matter.
\\][//
I now accept that this is the same rifle as found in the TBDB. Sorry, I just had to see it for myself.
So now, what are you saying Bob? Is the rifle in evidence now a different Carcano than the one shown in the photo’s of finding it?
What?
……
B the way, the broken chain of custody for the Parkland bullet to DC is still proof against the Magic Bullet.
\\][//
The obvious differences besides lack of a magazine in this rifle and the one being carried outside in the other photos is:
> The thin trigger guard that attaches in a curved out manner in the rear and an curved in manner in the front of the guard.
> The scope is different in that there is no large bulb at the front matching the one in the rear of the TBDB rifle.
> The notch on the top of the stock from the narrow forward part to the wide rear portion is different.
\\][//
But, would you agree they are both 6.5mm Carcano short rifles, Willy?
“But, would you agree they are both 6.5mm Carcano short rifles, Willy?”~Bob Prudhomme
As I said earlier Bob, I do not agree to this.
I think that the rifle in the photo inside the TBDB is the Mauser that Deputy Constable Seymour Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman claimed it was.
I further submit that Deputy Weitzman must have had some compelling reason to personally take it upon himself to have a Notary Public take a signed affidavit of the discovery of a Mauser on the 6th floor of the Texas Book Depository Building?
It is plausible that Weitzman was suspicious of what was going on at the so-called “crime scene” and wanted to get his testimony into an official record.
\\][//
As I said just previous to this;
It is plausible that Weitzman was suspicious of what was going on at the so-called “crime scene” and wanted to get his testimony into an official record.
. . . .
“Alyea says there were hundreds of feet of film footage that was left on the cutting floor … he retrieved some he recognized, but when he challenged why the rest wasn’t being developed he was told there ‘wasn’t time.’ and he watched as they shoved the film in the trash bin and tossed it.”
This is rather remarkable treatment of film evidence…shocking really.
That may be what struck Weitzman; that something fishy was going on there, and that he should get his information into the public record as early as possible.
\\][//
The only “differences” are due lighting and different positioning.The point is that the earliest film of the rifle was taken during its discovery, was taken prior to the announcement that it was a Mauser and clearly shows it to be a Carcano identical to the rifle in the Oswald backyard photos.
The only way CTers can explain that is that the evidence is faked. I doubt that anybody on the Dallas police force had ever seen a Carcano, but many had seen a Mauser, particularly if they were veterans.It looked like a Mauser . Again, trying to creat confusion because the truth does not support the CT viewpoint.
Willy
I do not often (if ever) agree with Photon but, in this case, he is correct.
The rifle Weitzman is referring to is not a German Mauser, it is a very unique weapon properly called a 7.65mm Argentine Mauser carbine, and no such weapon was ever issued to German forces. At this link may be seen a photo of a sporterized 7.65mm Arg. Mauser. The similarities to the 6.5mm Carcano short rifle are obvious.
http://picturearchive.gunauction.com/4241203238/10653479/picture%20208.jpg_thumbnail0.jpg
However, closer inspection of the Arg. Mauser magazine shows it to be markedly different from the 6.5mm Carcano magazine.
http://picturearchive.gunauction.com/4241203238/11472437/img_5177.jpg_thumbnail0.jpg
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UZLbaC3Gp-8/maxresdefault.jpg
I would suggest you leave rifle identification to the people that are educated in this subject.
I should point out that the 7.65x53mm Argentine Mauser looked nothing like the German Mauser used by WW II German forces, outside of the fact they were both bolt action rifles, and that any WW II veterans on the DPD likely never saw a 7.65 Mauser in the ETO.
“I would suggest you leave rifle identification to the people that are educated in this subject.”
~Bob Prudhomme
Thank you Bob, but I tend to trust my own eyes and my own reasoning abilities in favor of appeals to authority.
I stand by my three points differentiating the rifle shown inside TBDB and the one seen being carried in the street.
\\][//
Further to the Carcano/Mauser debate, if we are to assume the two rifles were confused for each other due to the fact they both have an unusual protruding box magazine, this presents other problems for us. If the misidentifed rifle was believed to be a Mauser with a protruding box magazine, this would make it the Model 1891 7.65x53mm Argentine Mauser. Anyone who claimed they identified this model of Mauser by reading the calibre, either stamped on the side of the receiver or on top of the base of the barrel, is not telling the truth, as the calibre was not stamped in either place on this model.
http://picturearchive.gunauction.com/3475083443/8979612/acfde24.jpg
My arguments do not rest on the statements of anybody! My argument rests on the photograph of the rifles in the photos. As I have already pointed out the differences I see. One clear and obvious thing above all else is the scope on the rifle held up in the TBDB is that it has a large section on the front of the scope, the eyepiece where you would look through it
the other end does not have the corresponding configuration on the other end . On the shots of the rifle outside both ends of the scope have the large caps. Also there is not only no clip in the rifle in the interior shot, there is also no clip housing.
https://youtu.be/SsnIeaAWFfo?t=326
These points are combined with Weitzman’s sworn affidavit of 11/23/1963. If Weitzman was later persuaded to change his story – particularly if deputy Craig had been murdered by then.
\\][//
Willy,
The larger end on the eyepiece is visible around 1:02 and again at 1:45 when Day turns the rifle around to the other side.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1eD6Ac9l_E
If that’s a Mauser please post a photo of one that looks like that.
” The throat shot would have gone through the limousine windshield from that trajectory; explaining the tiny array of tiny puncture wounds in JFK’s face, noted by the undertaker that he filled with morticians wax.
\\][//”
Don’t you find it odd that no one else in the limo was hit in the face by glass fragments, if that is what you say caused the puncture wounds in JFK’s face?
“Don’t you find it odd that no one else in the limo was hit in the face by glass fragments, if that is what you say caused the puncture wounds in JFK’s face?”~Bob Prudhomme
No, not at all.
\\][//
Hi Bob
I have to say that is a very good point about the bullet coming through the windscreen. There is no way that JFK would have been the only person in the car to get glass fragments in his face.
If anything he would have been less likely than the SS Agents or Connally to get them as he was further away from the windscreen than they were. No-one else in the limousine was injured by glass fragments. It doesn’t make any sense.
But then there is evidence that the neck wound was from a bullet that came from the front.
It’s amazing to me that after 50+ years JFK’s wounds still make no sense at all no matter what side (CT or LN) we approach it from.
Bob,
As per the windshield hole; the amount of glass would be minuscule and would be punched out and travel the same trajectory as the bullet.
You are envisioning this as if there would be a large spray of fragments flying through the whole car. the amount of glass we are talking about is actually a quarter inch in diameter and about an eighth of an inch thick, pulverized into particles like salt.
\\][//
Hi Willy
I know your response was directed to Bob but thanks for expanding on your explanation about the glass fragments.
I know nothing about ballistics and trajectories, obviously, but are you saying the salt-sized pieces of glass would have stayed with the bullet’s trajectory until it hit JFK? That the debris wouldn’t have sprayed any further out than that?
And there would have been no glass fragment debris anywhere else or on anyone else?
Thanks for your views.
The Broken Record Tactic:
No matter how many times we dispense with Photon’s spurious assertions he is going to wind up and spin them back at us again.
As such, I suggest we move on, leaving Photon to his own devices.
So moving on to the rifle:
On November 22, 1963, just after the arrest of Oswald, Dallas law enforcement officials announced that they had found the murder weapon. Wade and his associates studied the rifle. It was shown to the television audience repeatedly as some enforcement official carried it high in the air, with his bare hands on the rifle. After hours of examination Wade said without hesitation that “the murder weapon was a German Mauser.”
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/OI-ALB.html
Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone and Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman both initially identified the rifle found in the Texas School Book Depository as a 7.65 Mauser. Weitzman signed an affidavit the following day describing the weapon as a “7.65 Mauser bolt action equipped with a 4/18 scope, a thick leather brownish-black sling on it”. Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig claimed that he saw “7.65 Mauser” stamped on the barrel of the weapon.
An image of that affidavit is available here:
https://i2.wp.com/fourandathumb.webplus.net/WCH24%20CE%202003%20Seymour%20Weitzman%20Affidavit%20a.png
\\][//
Willy
I totally agree with you that CE663 (lol) was a complete fraud, and was totally lacking in a chain of evidence.
That being said, do you not see the signature a hollow point or frangible would leave at the scene of the crime, and how damning the evidence of such a bullet would be not only for the SBT, but for the concept of Oswald as a lone and unaided assassin would be? My God, they had enough trouble trying to figure out where anyone could buy a box of WCC 6.5mm Carcano cartridges in Dallas. Where would Oswald have managed to find such an exotic thing as a frangible bullet in 1963 Dallas?
It is no wonder that JFK’s chest organs were removed prior to the x-ray technician, Jerrol Custer, entering the autopsy room to take x-rays of the chest. Imagine how things would have turned out if the chest x-rays had revealed hundreds of dust like particles in the top of JFK’s right lung.
Hundreds of dust like particles. Hmmm…where have I seen that before?
Bob,
Yes, I agree that the proposition of a hollow point or frangible bullet striking Kennedy in the back is as plausible as my conjecture of a bullet that was slowed by going through foliage, or a dud.
The Magic Bullet – CE 399 was a planted prop and was never present in Dealey Plaza nor Parkland Hospital.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
April 9, 2015 at 10:15 am
Bob,
Yes, I agree that the proposition of a hollow point or frangible bullet striking Kennedy in the back is as plausible as my conjecture of a bullet that was slowed by going through foliage, or a dud.
If, Willy, the bullet hit foliage thick enough to significantly reduce the velocity then the bullet would be knocked off its aimed path or trajectory. In other words, not much chance of it hitting the target.
A “dud” is a round that does not go off. It doesn’t fire. So it isn’t going to hit the target either.
Neither will these reduced powder charges or bad powder or bad primer hit the target. You need something else here.
I don’t see Oswald finding a frangible or hollow point bullet for his Carcano in 1963. Unless the CIA loaded them for him.
“I don’t see Oswald finding a frangible or hollow point bullet for his Carcano in 1963. Unless the CIA loaded them for him.” ~Bill Clarke
No Carcano, no Oswald as shooter; all Warren Commission myths.
\\][//
Weitzman Affidavit:
WCH24 CE 2003 pg. 288
Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XXIV. Page 202 of 929
https://i2.wp.com/fourandathumb.webplus.net/WCH24%20CE%202003%20Seymour%20Weitzman%20Affidavit%20a.png
\\][//
“If, Willy, the bullet hit foliage thick enough to significantly reduce the velocity then the bullet would be knocked off its aimed path or trajectory. In other words, not much chance of it hitting the target.” ~Bill Clarke
This is a presumptuous statement Bill. If “the target” was the back of Kennedy’s head, some 9 to 12 inches off target to Kennedy’s back is a “missed shot”, as far as missing “the bulls eye”.
\\][//
Willy
In order to penetrate only an inch in JFK’s back, the bullet, if its original velocity was 2200 fps, would have to lose a MINIMUM of 75% of its muzzle velocity, in my estimation, or it would easily have penetrated JFK’s back and gone into his right lung.
Bullets that lose stability will begin to tumble end over end in flight, and will leave a characteristic “keyhole” when they strike a target, as they often strike a target side on. The entrance wound on JFK’s back was not a keyhole shape but, rather, small and round; indicative of a bullet that was not tumbling in flight.
While hitting a branch is more than enough to make a bullet begin to tumble, a 75% loss in velocity will dramatically effect the gyroscopic spin of a bullet in flight, and loss of this gyroscopic stability will also make the bullet tumble. Once a bullet begins to tumble, wind resistance increases on the bullet, and its velocity gets reduced further.
A 75% loss in velocity will also make this bullet drop enough to make it miss its target vertically by a LOT more than 9 to 12 inches. As I stated before, it would be lucky to even hit the trunk of the limo.
To get a grasp on how little velocity is required to do a great deal of penetration in flesh, the bullet that killed LHO was a .38 Special, and likely a 158 grain bullet travelling at just under 700 fps. This bullet passed ENTIRELY through LHO’s abdomen, from side to side, inflicting severe damage on every organ and blood vessel it passed through, and almost exited LHO’s right side.
Can anyone honestly believe a rifle bullet could only penetrate an inch in flesh?
Just so things make a little more sense to the readers, 700 fps equates to just over 477 mph.
2200 fps = 1500 mph
“Just so things make a little more sense to the readers”
Yes let’s backtrack to the essentials that are known, and dispense with the speculation:
The back wound and the throat wound suffered by JFK were not dissected, and the paths of the bullets were not discovered because of this.
As per the original and most reliable witnesses it was first stated at Parkland that the throat wound was an entry wound.
The autopsy discovered the back wound, which is described as an entry wound as well.
Standing to reason, we are left with the problem of two entry wounds and no exit wounds for those.
As such, I would say that Mr Prudhommes assessment of a frangible bullet striking Kennedy from the rear caused the back wound.
I am still convinced the throat wound came from the front – likely going through the windshield and slowing it down. A second thought is that this too was a frangible that came in over the windshield and hit JFK directly in the throat. A third possiblility is that it was a lower caliber bullet from another gun entirely.
One thing is certain here – a bullet did not transit JFK and hit Connally. The ballistics, trajectory, the Z-film, and the Connally’s testimony show this beyond reasonable doubt.
I might add here that the break in the custody of the so-called Magic Bullet (CE399) proves that the bullet said to be discovered at Parkland is NOT the bullet now in evidence in the official record.
These points combined mean that there were other shooters, and that there were likely no shots fired from the staged “snipers nest”.
\\][//
Hi Jake
In 1963, the distance from the breakover on the top step to the glass window and door of the TSBD was just over 36″. This was renovated years later, and the door and windows moved back until they were 9 feet from the breakover to the first step.
With the top landing measuring only 3 feet wide, PM and Lovelady cannot be 3 feet apart. At best, they might be 1.5-2 feet apart. By “apart” I mean the difference in distance they are from the camera.
If you look at the photos of the DPD officers letting people in and out of the building, you will see it is necessary for the officer holding the door open to stand on the first step down, as the open door reaches all the way to the breakover.
I’m getting different information. There is a picture posted that shows a tape measure on the present landing. It measures 9′ today, per the picture. The caption says the old landing was 3′ less. That’s 9′ minus 3′, leaving 6′ for the landing back then.
The door itself is extra wide; close to or at 4′ wide, based on it’s proportions if it’s a 7′ high door, which is usually the case for a monumental glass door such as that one. One must find some good pictures of the old entrance, which isn’t difficult. I make the overall width of landing at 12′. The door and the two large panes of fixed glass on either side of the door are about equal at about 4′ wide each. 3 times 4 is 12′. (Plenty of room for PM to stand to the side, out of the way of traffic and the door swing).
I believe the policeman on the top tread (step) of the stairs is not holding the door open. It’s propped open, probably by the closer mechanism. He is guarding who goes in and out and appears at the ready to push the door closed, but I do not see his hand on either the stainless steel door handle nor across the edge of the door. That is why it appears propped open. He’s not actually touching it. He has a vertically balanced, upright posture, weight apparently shifted to his right leg with left leg unweighted, which further reinforces the idea that he is not holding open a door, but is ready to make an athletic move in closing the door and moving forward.
The bottom corner of the door is not visible. It disappears behind the top edge of the first riser (where the landing “breaks”). That is because the view angle is slightly upward from slightly below the horizontal plane of the landing. This foreshortened view could easily allow for the front edge of the door to be back 2′ from the front “break” in the landing. The 4′ open door plus 2′ to the “break” totals 6′ for the landing, per the tape. Also, compare to Madie Reese’s foot. Her foot is back further from the edge of the landing than the vertical edge of the door is, but there is no way to see that distance. The sole of her shoe is not visible as it too disappears behind the “break” in the landing.
You questioned Frazier’s apparent height. He is in full sunlight except for his head and neck, so he’s standing toward the front edge of the landing. Here again, perspective easily accounts for the appearance of his height relative to PM.
Thanks for the interchange and thanks for the moderator’s patience with off topic discussion.
Woops, I see I was in error in reading the caption on the tape measure picture. It says the red line was the location of the glass wall and that it was 3′ back from the top riser. I can’t accept that the door, which was wider than 3′, would have swung out over the riser.
The steps were reconfigured. You can tell if you closely examine them in photos old and new. The top step (as opposed to the landing) originally went all the way to the side walls like the landing does. The second step down stopped at the pilaster bases, which were set out from the side walls, meaning the lower steps were narrower (in the long dimension) than the top step was (except for the bottom step, which flared back out wider as it went beyond the street face of the pilaster bases and could wrap around at them at the bottom). I can’t hang my hat on 6′ like I thought I could, but the landing is at the least 4′ in depth in my opinion, and probably some dimension more as a matter of standard practice for the design of a landing relative to the size of the door swinging onto it.
I think the steps stopped further out than where they appear in the “red line picture” because you can see that the top two steps go all the way to the side wall, which they did not in 1963. Only the top step did.
Thanks for listening. Sorry for the error.
The landing was not 4 feet in depth, and the door was not 4 feet wide. The door did go right out to the edge of the landing when wide open. The landing was 3 feet wide; at most, 40 inches.
Something else to think about. If the landing was 3 feet wide (or 40 inches – I won’t quibble over 4 inches), two people standing on the landing cannot be 3 feet apart front to back. At most, they will be 1.5-2 feet apart. As PM appears to have his back to the west wall, and not the glass, I would say him and Frazier are, at most, 1 foot apart front to back.
Please indulge my change in thinking about PM’s positioning now that the landing is probably not as deep as I thought. I’m placing him on the top tread (not the landing) of the stairs now. Yes, down 7″ from the landing on which BWF is standing. Here’s my twist: he has his arms crossed in front of him with his right shoulder leaning against the wall. He’s facing the street squarely. The bright spot thought to be a camera or bottle is really his left elbow just catching the sunlight. The lighter area to the right of the elbow (his left elbow) is the radiator behind the glass. Like everyone else, I thought that lighter area was his left arm, but no, it looks like the radiator now. As the two women mount the steps down in front of him, he just begins to move before the gif ends. It makes it look like he’s doing something with his hands, but he’s not. His arms remain folded and perhaps just begin to unfold as he turns ever so slightly to his left in response to the approaching women, perhaps to turn away so they may pass. The effect is that his hands are busy, but it’s just his left elbow moving and optically interacting with the radiator image behind him.
Further, in the Wiegmann frame (post 1880 at EF http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=89d91adebb033d825ef31a75bd8f53b5&showtopic=20354&page=126 ) I’m seeing a man with his arms crossed in front of his chest. What we saw as his head is actually his upper forearm, above his left elbow. He is leaning heavily against the side wall with right shoulder well below his left shoulder. His head, which is barely visible, has the red circle going across the top of his head, through the hairline. There is a shadow below the side of this face, indicating the neck area. He is square with the street, facing some angle away from the camera to the left (his right). His head is bowed somewhat and he’s hunched over a bit like perhaps he’s hearing the shots and is in utter shock. The kind of shock where perhaps he knows what’s happening without looking up. This also makes him taller and more in proportion with BL.
The bottom line to the tale of the Magic Bullet is that there is no valid chain of custody for that bullet, which means it is not legitimate evidence in the JFK Assassination case. PERIOD.
\\][//
And your level of legal expertise is exactly what? Even if you could prove that #399 would not be admissible in a Texas court of law in 1963 ( highly debatable) it stil would not mean that it wasn’t the Single Bullet. Inadmissible legal evidence is not false evidence, as O.J. Simpson learned during his civil trial.it seems curious that you are resting your objection to the SBT not on the basis of the physical evidence( overwhelmingly favoring the SBT) but on a will-o-the-wisp claim that it would not be admissible in a court of law.Again I ask-what conspiracy of idiots would plant a round so conspicuous in its apparently undamaged state that it would immediately generate doubts about its ability to cause all of the wounds seen in JFK and Connolly? A round for which it would take months and years of study for ballistic experts to prove that the initial assumptions about its stability were incorrect?
“And your level of legal expertise is exactly what?”~Photon
What is your level of legal expertise Photon?
More importantly what is your real level of critical thinking abilities?
I will state that argument clearly for the last time Photon; the onus of proof is not on those who criticize the assertion, the onus is in fact on those who make the assertion. This is the foundation of western jurisprudence. One need not have any particular expertise in the law to recognize this simple concept.
I will add, I do not speak to this matter as though it is a court of law, I speak to it as a matter of common and rational sense, which is after all the foundation of reason in both debate, reason in law, and reason in medicine.
The bottom line fact of the matter is you have not proven your case to the standards of reason.
You do not know the argument or you would not make the absurd assertions you do. The bullet found or planted at Parkland is proven to be a unjacketed pointed lead hunting round. It is at this very beginning point in the chain of custody that the break takes place.
One more time for the general readership here:
Darrell Tomlinson found a lead colored, sharp nosed hunting round at about 1:45 PM, and brought it to chief of security O. P. Wright at Parkland Hospital. Wright is very familiar with firearms since he was with the sheriff’s office previously. Wright gets a good look at the bullet, he notes it as a lead colored, pointed nosed, hunting round.
This bullet will be passed through to Secret Service officers Richard Johnsen and Jim Rowley. Yet neither of them will initial the bullet. And later, neither positively identified it.
At the White House, Rowley turns a bullet over to FBI agent Elmer Todd. They sign a receipt. The time of the transfer is 8:50 PM on the 22nd.
Yet as John Hunt shows, agent Robert Frazier at the FBI lab enters the stretcher bullet’s arrival into his notes at 7:30! As Hunt notes, if Frazier and Todd can both tell time, something is really wrong here. Frazier has received a bullet that Todd has not given him yet.
But it’s even worse. For in an FBI document it says that Todd’s initials are on the bullet. (CE 2011, at WC Vol. 24, p. 412) Yet as Hunt has amply demonstrated, they are not there. (Hunt, “Phantom Identification of the Magic Bullet”) In other words, no one who carried this bullet in transit for law enforcement purposes–Johnsen, Rowley, Todd–put their initials on it. When that is what they are trained to do.
When it comes time to write the Warren Report, Wright’s name is not in it. And there is no evidence Arlen Specter interviewed him. In late 1966, we find out why Specter avoided him. Thompson interviews him and he rejects CE 399 as the bullet he gave Johnsen. Twice. (Thompson, p.175)
http://www.ctka.net/2010/journeyCE399.html
Reminder:
Crime Scene Protocol 1963
It was standard practice and mandated by FBI protocol in 1963 (up until the 1980s) to mark a shell or hull with a unique mark for chains of custody.
“Police Markings”
See:
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Handbook of Forensic Science 100 (rev. ed. 1984); C. O’Hara, Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation 79-84 (5th ed. 1980).”
http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1308&context=faculty_publications
\\][//
Photon, besides all the evidence established that the SBT was an Arlen Specter confection, designed to elevate him to higher office (it did), do as I sometimes ask jurors to do: use your common sense.
As JFK emerges from the Stemmons Freeway sign, he is already reacting to a gunshot wound. Conally, who suffered bony injuries to the ribs and radius, does not react for many frames. This is consistent with his WC testimony. He is also holding his Stetson hat throughout the film.
JFK, according to your crew, suffered only a soft tissue injury from the first bullet – no vertebral fracture. This is impossible for the track of a sixth floor shot, but nevermind. Connally suffered immediate (2,000 fps) fractures to two separate bony architectures. But only JFK shows a reaction.
Arlen Spector is dead. Your urologist, Dr.Lattimer, is dead. And the SBT is dead too. It just forgot to fall over.
Unfortunately you are regurgitating talking points that have been disproven over the years by multiple sources. The mantra of the CTers about the SBT being dead or impossible is based not on evidence but on fear that if interested observers actually look at the real evidence the will conclude that the SBT is actually the SBF. Nowhere in your comment do I see any factual information that contradicts the SBT.
But I do see problems with accuracy. JFK’s initial reaction is a neurological reflex, an involuntary action. Connolly’s first reactions are not reflexive and as such would not be as rapid as JFK’s-even though their reactions are nearly simultaneous, despite your claim. In addition, the lapel flap is a precise record of when Connolly’s chest wound happened as the round exited near his nipple.
JFK actually suffered a small vertebral fracture( despite your claim) noted during the HSCA investigation. Almost certainly this was caused by the pressure cone created by the round transiting the neck. Anybody who has actually taken gross anatomy knows that your assumption of what in the neck would have to be hit from a sixth floor shot is simply not correct.
“What is CE 933?”~Photon
A typo.
“Unfortunately you are regurgitating talking points that have been disproven over the years by multiple sources.”~Photon
A statement so general as to be meaningless.
Photon, CE 399 did not exist until it was produced as a prop and presented in DC to replace the bullet said to be found at Parkland, which was a lead, unjacketed, pointed hunting round. That is the end of your fantasy bullet.
Like Mr. Connor said, your magic bullet is dead.
\\][//
Man, I feel sorry for you, Photon.
How do you get up each morning and force yourself to spout these things you call “facts”, when anyone can see the SBT is a physical impossibilty?
Photon, your quarrel is not with me, but with the late Gov. Connelly. He insisted he had not been struck by the first bullet, and the film proves him right.
I have studied anatomy, and I have fractured my radius. I cried like a baby, immediately. My brother fractured a rib. He was in immediate distress and pain.
And a 6.5 round traveling at 2,000 fps, exiting near the knot of a necktie would leave a lot of bony damage to the cervical vertebrae. But then, if it entered at the T-10 level, on a downward slope, on a downward target (Elm Street has a 30 degree slope; I’m sure you have been there), it would never encounter the cervical spine at all.
Looks like you are the one who needs to return to anatomy class.
Photon:
Where have you been? Good to hear from you. As far as the “facts” regarding the SBT, maybe you can interpret what McCloy and Warren and Russell said amongst themselves in regard to the ballistics and bullet wounds? I can re-post their conversation again if you would like, but I am sure you already know what they said. I believe we could start with Warren who stated that “it is totally inconclusive.”
I wonder what Chairman Warren was trying to say? Can you give us the “Photon spin” to help me understand what Warren REALLY meant when he said it was “totally inconclusive?”
Ed, what I find interesting that not in his first interview in Parkland Hospital, nor in his KRLD June 1964 interview ,nor in his Larry King 1991 interview does Connolly even mention his wrist wound.In his 1991 King interview he said exactly the opposite of your radius fracture experience-he said that he had no pain at all, only the sensation of being struck in the back.Do you have any information that Connolly was even AWARE that he had a comminuted wrist fracture prior to leaving the limo? Prior to being told?
Connolly was right-he was not struck by the first bullet.Neither was JFK. The Zapruder film clearly shows that both men are reacting to some stimulus prior to going behind the sign, just as is the little girl In a white coat running along the side of the limo.Connolly’s reaction was to turn around to the right, because he heard a rifle shot that sounded like it came ” from behind and to the right”-and guess what was ” behind and to the right”- it certainly wasn’t the Grassy Knoll.
Obviously you have never dissected out the neck on a cadaver; there are a lot of cervical structures like the cervical plexus, the brachial plexus, the trachea, the esophagus, various nerves and blood vessels. But there is enough room for a round to pass through without ever hitting the spine or the cord; there are literally dozens of patients that go through American ERs every year with through and through gunshot wounds that don’t involve the spinal column and don’t even require surgical exploration.
There is more to gross anatomy than laminated posters that you can show to jurors.
“Connolly was right-he was not struck by the first bullet.Neither was JFK.”~Photon
After being hit in the back does anyone think that Connally could distinguish other sources of pain beyond that initial concussion?
Connally (not Connolly) and his wife were both also adamant that the governor was not struck by the same bullet that hit Kennedy. They had both turned to see JFK struggling, hands to his throat before Connally was hit.
Kennedy Throat Shot
Frame Z-205, Kennedy reacts to the shot to the throat just as he is going out of view behind the sign, you can see his right hand go to his throat. Both Connally and Jackie are turning to look at JFK at that moment as well. As they reemerge from behind that sign he has both hands to his throat.
Also just before this frame, there is the telltale jiggle of Zapruder reacting to the rifle shot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqzJQE8LYrQ
\\][//
Also note that at Z-223 as Connally first appears from behind the sign he is sitting straight up showing no sign of stress or pain whatsoever.
\\][//
Photon:
You mention in your post to Ed that he has “never dissected the neck of a cadaver.” Would NOW be a good time to mention that the three pathologists at Bethesda also DID NOT dissect JFK’s “neck/back” wound? I mean, if Ed has not done a dissection, and I don’t know Ed, but if he does not know that bullets can pass through the neck without hitting a thing, couldn’t we expect, at the VERY least, a dissection done by THREE TRAINED medical people to determine if that same thing happened to the POTUS? This was, after all, the CRIME OF THE CENTURY? Where is your outrage that a simple dissection that Ed does not know about was not done by three people who had extensive training in this area? Seems a little hypocritical to me.
You realize that YOU are going against your beloved WC and your beloved idea that testimony closer to the event carries more weight when you suggest that Connally was hit by the same bullet as JFK. Connally was ADAMANT that a different bullet struck him than the one that hit JFK. He said so while recovering in the hospital!! Oh, wait, let me guess. In this case ONLY, Connally is WRONG because he had a delayed reaction to having a bullet rip through him at 1700 ft/s and shattering/destroying 10 cm of rib bone? HOWEVER, he is the ONLY witness in this case whose early testimony is to be discounted because the FBI/DPD “determined” later he was in error? Again, seems hypocritical to me.
Photon, thank you for your comment.
I am quite familiar with injuries to the brachial plexus; I have made a fair amount of fee money from them.
But, no, I have not dissected the neck of a human cadaver.
I dissected a frog once, in 10th grade, but passed on future lab science classes. I fulfilled my science requirement in college with a geology course affectionately called “Rocks for Jocks.”
It was very enlightening.
Regarding the colloquy concerning the thoracic spine wound to JFK, I recall reading a detailed discussion between our esteemed colleagues Bob Prudhomme and David von Drehle on the Spartacus website, dealing with the precise angles required for a 6th floor shot to pass through the president’s necktie area and cause Gov. Connaly’s wounds. I also recall that the 1989 House committee’s medical panel did not agree to a spinal fracture.
Perhaps Bob can post a link to the technical info suggesting that LHO could not have fired a round to the right of the T-1 transverse process that caused Connally’s injuries.
Ed, I don’t think birth injuries have any relationship to this case. Neither Open Casket Bob nor Von Drehle have any expertise in anatomy nor bullet wounds. Why should I take them seriously when every forensic pathologist to review this case sees no problem with JFK’s back-throat wound having no contact with the vertebral column nor the cord?
Hi Photon
Actually JFK was struck by the first bullet as confirmed by the witnesses closest to the limousine – Mary Moorman, Jean Hill, Abraham Zapruder and Clint Hill.
And, of course, as confirmed by Mary Moorman’s photo.
Photon:
Is the “expert” you are referring to Lattimer? The urologist? He agrees with the bullet traveling through JFK’s neck and missing everything?
Photon:
How do you explain Connally’s insistence that he was struck by a different bullet? Any ideas?
Photon:
I would like the chance to discuss with you some other areas that I find a little confusing as we try to figure out the real truth of Dallas. You, along with other LN often refer to people on the opposite side as “kooks” or “buffs” or other such terms. You believe that the CT side will believe anyone and anything that comes out from any source.
However, a careful examination of your side reveals the same phenomena happening. Connally exhibited “delayed reaction syndrome” even though the bullet created what I believe was termed a life threatening sucking chest wound. Kennedy’s head was driven forward by the “jet propulsion effect.” CE 399 was found on a stretcher, apparently with no one noticing it when he was removed from the car, placed on a gurney, clothing removed and then operated on. The gurney where it was found is believed to be a gurney that held a little boy earlier that morning. There is no adequate chain of custody established as far as I know. And, remarkably, this bullet contained no trace of blood, bone, or clothing fibers, even after its remarkable journey. Oh, but it did show “toothpaste.” Yet, the FBI was able to identify a fiber or two from Oswald’s rifle after “careful examination.”
Consider this as well: Oswald was a crack shot, but he missed his first shot—the easiest shot of all—and everyone and everything around the limo. You said it was because he was nervous and he was trying to conceal himself. Yet, then he shoots Tipitt in broad daylight, according to the WC. The backyard photos are not fakes, but one ends up in the hands of a DPD who may have known Oswald in the MC. Oswald was an excellent shot, but he missed Walker because it was dark and Walker moved “just as he shot.” Oswald ordered the rifle order by mail order, but the post office where he bought the the money order is not the post office from he mailed his request.
You see, on balance, the LN side has to come up with a zillion reasons why the WC has to work. Just like the CT side, some of your explanations fly in the face of common sense. However, your “reasons” are based on cold, hard facts. How is a bullet that did all of the damage that 399 did not discovered until AFTER the fact and the man who found it REFUSED, even when badgered by the biggest weasel of the WC, to say that he was not going to say something he could not be certain of?
And, just to be nice, I won’t even bring up the LN squirming that happens because of Mexico City!!!
Care to comment?
Have you ever fired a rifle from a sitting position?
Have you ever fired a rifle at all at a moving target?
What is the basis for your claim that the first shot was the easiest?
What study can you quote that states a marksman will always make his first shot-particularly at a moving target?
Why do the CIA memos identify an individual other than Lee Harvey Oswald, an individual married to an entirely different woman? As you believe that the CIA never makes mistakes, it appears that the CIA was tracking the wrong Oswald in MC and your entire line regarding the MC trip is in error.
Nice try, Photon. Again, nice try avoiding direct questions about the case and asking questions that have NOTHING to do with anything related to the case. You are being dishonest, and that is sad.
MY shooting skills are not in question. I don’t own a gun, unless you count a nail gun as a gun. YOU said LHO was a crack shot when he cared. Then you said he was nervous. Then he crossed the Rubicon and became a cold blooded killer. He shot at Walker, but missed because Walker moved at the instant LHO fired. What a load of crap you give. If you are going to spout the WC company line, LHO was a marksman AND an excellent shot. But the first shot missed EVERYTHING. It did hit a curb 300 feet away, the FBI decides later to dig up the curb and bring it to Washington. Oh, but by then it had been patched. Outside of the WC and its “findings” you really have no interest in an honest and open look into the case.
As far as the CIA and some married woman, sell it to someone else. The CIA has lied since 63, and it continues to do this day. It is only because of the gutless wonders called Ford and Specter that they were not called to testify under oath where jail time was on the table. You can spin it any way you want, but the commission that has given you all of your facts was investigated by liars, written by liars, and sold to the public by liars. Keep your head in the sand Photon, and keep believing in the power of liars. That is your choice.
Photon:
From the what it is worth, you really should read Phil Shenon’s book on the 9/11 commission and its “workings.” That commission makes the WC look like a functioning and competent group. I would imagine you would be extremely proud that the legacy of the WC and the notion of politicians investigating politicians and producing sham results is alive and well in America 51 years after JFK.
Wow, Photon, it just gets worse and worse. You cite that bullets have been known to go through necks without inflicting major damage as evidence this occurred with Kennedy. You ignore that the wounds observed in operating rooms are most normally from low velocity weapons, and that articles on the wound ballistics of high velocity weapons, such as military rifles, specify that the temporary cavities of the projectiles fired from such weapons sheer blood vessels and trachea, and that the HSCA FPP got around this by assuming the doctors to inspect Kennedy’s throat both in Dallas and Bethesda were mistaken.
Well, geez. It sure makes it easy to say the evidence fits or adds up when one repeatedly and reflexively assumes all the witnesses are wrong.
Ronnie Wayne
April 4, 2015 at 1:36 am
Willy, 4/3 8:01 above. A frangible bullet would have also not transited the body. See the comments of Bob Prudhome elsewhere on this site or the eduforum.
———————————————————————–
Thank you, Ronnie. I was beginning to think nobody was able to follow my theory.
Hollow point and frangible (actually a form of hollow point) bullets are unique among bullets in that they actually perform BETTER when travelling through flesh than they do travelling through bone. While I lean toward a frangible bullet, I am by no means ruling out a simple hollow point bullet as the bullet that entered JFK’s back, and did not exit.
Other clues that support this possibility.
Jerrol Custer reported to the ARRB that JFK’s chest organs were removed prior to his arrival AND prior to him x-raying JFK’s chest.
Dr. Marion T. Jenkins reported chest damage on JFK’s right side in his medical report.
“Doctors Charles Baxter, Malcolm Perry, and Robert McClelland arrived at the same time and began a tracheostomy and started the insertion of a right chest tube, since there was also obvious tracheal and chest damage . Doctors Paul Peters and Kemp Clark arrived simultaneously and immediately thereafter assisted respectively with the insertion of the right chest tube and with manual closed chest cardiac compression to assure circulation.”
Notice he only states insertion of a right chest tube. In his WC testimony, he actually refers to JFK having a pneumothorax.
“About this time Drs. Kemp Clark and Paul Peters came in, and Dr. Peters because of the appearance of the right chest, the obvious physical characteristics of a pneumothorax, put in a closed chest drainage chest tube.”
In case anyone does not know, a closed chest drainage tube is the procedure followed to relieve a tension pneumothorax.
If the damage to JFK’s right lung was as extensive as I believe it was, the haemorrhaging in his chest cavity had as much chance of killing him as the head wound did.
Bob,
Which bullet are you postulating caused this lung damage?
\\][//
I’m pretty sure he’s talking about the back wound. A shot from the TSBD or Dal-Tex entering at T-3 would do so at a downward angle. I.E. heading to the lung area. A hollow point or frangible bullet would have done a lot of damage and not exited. Why are there no pictures of the organs?
Thanks Ronnie,
The only problem I see with this postulation is the cone of damage expands dramatically in a hollow-point or other frangible bullet strike. As the wound was described as shallow, less than two inches in depth, it seems in-congruent with the expected expansion.
It is possible of course, many things in this case range from the likely to unlikely in varying degrees. One certainty is that it is possible to argue these various opinions from here to eternity.
The only rational termination to such an eternal controversy that I see is the other certainty of this case, and that is the proven break in the chain of custody of CE 933.
Conjecture: Possibility, Plausibility, Probability
All of the opinions offered on the topic of CE 933 fall under one of the three categories of conjecture, or their antithesis.
The one point in all of this conversation that is not conjecture, but is lawful fact; is that under historical US jurisprudence, an assertion must be proven by those posing such an assertion and not vise versa.
The break in the chain of custody of the Magic Bullet is proven, and conversely the chain of custody of this bullet is unproven.
As such, all other issues are moot and without standing.
The Magic Bullet does not pass the test of lawful legitimacy.
\\][//
Willy
The only thing describing JFK’s back wound as being shallow is two FBI agents watching Humes trying to insert a 3/4″ diameter knuckle into a 1/4″ diameter entrance wound. Skin may be somewhat elastic but, there is a limit, after all.
And even if he could have buried his entire little finger into the wound track, that still only gets him 2 inches into the wound, so how is it again that they knew the wound was less than 2 inches deep?
Now, before you answer the next question, I would like you to think REALLY hard about it first.
Let’s say you had a rifle that was sighted in to hit a target you are aiming at at 100 yards, and you are shooting bullets with a muzzle velocity, on average, of 2200 feet per second. However, let’s say you get one cartridge that is loaded with bad gunpowder that reduces the muzzle velocity of its bullet to 450 fps.
Do you think the bullet will hit the 100 yard target you are aiming at, or will it hit the dirt partway out to the target?
Bob,
As I said to Ronnie, we can explore all sorts of conjectural situations here. We can suppose until the mountains tumble into the sea.
I am not going to try to blunt your conjecture here. At the same time I am not going to play anymore supposition games here myself.
As I have stated, the clear break in the chain of custody of the Magic Bullet is certain.
So regardless of what type of bullet struck Kennedy in the back, it was not CE933.
\\][//
What is CE 933?
Hi Ronnie
Even if the bullet was fired from street level, a bullet entering at the level of T3 would go directly into the top end of the right lung.
Bob, off topic but the perspective on PM easily and closely confirms a 5′-9″ LHO standing 3′ back from and over to the left of a 5′-8″ BL, as seen from a camera 25 or 30 feet away and 5 to 6 feet above the ground. In fact, a 5′-7″ PM (Molina) appears too short compared to the photo. I modeled it easily in Sketch-up (free version from Google) and BL appears about an inch taller than PM (at 5′-9′), similar to the photo.
I believe the landing at the time was 6′ deep so at 3′ forward of the door plane behind (and 3′ back from BL at the front edge of the landing), there is room for the door to swing and for PM to stand. Actually, I put him with his back on the 3′ line to allow for the door and to be conservative in modeling the perspective. Landing was set at 49″ (seven, seven inch risers).
Hi Bob, Willy. Bob you explained once about the 2″ finger depth often mentioned, on here or at edu. If I can paraphrase, you used measurements but most rifle bullets (not the shell) are roughly the size of a pencil, most of our pinky’s are almost twice this size. A pinky could be shoved into a bullet hole an inch or two but the tissue around the path would retract after the missile passed.
Probably a poor interpretation of your explanation but this seemed logical to me.
In addition, with a hollow point or frangible bullet, when it enters muscle or softer tissue (as opposed to hitting bone immediately in a head shot) travels a short distance before meeting enough resistance to start the coning effect Willy mentions? Further, this dispersion of the bullet particles would leave less of a true path than of a FMJ.
Last, for me the bottom line is why, oh why, oh why was the path not explored with a metal probe which as I understand is normal procedure with a bullet wound at an autopsy?
“Last, for me the bottom line is why, oh why, oh why was the path not explored with a metal probe which as I understand is normal procedure with a bullet wound at an autopsy?”~Ronnie
Yes, that and a dissection of the throat and back wounds, to see what the paths of those bullets really were. That is why the military bosses in the gallery forbade such, they knew that there were multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza, they are the ones who set up the hit.
That’s why these inexperienced general pathologists at Bethesda were chosen to perform the most important autopsy in US history; to cover up the crime of the century, a domestic coup d’etat.
\\][//
Bob, Ronnie, Willy:
With you three’s knowledge about the wounds and just your good sense ((esp. Bob’s rejection of Humes’ judgment that JFK’s back wound was shallow because his pinkie (at least 5/8″ wide in a man) wouldn’t go far into a 3/8″ hole [What in the world?!?! And this man was a medical doctor, demonstrating the sick state of American medicine.])) —-
I hope to start persuading you that: 1)JFK’s throat and back wounds were from one bullet fired from the SOUTH Knoll (a la S. Fiester’s idea that the head shot that avulsed the rt occipito-parietal came from that area); and 2)two different, independent bullets from TSBD caused JBC’s wounds.
ONE: The SS agent (name escapes me, muh notes are a mess due to Morley’s deluge of info) on the front-right running board of the follow-up car was adamant that he saw “a spray of water” come OUT of the Pres.’s back with the first shot.
These four points are in a perfect line: lower left Adam’s apple, right side of trachea, top of right lung, and between spine and scapula 5 1/2″ down from top of right shoulder. From the front, the missile was going from left to right, and downward.
TWO: The key that JBC took 2 rounds is in the wrist wound, it wnt in through the top or outside and came outon the underside. Commonsense, just like Bob, you’ll notice that you can’t turn your wrist enough in front of your chest to make that happen. JC took the wrist shot when he was turned nearly perpendicular to normal seating position.
Bob, you have a typoo in this thread–Elm Street is a 3-5 degree slope, not 30, which is way steeper than any public road is able to be. Tjhat’s a 6 in 12 pitch on a roof, which almost demands roof-jacks.
Addendum to Willy:
Drs. Dolce and Light in Weisberg’s Never Again!, which you love, were pretty sure that JBc took two bullets, none of which hit the President first. It’s a mystery to me why HW mentions this twice in Chapter 27, but doesn’t pursue it.
Roy W Kornbluth,
You do not have to persuade my that both the throat shot and the head shot were fired from the south knoll, or the south side of Dealey, as CSI proves. The throat shot would have gone through the limousine windshield from that trajectory; explaining the tiny array of tiny puncture wounds in JFK’s face, noted by the undertaker that he filled with morticians wax.
\\][//
Willy,
The throat shot, the first to hit anyone, yes, had to come from the south knoll area, but high up around the level of the railroad tracks, clearing the windshield by a good ways, about a 20 degree downward angle. (I believe the windshield hole and the ding in the chrome trim right above it both came from behind, one shot, either from Braden/Brading in Dal Tex or George Hickey in the SS followup car.) What’s important is that all JFK’s non-head wounds came from this early shot. The research community seems to have settled on there being 2 different shots for the throat and back wounds. Not true.
IMO, the best explanation for the tiny puncture wounds in JFK’s face: an early round that hit the north curb of Elm St., seen by many, while he was behind the Stemmons sign. It sprayed his face just like a later curb-striking round sprayed James Tague’s face.
Sherry Fiester’s groundbreaking work on cones and angles best explains the first shot. Also, her cones explain the disparity in hearing; i.e., you could be closer to a fired gun, but if you were out of the sound-cone, you didn’t pick up the primary sound-wave. I’m afraid I disagree with most of the community about the later shot that blew out JFK’s right occiput. My “proof” that it was Greer, the Henry Cabot Lodge-loving sack of ****, and not the south knoll sniper(s):
1) Jackie was in shock at the end, didn’t remember the last shots or even crawling onto the trunk–she was on auto-pilot due to a gun-blast she didn’t see coming, less than 3 feet away. Thank goodness for that piece of cartilage that guards the ear canal, name escapes me, or she probably would have had a ruptured eardrum.
2) The Connallys, from a seated position on the floor, sprang up then shook like crazy, flowers going everywhere, then sank back all the way down. They saw it. There was even a flash on their faces. But no one ever asked them directly if the driver fired his service weapon, so they didn’t volunteer the info. All part of The Unspeakable.
3) The minister who gave JFK the last rites saw an entry hole in the LEFT temple. I believe at least one at the mortuary also did. As JFK was leaning forward between the seat before the last flurry, I believe he saw Greer’s gun, but of course couldn’t reach it. In near left temple, out right occiput.
At least 8 shots fired half past noon that day in Dealey Plaza. Most likely 9 or 10. Separate throat and back shots on JFK would make it 10 or 11.
Broken Chain of Custody & The Magic Bullet (A Digest of Jim DiEugenio)
Darrell Tomlinson found a lead colored, sharp nosed hunting round at about 1:45 PM, and brought it to chief of security O. P. Wright at Parkland Hospital. Wright is very familiar with firearms since he was with the sheriff’s office previously. Wright gets a good look at the bullet, he notes it as a lead colored, pointed nosed, hunting round.
This bullet will be passed through to Secret Service officers Richard Johnsen and Jim Rowley. Yet neither of them will initial the bullet. And later, neither positively identified it.
At the White House, Rowley turns a bullet over to FBI agent Elmer Todd. They sign a receipt. The time of the transfer is 8:50 PM on the 22nd.
Yet as John Hunt shows, agent Robert Frazier at the FBI lab enters the stretcher bullet’s arrival into his notes at 7:30! As Hunt notes, if Frazier and Todd can both tell time, something is really wrong here. Frazier has received a bullet that Todd has not given him yet.
But it’s even worse. For in an FBI document it says that Todd’s initials are on the bullet. (CE 2011, at WC Vol. 24, p. 412) Yet as Hunt has amply demonstrated, they are not there. (Hunt, “Phantom Identification of the Magic Bullet”) In other words, no one who carried this bullet in transit for law enforcement purposes–Johnsen, Rowley, Todd–put their initials on it. When that is what they are trained to do.
When it comes time to write the Warren Report, Wright’s name is not in it. And there is no evidence Arlen Specter interviewed him. In late 1966, we find out why Specter avoided him. Thompson interviews him and he rejects CE 399 as the bullet he gave Johnsen. Twice. (Thompson, p.175)
http://www.ctka.net/2010/journeyCE399.html
\\][//
“Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President’s throat also caused Governor Connally’s wounds” (WCR:19).
The alignment of the points of entry was only indicative and not conclusive that one bullet hit both men. The exact positions of the men could not be re-created; thus, the angle could only be approximated. (WCR: 107).
Allen Dulles, Warren Commission member, fired by JFK as CIA Director stated during the Commission Executive Session just prior to the report publication, “But nobody reads. Don’t believe people read in this country. There will be a few professors that will read the record…The public will read very little.”
Dulles is correct in a general sense that the public doesn’t read, but the problem with the Magic Bullet is and was; that it is so absurd and counter-intuitive, that once “a few professors” read the record, and explained it to the public, the backlash of disbelief in the Warren Report has been and remains substantial.
Now for the True Believers of the Warren Report here, do read the waffle language of WCR:19 and WCR: 107, above. Your attempts to transform these tepid assertions into a pronouncement of near certainty is what put you on the path to cognitive dissonance and your eventual hysteria on this matter. There is absolutely no viable evidence whatsoever for the fairy-tale Magic Bullet.
\\][//
Photon implied Frazier said the cleaning/pressing made it impossible to conclude anything about the size of the holes. When I explained that Frazier was only talking about his ability to conclude anything about the bullet’s directionality, Photon changes the subject to whether Frazier saw the materials before the were cleaned.
And he totally ignored what I wrote about the reaction of mohair to cleaning/pressing. Like John Lattimer before him, all of this hard sell and selective reporting is in the service of the SBT.
Once again, I call your attention to the techniques of John Lattimer, the author of this revisionism which Photon is trying so hard to perpetuate. From page 266 of Lattimer’s book, “Kennedy and Lincoln:”
He presented only the uncorrected diagram of the wound on Connally’s back. Under this uncorrected diagram, Lattimer wrote the following, which are, demonstrably, lies: “Dr. Shaw initialed and described his careful drawing depicting the wound of entry into Connallys’ back, showing it as 3 cm long. He later attested to its accuracy under oath.”
In fact, Shaw said it was not accurate at all. And, off to the side of the page, per instructions from Arlen Specter, he drew what he said was its actual size: 1.5 cm. Lattimer blocked out his corrected drawing.
Also under the diagram, Lattimer reproduced testimony in which Shaw agrees the size is correct – only he was referring to the EXIT wound in the FRONT:
Mr. Specter: You say the hole which appears on Governor Connally is just about the size that it would have been on his body?
Dr. Shaw. Yes; it is drawn in good scale.
Mr. Specter. In good scale to the body”
Dr. Shaw. Yes.
Again, bear in mind the above out-of-context testimony refers to the exit wound in front. (http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0049a.htm)
No matter what Photon — or Jean Davison — write in the future, remember this: they have promoted the fraudulent work of John Lattimer and others.
“No matter what Photon — or Jean Davison — write in the future, remember this: they have promoted the fraudulent work of John Lattimer and others.”~Milicent Cranor
I concur with Ms Cranor in this prescient advice. I will add this observation as well as this name has been thrown into the mix of by Obfuscati:
In an interview with ballistics expert Duncan MacPherson taken by Joel Grant, this critical and telling exchange ends the interview;
Grant: “Are you aware of the claim that CE399 was “switched” from a six-groove bullet to a four-groove bullet? If so, will you give us your professional opinion?”
MacPherson: “No knowledge about this claim. For about 30 years, I have paid almost no attention to any aspect of the Kennedy assassination not directly related to wound ballistics.”
. . . . .
So MacPherson knows nothing of the total lack of chain of custody of the Magic Bullet. Even though the claim of a switch is indeed “directly related to wound ballistics.”
He knows nothing of any of the further evidence, such as Dr Shaw’s testimony that the wound on Connally’s back armpit was 1.5 cm and not the 3 cm wound noted in the operative report, relying on Lattimer’s deceit, revealed by Milicent Cranor above.
It professional malfeasance and out of place for MacPherson to make commentary on a matter when he hasn’t taken the trouble to comprehend the larger context in which the ballistics must fit.
The likelihood that there were no Carcano bullets involved in any of these hits is a certainty, considering the implications in the missing initial links in the chain of custody of CE 933. This break in the chain of custody eliminates the viability of the Magic Bullet as legitimate evidence.
\\][//
I am curious to hear what types of songs our resident mocking birds are going to sing when it comes to the issue of the broken chain of evidence of their Magic Bullet. They have been flitting through the treetops chirping about everything and anything else so far.
Can they out bop the buzzard and the oriole?
\\][//
Where exactly is the diagram from the Warren Report where Shaw initials a “to scale” drawing of the entrance wound? Can you give us a reference, or a reproduction?
” He never said that this affected the size of the holes”.
How could he? He never saw them prior to cleaning and pressing; as such he had no idea what they looked like originally.But you do?
How could he? He never saw them prior to cleaning and pressing; as such he had no idea what they looked like originally.But you do?”~Photon
Yes Milicent does, Fraizer did, I do, and anyone with a lick of sense knows that those whole did not look different in any meaningful way, other than which way the fibers might have been facing when looked at with a magnifying glass.
We know the hole in the back was an entry hole of each garment, we know the hole in the front of each garment was the exit hole. What is at issue here is that the holes in these items match the size of the holes in the flesh of Connally.
All of your bickering is yet again a pointless stroll into the weeds.
\\][//
Photon:
You are sure struggling lately. First, your beloved WC report cannot support your firm belief that Shaw believed it was a 1.5 cm hole. Normally the WC is your bible, but NOW you have switched to operative reports. So, the WC is not your go to, so you seem a little lost.
Now you are worried about the holes and the pressing and cleaning. Now, you are going back to your beloved WC and hoping to use what you have called on other threads “the cold hard truth which makes it so easy to debunk others.” Frazier said three eights of an inch. At its largest. I notice that he did not say the fabric appeared to be stretched or otherwise deformed. I would imagine it is because the iron used in the pressing was set to “hole shrink.”
So, which is it? Is the WC is your bible, OR the operative reports OR the ironing? I would imagine that is what happens when you tie your entire conclusion on one, single, flawed document.
Photon:
My bad! Was watching the Final Four. Should say your firm belief that it was a 3 cm hole.
“First, your beloved WC cannot support your firm belief that Shaw believed it was a 1.5 cm hole.”
Not sure what the Warren report has to do with Shaw’s belief, but it does mention that he said it was 1.5 cm. Twice.
Photon:
FYI: re-read my March 31st post to you where I predicted you would head to the ol’ clean and press argument. I wonder how I was able to predict where you would travel after the Shaw testimony did not go well for you?
Actually the Shaw testimony supports the single bullet theory and he stated as much ; his objection ( based on ignorance of the stability of the 6.5 mm round) was to # 399 being the agent of that occurrence .
I postulated that cleaning and pressing would alter the physical characteristics of the bullet holes in Connolly ‘s clothing. Frazier in his testimony stated that they had; everyone here that claims that the bullet holes were exactly the same size as immediately after the shooting ignore that. You can make assumptions that they were, but the exact dimensions could have been altered and probably were by the process.
Shaw’s comments on the ovoid shape of the wound and even his post-operative statements about the 1.5 cm longest axis would still be consistant with a tumbling round-as his Warren testimony states.1.5 cm would still be greater than twice the diameter of the round; the 3 cm wound noted in the operative report would make tumbling a certainty .
As stated previously I believe that Shaw went into the WC interview trying to make his testimony understandable to laymen; there are several instances of him explaining medical terms and off-the-record comments were he appears to clarify issues. I believe that he intended to state that the entrance wound was 1.5 INCHES ( which is close to 3 cm) in an attempt to make it easier for the staff to understand. In the heat of the moment he fell back to cm. Either the questioners during the interview were unaware of the discrepancy ( which should have generated rebuttal inquiries from the lawyers present) or they didn’t think that the discrepancy was significant in altering the SBT- I suspect the former, for the 3 cm operative report size would make the case even stronger.
That’s just desperate, Photon. A man writes 3 cm. He later clarifies that it was 1.5 cm and he enlarged it to 3 cms. He stands by that the rest of his life.
And now you come along and say he really meant to say 1.5 inches. Whatever gets you through the night, I guess.
But you do realize that Shaw repeatedly and consistently claimed the wound was 1,5 cm and that he enlarged it to 3 cm, correct? So…do you think he really meant to say he enlarged it to 3 INCHES?
There are many aspects to the JFK case. Much of the official evidence, if accepted, suggests Oswald’s guilt. But there are other parts of the official evidence–such as Frazier’s testimony regarding the bag, Shaw’s testimony and subsequent comments regarding Connally’s back wound, the NAA tests on Oswald’s cheek cast, and the Army’s tests of the rifle–that suggest there was more to it than just Oswald.
And yet certain supporters of the belief Oswald acted alone flip out whenever this evidence–official evidence–is presented in an unbiased manner. Shaw–Connally’s doctor, a man trusted completely by one of the victims of the shooting–never believed the single-bullet theory and ALWAYS, from day one until the end of his days, believed the bullet striking Connally had not struck anything prior to striking Connally. This is an historical fact, and those presuming Oswald’s sole guilt would be wise to admit it.
Can you document that Shaw did not believe in the SBT?
Yes, of course, it can be documented that Shaw didn’t believe the SBT. Do a little research. will ya?
When first interviewed about Connally’s wounds, he talked about Connally being wounded by a separate shot from the one that hit Kennedy. This proves that he didn’t believe the wound suggested the bullet had first hit Kennedy. While he seemed somewhat agreeable to the SBT in his WC testimony, moreover, his subsequent statements were consistent in that he always claimed he believed the bullet striking Connally had not first hit Kennedy, and that the pristine condition of CE 399 suggested it was not the bullet striking Connally.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0076b.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8XFx4kOvI0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8PVffA2EGg
Pat,
“And yet certain supporters of the belief Oswald acted alone flip out whenever this evidence–official evidence–is presented in an unbiased manner. Shaw–Connally’s doctor, a man trusted completely by one of the victims of the shooting–never believed the single-bullet theory and ALWAYS, from day one until the end of his days, believed the bullet striking Connally had not struck anything prior to striking Connally. This is an historical fact, and those presuming Oswald’s sole guilt would be wise to admit it.”
How about admitting that Dr. Shaw repeatedly said that he wasn’t a ballistics expert? He said, “I believe that my information about ballistics is just that of an average layman, no more.”
However, I just noticed that Dr. Shaw also said this.
QUOTE
Specter: As to the wound on the back of Governor Connally, was there any indication that the bullet was tumbling prior to the time it struck him?
Shaw: I would only have to say that I’m not a ballistics expert, but the wound on his chest was not a single puncture wound, it was long enough so that there might have been some tumbling.
Specter: You mean the wound on his back?
Shaw: The wound on his back –- yes, it was long enough so that there might have been some tumbling. In other words, it was not a spherical puncture wound.
UNQUOTE
Read the rest of his comment here:
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=13905
Anyway, Pat, it’s not just a matter of the size or shape of Connally’s back wound. The other evidence needs to be considered at the same time. Specter told LIFE that a primary factor in coming up with the SBT was answering the question “If the bullet that exited JFK’s throat didn’t hit Connally, where did it go?” An M-C bullet wouldn’t been traveling at only a slightly reduced speed, so it didn’t just fall out of the air. Is the popular CT alternative of two bullets from two directions hitting JFK, lodging in his neck and being retrieved really plausible? Not to me.
“If the bullet that exited JFK’s throat didn’t hit Connally, where did it go?”~Jean Davison
The question is predicated on the proposition that “the bullet exited JFK’s throat”; which is not a proven fact, but pure conjecture.
Further this conjecture is predicated on the conjecture that the bullet that hit Kennedy in the back is the bullet proposed to have exited the throat, and that wound was found to be a shallow wound no deeper than the length of the small finger to the first knuckle.
As per the comment about the bullet tumbling, he also remarked that a bullet entering at an angle because of its original trajectory would create an ovid wound as well.
\\][//
Yes Jean as to the rest of Shaw’s comment:
Mr. SPECTOR: So, would you say in net that there may have been some tumbling occasioned by it having passed trough another body or perhaps might have been occasioned by the angle of entry.
Dr. SHAW: Yes, either would have explained the entry wound.
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=13905
\\][//
It is obvious that Shaw had not formulated a position on the SBT by April, 1964. His initial press conference was remarkable for his emphasis that ” only one bullet” caused all of Connolly’s wounds.
The 1988 interviews took place 25 years after the assassination. His criticism of the SBT was not based on any medical findings, but on his mistaken belief thet the 6.5mm Carcano round could not cause that damage it did and remain “pristine”( which it wasn’t)- a belief totally disproved by experimental studies by Lattimer and others; also belied by the history of the round being stable enough for hunting elephants .
His later belief that the round did not go through JFK was based on his erroneous belief of the positions of JFK and Connolly, not on any medical aspects of the case. Shaw in part based that conclusion on the belief that Connolly did not show any reaction until frame 236 of the Zapruder film, which is clearly in error.
None of his objection that he publically stated years later were based on any aspect of the case in which he was a direct participant. The earliest reports from Shaw on Nov. 22( written and on tape) confirm that Connolly’s wounds were entirely consistant with the SBT.
“The earliest reports from Shaw on Nov. 22( written and on tape) confirm that Connolly’s wounds were entirely consistant with the SBT.”
Shaw and the others felt it could have been the result of on bullet, but that was before they saw the bullet in question, CE399. After seeing the bullet that was in evidence they all changed their minds.
I am not going to cite the record to you anymore Photon; you don’t pay any attention to it anyway, you just keep up your fantasy banter as if you never read the record.
\\][//
The record states that Shaw had an inaccurate perception of how stable the 6.5 mm Carcano actually was. His objection to the SBT was entirely based on ignorance of that stability; it had nothing to do with his medical conclusions based on his personal experience.As he himself said that he was no expert in ballistics everything outside of his operative report is based on hearsay and speculation. Even Dr. Gregory thought that the linear wound was at least 2cm in size.
Willy,
““If the bullet that exited JFK’s throat didn’t hit Connally, where did it go?”~Jean Davison
The question is predicated on the proposition that “the bullet exited JFK’s throat”; which is not a proven fact, but pure conjecture.”
No, two underpowered bullets hitting JFK’s throat from opposite directions is pure conjecture. An M-C bullet exiting JFK’s throat is a reasonable inference based on the evidence that actually exists.
“No, two underpowered bullets hitting JFK’s throat from opposite directions is pure conjecture. An M-C bullet exiting JFK’s throat is a reasonable inference based on the evidence that actually exists.”~Jean Davison
I did NOT postulate “two underpowered bullets hitting JFK’s throat from opposite directions.”
I DID postulated that the bullet that hit Kennedy in the back may have been a less powerful round, or may have been slowed by obstructions, such as leaves, or perhaps striking a glancing blow on a limb…whatever.
>The FACT is that Kennedy’s back wound was shallow, less than 2 inches deep.
A second fact is the throat wound had the appearance of an entry wound, to the doctors that saw it before the incision.
Most importantly Jean, we do not have to prove that Magic Bullet is not true. You and your WC apologist comrades have to prove it is true. This is common jurisprudence, which is based on all common and rational reason.
There is NO PROOF a bullet transited Kennedy from the back wound and out the throat. PERIOD.
\\][//
In 1973 a pathology professor, John Nichols, MD, Ph.D., first pointed out that a straight line drawn between the supposed entrance wound in JFK’s back and the point of exit in the throat unavoidably passes directly through the hard bone of the spine (termed the “vertebral body” in anatomy textbooks).
The reason is simple: Oswald’s alleged position was not only above and behind Kennedy, but also to his right – 9 degrees, 21 minutes to the right by Nichols’ calculations. That means the bullet coursed leftward by slightly less than 10 degrees as it traversed Kennedy’s chest. and to the right of Kennedy. Oswald’s alleged position was measured at about 17 degrees above JFK at the moment of the back shot.
Had the bullet followed a strait line, its passage through the vertebra would have badly shattered the vertebra and mutilated the bullet, and the one in evidence is virtually undamaged.
See: Nichols, John. Assassination of President Kennedy. The Practitioner, vol. 211(265):625-33, November, 1973.
\\][//
JEAN: Specter told LIFE that a primary factor in coming up with the SBT was answering the question “If the bullet that exited JFK’s throat didn’t hit Connally, where did it go?” An M-C bullet wouldn’t been traveling at only a slightly reduced speed, so it didn’t just fall out of the air.
PAT: That’s the problem right there, Jean. And you missed it entirely. There was no scientific reason to believe an M-C bullet created the wound. Specter had hit a dead end. He knew, based on Olivier’s tests, that he would either have to tell the commission the throat wound was not created by an M-C bullet traveling at normal velocity, or lie. He chose to lie. 1. He pretended the bullet hit Kennedy at the base of the neck. 2. He pretended this bullet lost 1500 fps or so while traveling through Connally’s chest, even though the tests indicated it would have lost a bit more than 400 fps.
Mr. SPECTER. Now looking at that bullet, Exhibit 399, Doctor Humes, could that bullet have gone through or been any part of the fragment passing through President Kennedy’s head in Exhibit No. 388?
Commander HUMES. I do not believe so, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. And could that missile have made the wound on Governor Connally’s right wrist?
Commander HUMES. I think that that is most unlikely … The reason I believe it most unlikely that this missile could have inflicted either of these wounds is that this missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to be intact, and I do not understand how it could possibly have left fragments in either of these locations.
Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Humes, under your opinion which you have just given us, what effect, if any, would that have on whether this bullet, 399, could have been the one to lodge in Governor Connally’s thigh?
Commander HUMES. I think that extremely unlikely. The reports, again Exhibit 392 from Parkland, tell of an entrance wound on the lower midthigh of the Governor, and X-rays taken there are described as showing metallic fragments in the bone, which apparently by this report were not removed and are still present in Governor Connally’s thigh. I can’t conceive of where they came from this missile.
Representative FORD. The missile identified as Exhibit 399.
Commander HUMES. 399, sir.
. . . . . . . . . .
Mr. SPECTER. And could it [CE 399] have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally’s right wrist?
Colonel FINCK. No; for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist.
. . . . . . . . . .
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Frazier, is it possible for the fragments identified in Commission Exhibit 840 to have come from the whole bullet heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 399?
Mr. FRAZIER. I would say that based on weight it would be highly improbable that that much weight could have come from the base of that bullet since its present weight is–its weight when I first received it was 158.6 grains.
Mr. SPECTER. Referring now to 399.
Mr. FRAZIER. Exhibit 399, and its original normal weight would be 160 to 161 grains, and those three metal fragments had a total of 2.1 grains as I recall–2.3 grains. So it is possible but not likely since there is only a very small part of the core of the bullet 399 missing.
. . . . . . . . . .
Mr. SPECTER: What is your opinion as to whether bullet 399 could have inflicted all of the wounds on the Governor, then, without respect at this point to the wound of the President’s neck?
Dr. SHAW. I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds as being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet. (Discussion off the record.)
Dr. Shaw’s testimony is interrupted at this point, and “off the record” discussions take place. Later…
Dr. SHAW: All right. As far as the wounds of the chest are concerned, I feel that this bullet could have inflicted those wounds. But the examination of the wrist both by X-ray and at the time of surgery showed some fragments of metal that make it difficult to believe that the same missle could have caused these two wounds. There seems to be more that three grains of metal missing as far as the–I mean in the wrist.
Mr. SPECTOR: Does that bullet appear to you to have any of its metal flaked off?
Dr. SHAW: I have been told that the one point on the nose of this bullet that is deformed was cut off for purposes of examination. With that information, I would have to say that this bullet has lost literally none of its substance.
Dr. SHAW: All right. As far as the wounds of the chest are concerned, I feel that this bullet could have inflicted those wounds. But the examination of the wrist both by X-ray and at the time of surgery showed some fragments of metal that make it difficult to believe that the same missile could have caused these two wounds. There seems to be more that three grains of metal missing as far as the – I mean in the wrist.
. . . .
http://www.jfk-info.com/fragment.htm
\\][//
369) Dr. Robert Shaw’s operative record characterizes the posterior
wound of entrance as follows
It was found that the wound of entrance was just lateral to
the right scapula close [to] the axilla yet had passed through
the latysmus [latissimus] dorsi muscle * * * the wound of
entrance was approximately three centimeters in its longest
diameter * * * (58)
(370) A report on a committee interview with Dr. Shaw included
the following :
The rear entrance wound was not 3 centimeters [in diameter]
as indicated in one of the operative notes. It was a
puncture-type wound, as if a bullet had struck the body at a
slight declination [i .e ., not at a right angle] . The wound was
actually approximately 1.5 centimeters in diameter. The
ragged edges of the wound were surgically cut away, effectively
enlarging it to approximately 3 centimeters. (59)
[…]
Mr. Specter: When you started to comment about it not being possible, was that in reference to the existing mass and shape of bullet 399?
Dr. Shaw: I thought you were referring directly to the bullet shown as Exhibit 399.
Mr. Specter: What is your opinion as to whether bullet 399 could have inflicted all the wounds on the Governor then, without respect at this point to the wound of the President’s neck?
Dr. Shaw: I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds as being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet. (4H114)
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M53b_Connally.pdf
\\][//
Part of the problem with interpreting Dr. Shaw’s testimony for the HSCA is that we have no record of it. What we have are the paraphrased comments of the interviewer, Dr. Petty. It is curious that Dr. Petty mentioned that Many of Dr. Shaw’s answers were somewhat ” stereotype(d)”- due to frequent interviews on the subject. After 14 years the 1.5 cm wound dimension became part of his memory, probably because his Warren testimony was quoted back to him when ever he was interviewed.At any rate, there is no actual record of his interview and as such we have no idea if this wound issue was ever dealt with more than a brief mention. But of course the “stereotype” comment should bring up questions about the accuracy of the interview-despite Dr. Petty’s excellent reputation.
My personal opinion is that in his Warren testimony Dr. Shaw took strides to explain as easily as possible to layman what the medical findings were. He tried to use terminology that the lawyers on the committee could understand without being confused. At that time few outside of the medical and scientific communities knew or used the metric system. Probably nobody on the committee knew exactly how large a centimeter was, or probably even how to pronounce it. As such, I believe it was Dr. Shaw’s intention to describe the wound in inches, but in the stress of the interview forgot to use the term. 3 cm is approximately 1.5 inches ( actually 1.2, but close enough for the approximation description that Dr Shaw was trying to make.). Unfortunately nobody during the interview called him on it, nor requested any clarification. Had they this entire issue may have been cleared up, instead of being a factoid floating without independent confirmation.
“Probably nobody on the committee knew exactly how large a centimeter was, or probably even how to pronounce it.” ~Photon
Seriously Photon? Or is your latest comment a form of written glossolalia?
Going to these drastic lengths in grasping at straws to rebuke the clear public record is extraordinary even for you.
\\][//
PHOTON wrote. on April 4: “How reliable are the measurements of bullet holes in clothing that has been laundered and pressed, particularly when the examiner ( Frazier) stated that the bullet holes had been altered by the process enough to make exit and entrance conclusions impossible?
Frazier himself said that the folds and positioning of the clothes on Connolly could affect the appearance of the bullet holes.”
Photon doesn’t tell you what Frazier was actually talking about. He apparently hopes you will assume those impossible conclusions also relate to the size of the holes.
In fact, Frazier was talking about how pressing the material flattened it out so that the fibers along the edges no longer pointed in the direction the bullet was going.
He never said this affected the size of the holes.
He did say the shirt material was weak to begin with and tore more readily than stronger material. As for folds, they can make holes larger, not smaller than they would have been without folds.
Regarding mohair (Connally’s jacket material): it shrinks much less than regular wool because it has no scales, but pressing can stretch it.
If anyone wants to see clear photos of Connally’s clothing from their exhibit in 2013, go here:
http://news.yahoo.com/exhibit-show-connallys-clothing-jfk-shot-210915107.html
Since Photon sticks to his guns even twisting the case of a poor woman in India subject to wound dissection, which I thought it would be comparatively shocking in regard with a U.S. sitting president, I am forced to state that a bunch of cases are to be found in the forensic literature, for instance, in Dissecting Death: Secrets of a Medical Examiner (Broadway Books, 2006), by Dr. Frederick Zugibe, an ordinary chief medical examiner at Rockland County, New York. Through the JAMA volumes (Journal of the American Medical Association), we can trace wound dissections as standard procedure, as any forensic manual clearly indicates, like http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1975428-overview#aw2aab6c10. Just related to the JFK case, see: Confusing exit gunshot wound at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11924709
Actually your Medscape article makes no mention of dissecting out bullet wounds-did you read it?
I do want to thank you for finding the two articles that describe cases of dissecting out bullet wounds. You have demonstrated that the procedures were what in medical terms are described as “reportable cases”- described in case reports . Case reports are unusual presentations of medical issues,findings, outcomes and the procedures associated. The fact that these cases of bullet wound dissection were so unusual as to rise to the level of case reports confirms the fact that the procedure was unusual and required only in special cases.
I understand that you are unfamiliar with medical literature and what tends to get published and what does not, but by having to resort to articles describing a procedure so unusual it merits a couple of case reports you have proven my position.
Having the body of a U.S. sitting president killed by gun wounds and abstaining from dissecting them is simply outrageous, particularly if among the wounds there is one in the back and another one in the throat, which only by dissection could be established as entry-exit wounds or not. Ford´s forgery in the WC couldn´t cover it up.
The Magic Bullet story is not a viable option. There is not a single bit of evidence to back it up. In fact all of the evidence at hand proves that it is false. It is as absurd as it sounds upon first reflection.
There is no legitimate chain of custody for CE#399.
There is no legitimate chain of custody for any of the bullets or shell husks said to be found in the TBDB so-called “snipers nest”
There is no proven path of a bullet passing through JFK’s shallow back wound and exiting what was clearly an entrance wound in his throat.
There is only one viable answer, CE#399 was a planted prop. The ‘snipers-nest’ was a stage created by the conspirators. Oswald was a patsy, just as he claimed. President Kennedy was killed in a coup d’etat perpetrated by the National Security State itself.
\\][//
My quick summation above is brief, and I am fully aware that I did not link my final conclusion directly to what came before. It would take article length comments to detail all of the issues already addressed by the parties in this current discussion.
I have come to the conclusion of a coup d’etat from the whole array of issues put forth here. It is my firm opinion at this point. After all it has been 50 plus years since the event, and I have spent most of my life studying this event, and it’s consequences.
This is hardly a premature judgement on my part.
\\][//
“What was clearly an entrance wound in the throat”.
Not a single forensic pathologist familiar with the case agrees with that statement
None. How could these bona fide experts who have done thousands of autopsies be wrong-and you right?
For it to be an entrance wound the shooter would have to have been on the floor of the limo.
Something that I have always wondered. Why would a conspiracy plant a bullet with so little damage that it would immediately generate doubts about its authenticity? Why would they go through all of the trouble to plant a round that many experts would consider too intact to be capable of all of the wounds? Even the Edgewood wrist cadaver shots seemed to imply that the round was too undamaged.
The inherent stability of the 6.5 mm round was not generally known at the time. You neglect to mention that Shaw agreed with the possibility of the SBT, but he objected to #399 being the cause because he was not familiar with the ballistic characteristics of the 6.5 mm round. Why plant a round that would obfuscate the SBT-at least until common misconceptions were overturned months later?
Photon,
Not a single forensic pathologist at the autopsy saw the throat wound in it’s original condition.
All the Parkland doctors who viewed it considered the throat wound an entry and said so that day.
\\][//
The key is still the non-dissected back wound. In 1993, for instance, Posner argued in favor of the WC Report before a congressional subcommittee by claiming he had interviewed JFK autopsy doctors Humes and Boswell, who now placed that wound about 4 inches higher than stated in the autopsy report.
Posner promised a tape of the interviews, but it was a never-produced tape, like the one of Oswald´s voice in Mexico City. Dr. Gary Aguilar called Humes and Boswell and both denied having told Posner about that change. Boswell even said he had never given an interview to Posner.
The episode clearly illustrates how the Connally´s wounds can be explained without dissecting JFK´s first.
The central point on the Magic Bullet cannot be lost sight of; that is that the chain of custody was broken, and the bullet found at Parkland was certainly not the Carcano round that eventually surfaced as CE399.
While the discussions on the impossibility of this bullet to have actually exited Kennedy’s throat are added detail, they are still unnecessary to prove the case that the Magic Bullet is a manufactured plant.
\\][//
PRESS CONFERENCE PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL DALLAS, TEXAS NOVEMBER 22, 1963 @ 2:16 P.M. CST AT THE WHITE HOUSE WITH WAYNE HAWKS
QUESTION-
Where was the entrance wound?
DR. MALCOM PERRY-
There was an entrance wound in the neck. As regards the one on the head, I cannot say.
QUESTION-
Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him?
DR. MALCOM PERRY-
It appeared to be coming at him.
QUESTION-
And the one behind?
DR. MALCOM PERRY-
The nature of the wound defies the ability to describe whether it went through it from either side. I cannot tell you that. Can you, Dr. Clark?
DR. KEMP CLARK-
The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue.
QUESTION-
That was the immediate cause of death — the head wound?
DR. KEMP CLARK-
I assume so, yes.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/press.htm
\\][//
It is time to address the Chain of Custody issues. I will begin with this reminder:
Crime Scene Protocol 1963
It was standard practice and mandated by FBI protocol in 1963 (up until the 1980s) to mark a shell or hull with a unique mark for chains of custody.
“Police Markings”
See:
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Handbook of Forensic Science 100 (rev. ed. 1984); C. O’Hara, Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation 79-84 (5th ed. 1980).”
http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1308&context=faculty_publications
And open with:
“The CE 399 we know was not found at Parkland. And that ends this argument.
Everything else—the computer simulations, the drawings etc.-is irrelevant. As Shakespeare said, it is sound and fury signifying nothing. At the time of the assassination, CE 399 as we know it today, did not exist.”~Jim DiEugenio
http://www.ctka.net/2010/journeyCE399.html
\\][//
Another highly detailed exposition on the lack of chains of evidence can be found in the following:
How the Warren Commission Covered Up JFK’s Murder
By Bill Simpich
[…]
Conclusion
We have rebutted the central ten points used by the Warren Commission as the heart of its case. We have identified a large amount of possible evidence tampering and alteration. I believe that a reasonable judge would come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not met the basic test required for a case to go to a jury: Would a reasonable juror be able to make a finding that Oswald was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
I think the prosecution would be unable to make any basic case. We have looked at the primary evidence identified by the Warren Commission. We haven’t blinked. If you have questions, go to maryferrell.org and take your own independent look at the facts, attend the Dallas conference hosted by JFK Lancer on November 21-22, or take citizen action at aarclibrary.org.
After reviewing this evidence, I think you will agree that there’s no way that a reasonable case can be made against Oswald for the murder of either JFK or Officer Tippit.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-the-Warren-Commission-by-Bill-Simpich-Assassination_Evidence_JFK_JFK-Assassination-141119-717.html
\\][//
I was 11 yrs. Old on 22 Nov, 1963. Hardly a day goes by that I’m not haunted by it. The official version and what really happened and our lack of tangible outrage probably bring us to the reason we are Treated like Chumps by our so called legitimate Government.. However, the day will come when those involved will have no more places to Hide !
“The truth about this was provided by the Army’s and the Commission’s top expert who when he told the truth was dropped like a hot iron. Dr. Charles Dolce said the official theorizing about that wrist wound was absolutely impossible. He was asked to return to the Army installation where he did his work, the Edgewood arsenal of the Army’s Aberdeen, Maryland Proving Grounds, and perform tests to prove his point. He did. He photographed the damaged bones and the bullets. Every one of those bullets was severely damaged, not left without a scratch as in the official mythology. The Commission then ignored him and those tests because they proved the single bullet theory’s impossible.”
[…]
“In the same fashion, the FBI data indicated that it had tested three bits of metal from Connally’s wrist at Oak Ridge National Laboratories in 1964, two weighing 2.3 milligrams each and another weighing 1.52 milligrams. The container *Guinn got, which he said came with assurances from Archives that this was all the metal from Connally’s wrist in its possession, had two other pieces, one weighing 16.4 milligrams and the other 1.3 milligrams.” (This adds up to 21.52 milligrams)
[* Dr. Vincent P. Guinn]
Hosty Chapter 8.doc
jfk.hood.edu/Collection/…/Hosty/Hosty%20Chapter%208.doc
\\][//
when it comes to legal principles, Photon has no mass. 🙂 I think it would be interesting and even fun if we all joined a virtual room where we could discuss/debate in real time….but of course that would require Photon to reveal his or her true identity.
Of course not. Today is Good Friday.
How about after you rise from the dead on Monday then?
I second Larry’s proposal. Although all we really need to do is for people to provide photos and their real name and a genuine email address.
You wouldn’t object to that would you, Albury?
There is no Mass on Good Friday.
Further to WCD 298:
The distance of the JFK head shot seen in the Zapruder film at z313 is 265 feet from the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD, known as the Sniper’s Nest.
The distance of the JFK head shot reported by the FBI in WCD 298 is 307 feet from the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD.
Jean
You say there is no viable alternative to the SBT? How about this one?
Look up Warren Commission Document 298 in the Warren Commission Report. This was a report given to the Warren Commission on Jan. 20, 1964 from J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI. It came complete with a Visual Aid Brochure, showing some lovely photos of the model of Dealey Plaza the FBI had constructed. I highly recommend Page 26 of the visual aid brochure. They can be viewed at this website: https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/docset/getList.do?docSetId=1008&page=2&sortBy=title
At the time this report was written, the FBI still believed in three shots and three hit; first shot hits JFK in the back, second shot hits Connally in the back, third shot hits JFK in the head. Where the throat wound on JFK came from was uncertain, although it was believed by some that a bullet fragment from the head shot had exited via the throat.
While the fact the FBI’s beliefs differed immensely from Specter’s SBT is remarkable in itself, it is the locations the FBI chose for the three hits that is most remarkable.
As seen in the FBI photos, the site they chose for the first hit (JFK back) was just before the limo passed the Stemmons Freeway sign.
The site the FBI chose for the second hit (Connally back) was within three feet of the position the limo is seen occupying in the Zapruder film at frame z313, in which the explosive JFK head shot is seen.
The site the FBI chose for the third hit is down by the pergola steps, FORTY-FIVE FEET FURTHER DOWN ELM ST. FROM WHERE JFK IS SHOWN TO BE SHOT IN THE HEAD IN THE ZAPRUDER FILM.
Here is a question. If the FBI had access to and viewed the Zapruder film, how could they be so grossly mistaken about the location of the fatal head shot?
Very good questions Bob. Yet to be answered by Jean or Photon I believe.
Because the report was a rushed job completed two weeks after JFK’s funeral under pressure to put out something. It got the big picture right, not the details. Apparently it was completed without knowledge of the autopsy results, the nature of Connolly ‘s wounds or even JFK’s throat wound. To consider it anything but an incomplete preliminary report completed without all of the facts is to ignore history.
Hi Photon
Except that we are talking about firearms and ballistics experts here.
As part of my job I have contracted experts on a variety of issues. They can produce an expert report on anything in 2 weeks. They can even produce an expert report in 2 days if required.
You are a consultant, Photon, can you produce an expert report in two weeks? Of course you can.
The FBI’s report contradicts the autopsy and Connally’s wounds and the SBT. The WC had months afterwards to get the FBI to produce another report that wasn’t ‘rushed’. Why didn’t they?
The FBI report does not contradict the autopsy.It doesn’t even address the autopsy. You accept a report prepared in 2 weeks with insufficient information over a comprehensive report from multiple sources over months? The FBI report was superficial, inaccurate and omitted very important information-including any discussion of JFK’ s back and throat wound. Is there any wonder why the Commision didn’t want another FBI report?
How long did it take to investigate the Boston bombing case? The Tate-LaBianca murders?Maybe in Australia you can get an expert report in two weeks, but on what subject? It is virtually impossible to get one in this country on any subject. Legal matters are even more involved.
Now Photon, the POTUS had just been murdered in broad daylight, I think the FBI would have prioritised their report into the shot sequence as the first order of the day. They even did up a natty little diorama in that time.
As Bob has pointed out the FBI had access to the Zapruder film in those 2 weeks but the shot sequence they have come up with disproves Zapruder, disproves the SBT and the autopsy findings.
Are you saying that the WC knew the FBI report to be superficial and inaccurate and contradictory of the WC’s own findings. But they published it anyway because the WC didn’t want to go back and ask the FBI to fix its mistakes? Are you really going to maintain that?
So first the report was just rushed and the FBI didn’t have access to all the information and got it wrong. Now you are saying that even if the FBI did have time to review all the evidence they wouldn’t have come up with something that supports the WC’s findings because the Bureau is incompetent?
I have to ask you, in a time of national emergency you would not be able to produce a report in your field or field(s) of expertise in 2 weeks?
If that’s the case, then I’m sorry Photon but I don’t think I would be able to contract you to do any work for me. 🙁
And I doubt your CIA clients would be happy with that sort of response time either.
So, let’s make a comparison here, my friend.
You’re willing to forgive the FBI a few “minor” mistakes in locating the fatal head shot some 42 feet further down Elm St. from where it actually occurred, despite the fact the FBI viewed the Zapruder film and anyone with even one eye could see they were nowhere close to the right location, because the FBI was under pressure, yet you cannot for one second consider Dr. Shaw was under considerable duress, following the operation on Gov. Connally, and might accidentally have written 3 cm. when he meant to write 1.5 cm.?
The FBI was making a rushed report of a crime scene with incomplete information, pressure from above and little mention of one of the victims of the crime.
Dr. Shaw measured an entrance wound. He prepared an operative report, as he had done thousands of times. What pressure? Shaw was one of the most respected academic thoracic surgeons at the time.He didn’t make operative report errors.
How can you compare the two?
They tend to just ignore the questions they have no answers to.
Hi Bob – thanks for your help elsewhere btw. I really appreciate it.
Yes, they do tend to ignore questions they can’t answer. I have quite a few outstanding ones for Photon (including why hasn’t he read Jeff’s book yet).
🙂
I post answers just as fast as I can-as above .
I can’t help it if you can’t accept them.
Please point out any factual errors that I have made in my responses.
Photon, I’m so glad you asked me that question. I’m still waiting to hear you explain how Oswald knew the location of Bill Shelley at the time of the shooting.
Remember our discussion a while back on PM? If you don’t here’s the link. I’m also still waiting for your evidence that Duncan MacRae disproved this months ago.
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/resource/crowdsourcing-jfk-dieugenio-on-the-mysterious-david-ferrie/#comments
There’s also a nice little GIF over at Ed Forum by Stan Dane showing PM doing something with his hands. What do you think that is?
PS Re-Jeff’s book – if you read it, it will be like an early Christmas present for me. You are going to get me something, right?
I asked for a viable solution most CTs could agree on, Bob. The FBI 3-hit version surely isn’t that.
“The site the FBI chose for the third hit is down by the pergola steps, FORTY-FIVE FEET FURTHER DOWN ELM ST. FROM WHERE JFK IS SHOWN TO BE SHOT IN THE HEAD IN THE ZAPRUDER FILM.
Here is a question. If the FBI had access to and viewed the Zapruder film, how could they be so grossly mistaken about the location of the fatal head shot?”
But the third hit *was* “down by the pergola steps.” Compare this view…:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=139909
…with where the FBI put the third shot:
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10699&relPageId=24
Looks pretty close to me. I don’t think the FBI misread the Z film there but simply got the distance wrong (307 feet):
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10699&relPageId=25
Jean
Let us be serious here. The shot at z313 is 265 feet from the Sniper’s Nest and is nowhere near the steps of the pergola. The BI chose a location for the fatal head shot that shows the limo almost at the steps, a full 42 feet further down Elm St. from z313.
If it was a simple matter of the measurement being wrong, that being 307 feet, I could follow your argument. However, the FBI model clearly shows the limo to not be in the position at z313 when the fatal head shot occurred.
If you went to Dealey Plaza and located the spot the BI chose for the head shot, you could measure from there to the Sniper’s nest and find it is still 307 feet.
Therefore, IF the FBI viewed the Zapruder film in 1963, which I am certain they did, certain conclusions can be drawn, but only one can be true:
1. The Z film has been altered, and the fatal head shot really did occur way down by the pergola steps, and not at the z313 position. Possible reasons for this may include the fact that a shooter on the 6th floor might not have had a clear shot at JFK, with the SS agents standing on the follow up car in the way. This, of course, suggests a final shot from the front.
2. The Zapruder film is unaltered, but was never intended to be shown to the public, and the FBI lied about the location of the fatal head shot. Possible reasons for this may include that the shots were too close together to allow adequate recycling and aiming for a lone gunman with a bolt action rifle. If the limo was travelling at 10 mph, it can also be said it was moving 14.7 feet per second. Therefore, 42/14.7 = 2.86 seconds; just over the amount of time estimated by the FBI as required to effectively cycle and aim a 6.5mm Carcano bolt action rifle.
Of course, the YouTube video of 6 shots from a Carcano in 5.1 seconds completely destroys that assumption
Taking careful aim and hitting a target is not quite the same thing as simply getting off 6 shots in 5.1 seconds.
6 hits out of 6 shots on 10 inch target at 120 yards. Thanks for confirming the validity of the session.It can be done.
“1. The Z film has been altered”~Bob Prudhomme
Not possible.
See:
http://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/
\\][//
Bob,
“Let us be serious here. The shot at z313 is 265 feet from the Sniper’s Nest and is nowhere near the steps of the pergola.”
You may be right, but the fatal shot looks fairly “near the steps” to me:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/mm2.jpg
Of course your “near” may be different.
“IF the FBI viewed the Zapruder film in 1963, which I am certain they did, certain conclusions can be drawn, but only one can be true:
1. The Z film has been altered, and the fatal head shot really did occur way down by the pergola steps, and not at the z313 position.
[….]
2. The Zapruder film is unaltered, but was never intended to be shown to the public, and the FBI lied about the location of the fatal head shot….”
I think this is what is known as a “false dilemma.” Those aren’t the only two possible explanations.
After the limo passed the lamppost in the Z270s there’s nothing in the Z film background to pinpoint the limo’s location. I don’t know how they could determine the exact spot on the street from watching the Z film alone.
The third possibility is, they goofed. Why is that option so seldom considered, I wonder?
Nice try, Jean but, there are quite a number of methods that were available to anyone in the FBI, with any analytical skills whatsoever, to allow them to pinpoint the precise location of the limo at z313.
If they were unable to pinpoint the precise location of the fatal head shot, how did they come up with the distance, from JFK’s head to the Sniper’s Nest on the 6th floor, of 307 feet?
Do you think they just made the number up?
Bob,
“If they were unable to pinpoint the precise location of the fatal head shot, how did they come up with the distance, from JFK’s head to the Sniper’s Nest on the 6th floor, of 307 feet?
Do you think they just made the number up?”
No. Do you think FBI agents are infallible? Are their measurements always either accurate or “made up”?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”~Voltaire
\\][//
” but of course this is the best of all possible worlds”-Voltaire
“We must all tend our garden.” – Voltaire.
But who is buried in the garden? And why is the brain missing?
Photon,
“…this is the best of all possible worlds” is Leibniz, not Voltaire. You should remember that from our college seminars. I’m hurt.
so now we know that Photon’s expertise does not extend to the law or Literature….
Obviously neither of these learned gentleman has read “Candide”.
The phrase “the best of all possible worlds” was coined by the German polymath Gottfried Leibniz in his 1710 work Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l’homme et l’origine du mal
Voltaire, a critic of this idea, used the concept in his story Candide, a satire on how this idea of Leibniz would actually work out in the real world of human beings.
Bottom line, it is original as a quote of Leibniz.
\\][//
By that standard, the “ask not what your country…” quote frm JFK’s inaugural should be credited to George St. John ( and others) and the RFK line ” I dream of things that never were…” should be credited to G.B. Shaw.
Voltaire’s satire on Leibniz’ views “Candide” was a popular book in Europe and was probably the period’s best seller. It was banned as sacreligious in many areas, increasing its appeal . It popularized the “best of all possible worlds” quote much more broadly and to individuals with no grasp of philosophy.
But much more interesting is the ignorance of the book itself by the posters, including an attorney. It is generally considered one of the classics of Western literature.
You simply cannot admit to even the most blatant of mistakes can you Photon?
Your lack of sincerity is such a bore.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
April 4, 2015 at 10:23 am
You simply cannot admit to even the most blatant of mistakes can you Photon?
Your lack of sincerity is such a bore.
\\][//
Gee Willy, I experienced the same with you and your false statement about NSAM 263. So what gives here?
Photon, what’s obvious is where your sympathies lie, against the scientific optimist Leibniz and with the cynical humanist Voltaire. JFKFACTS is not for you. You are more suited for JFKFeelings or JFKSneers.
And Candide is not a BOOK. It’s a short story or a pamphlet; a hilarious one, but still…
And we have all read it, in less than an hour when we were adolescents. The disasters that met Pangloss (Leibniz) and Candide (any snotty teenager) are reminiscent of what Washington observed about the nation that slaughtered the brave, energetic, competent, idealistic John Kennedy, “I would not be surprised by ANY American disaster;” i.e….any cowardly, lazy, doofus American gangster calamity.
There IS a connection between GW von Leibniz, the co-inventor of calculus, and Kennedy. GWL was the math and philosophy father of Bertrand Russell, though 200 years separated them. When the War Con came out 9/64, BR was the first to note, “Hey, if it was all a lone nut, then what’s the need for all this secrecy, and the documents hidden away for 75 years?!”
I see it took you a couple of days to look up “Candide”.
If you can read it in under an hour You must have the “Classics Comics” version.
It has about 30 chapters.
Photon,
Remember what we used to say back in the construction days: “You want it done fast or do you want it done RIGHT?”
Photon
April 1, 2015 at 9:42 pm
Only a conspiracy advocate would consider the opinions recorded nearly 15 years after an event to be superior to written documents dictated 15 minutes after the event.
———————————————————————-
You are hilarious, Photon. Lone Nuts cannot consider this as believable evidence, yet they flaunt photos of an octogenarian Clint Hill attempting to show where JFK’s head wound was located as absolute Gospel.
Did Clint Hill dictate an operative report on Nov. 22?
If not your comment has no relevance to the current discussion.
Photon
From Clint Hill’s report, dated Nov. 30, 1963:
“As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President’s head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lieing in the seat.”
From the Warren Commission testimony of Clint Hill, SA, Secret Service:
“Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy’s condition on arrival at the hospital?
Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.”
Is that relevant enough for you?
re these wounds, described by Clint Hill, visible on the Back of Head autopsy photo of JFK?
Because the Magic Bullet thesis is absurd, any who defend it must resort to absurd argumentation in support of the absurd allegation.
\\][//
Well at least we don’t have to misrepresent the positions of JFK and Connoly at the time of the shot.
We don’t have to account for a bullet that disappears in midair.
We don’t have to explain the simultaneous actions of JFK and Connolly upon being hit.
We don’t have to explain how Connolly was hit in the back when every shot that exhibited the same path would have to have hit JFK first.
We don’t have to explain the oblong wound on Connolly’s back.
Photon, you just resorted to absurd argumentation in support of the absurd allegation yet one more time.
You do indeed have to explain every one of those points, and you have not.
Your assertion that we “misrepresent the positions of JFK and Connally at the time of the shot.” is utter hogwash. Kennedy was shot just as the he was disappearing behind the sign.
In early 1967, Life released a statement that four frames of the camera original (208–211) had been >accidentally< destroyed, and the adjacent frames damaged, by a Life photo lab technician on November 23, 1963.
These frames are just prior to Kennedy going behind the sign. I propose that these frames show Kennedy’s first reaction to the shot to his throat. Therefore, Connally could not possibly be reacting to a hit from that bullet.
You certainly do have to account for a bullet that disappears in midair.
You do have to explain why you insist "the simultaneous actions of JFK and Connolly upon being hit," because this is clearly not the case.
"We don’t have to explain how Connolly was hit in the back when every shot that exhibited the same path would have to have hit JFK first."
Yes you do, because Kennedy was shot in the throat from the front. And you cannot prove the trajectory of the bullet that hit Connally in the back. It most certainly was not from the 6th floor of the TBDB.
You do have to prove the oblong wound on Connally’s back was caused by any more than the angle of the trajectory. And you have to accept that it was only 1.5 cm – because that is established in the official record.
In sum, you haven't proved a single thing.
\\][//
Dr. Robert Shaw addresses the media after attending to Governor Connally’s wounds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHZ5hOQgTkY at 17:57-26:33 mark
MEDIA: Did you find a bullet in his leg?
SHAW: This is being taken care of, the bullet is in the leg, it hasn’t been removed. This is a very insignificant factor, though. It will be removed.
MEDIA: Is it the left leg?
SHAW: Left thigh, but there’s no significant injury to the left thigh.
MEDIA: When will it be removed?
SHAW: Before he goes to the recovery room.
You cannot have both CE399 found on a stretcher AND have a bullet lodged in Governor Connally’s thigh.
The fact is, we don’t have to prove the Magic Bullet theory is not true. Those who promote the theory have to prove that it is; and this has not been done.
\\][//
I consider the 1.5 centimeter entry wound to Connally’s armpit a settled point. Whether our opposition wants to go on about the ‘Operative Report’ or not. Dr.Shaw gave his testimony to the WC under oath, and corrected his operative report.
I consider Crime Scene Protocol for 1963 settled as well. It is in the record that up until the 1980’s it was standard procedure for FBI and all law enforcement to make a unique mark on all items such as bullets, and shell husks.
Thus I consider the chain of custody for ‘the Magic Bullet’ broken – that bullet is inadmissible to the case in my opinion.
This would apply to the other bullets and shells found in the TBTB as well. And it applies to the Carcano rifle itself.
Whether our adversaries wish to waffle on the point, I consider this a legal case, to be judged by legal standards.
\\][//
I also consider Dr Dolce as an expert in ballistics at Edgewood Arsenal to be a settled matter, as per the documentation made available to HSCA.
Therefore his opinion on the pristine condition of the Magic Bullet being impossible trumps the opinions of Olivier and Dziemian.
\\][//
Willy,
“I also consider Dr Dolce as an expert in ballistics at Edgewood Arsenal to be a settled matter, as per the documentation made available to HSCA.”
What “documentation”? I didn’t see any in what you posted.
“What “documentation”? I didn’t see any in what you posted.”
See my comments on this page at:
March 31, 2015 at 5:46 pm
April 1, 2015 at 8:24 am
March 31, 2015 at 10:49 pm
If you want something more than this research for yourself here:
http://jfk.hood.edu/index.shtml?search.html
I said I consider those points settled, and I do, whether you agree or not Jean.
But I will remind you here again what I pointed out before; the onus is on those who promote the Magic Bullet story to prove it, and it has not been proven; far from it, it hasn’t even been shown to be a plausible explanation, let alone proof beyond reasonable doubt.
That such an assertion as the ‘single bullet theory’ must be proven is common legal jurisprudence. It is not the other way around.
So coming back to the issue of Dr Dolce, there is more evidence that he was involved with the ballistics inquiry, actually brought in by the commission itself, than there is of even a scintilla of proof for the Magic Bullet.
\\][//
You will see here a photo of the bullet in the best shape after going through a goats rib – from the experiments at Edgewood Arsenal supervised by Dr Dolce.
No wonder Dolce claimed that Olivier and Dziemian, did not testify in accordance with their experimental findings.
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/03/28/the-warren-commission-cult/#comment-6113
\\][//
Willy,
“You will see here a photo of the bullet in the best shape after going through a goats rib – from the experiments at Edgewood Arsenal supervised by Dr Dolce. No wonder Dolce claimed that Olivier and Dziemian, did not testify in accordance with their experimental findings.”
On the contrary, I think that the test results show that Dr. Dolce didn’t know what he was talking about.
The deformed test bullets were fired directly into bone at full speed. They weren’t slowed by passing first through a simulated neck or chest.
This was explained in the Edgewood ballistics report. For example, see the last paragraph here which says, “The comparative sizes of the entrance and exit wound, the amount of bone damage and the lack of bullet deformation [in CE 399] all indicate that the wrist was struck by a tumbling bullet traveling at a reduced velocity”:
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=62296&relPageId=6
That a slower bullet would both be less damaged and cause less damage to its target is a principle illustrated by Martin Fackler’s experiment that we talked about before. It’s something like a car banging into another car at 5mph or at 55mph — different outcomes.
I don’t believe the Edgewood tests were “supervised by Dr. Dolce.” He was a Florida surgeon. According to the HSCA document you posted, he was “called by the Warren Commission to serve as a consultant in analyzing the wounds of Kennedy and Connally but from what I gather, it was on a limited basis.” As an Army surgeon, he may’ve known a lot about *wounds*, but his opinions on how bullets behave are contradicted by the HSCA’s experts, among others.
Dolce wanted his views to be heard by the HSCA, and they were. Then they ignored what he said and didn’t call him — and for good reason, imo.
“I don’t believe the Edgewood tests were “supervised by Dr. Dolce.” He was a Florida surgeon. According to the HSCA document you posted, he was “called by the Warren Commission to serve as a consultant in analyzing the wounds of Kennedy and Connally but from what I gather, it was on a limited basis.” As an Army surgeon, he may’ve known a lot about *wounds*, but his opinions on how bullets behave are contradicted by the HSCA’s experts, among others.”~Jean
Dolce worked at Ridgeway during the time of the Warren Commission. He moved to Flaorida when retiring from the army. It was there that the HSCA was contacted.
. . . .
“Dolce wanted his views to be heard by the HSCA, and they were. Then they ignored what he said and didn’t call him — and for good reason, imo.”
Yes for the very good reason that he contradicted the story they wanted to hear, and got from those that he did indeed direct at Edgewood.
Those experiments you read of by Olivier and Dziemian, are the very ones that Dolce was directing. So the ones of shots through other matter before hitting the cadaver wrists are the very ones that Dolce is speaking to, and those bullets you see representing the more deformed bullets are the same ones that both Dolce and Olivier and Dziemian refer to.
\\][//
Do not forget Jean, that Joannides was in charge of what evidence would and would not be admissible; and he was running interference for CIA.
That is why information for Dolce and those who interviewed him and the pictures and manuscripts from the Edgewood tests were squelched by the hidden hand of Joannides during the HSCA.
\\][//
As I hope to get into the chain of custody again soon, I want to post this information that was never acknowledged in the previous threat it was posted in:
Crime Scene Protocol 1963
It was standard practice and mandated by FBI protocol in 1963 (up until the 1980s) to mark a shell or hull with a unique mark for chains of custody.
“Police Markings”
Second, an object that is inscribed with the initials or markings of a police officer or other person may be readily identifiable. In such cases, the person converts a nonunique object into a readily identifiable one by placing distinctive markings on it. This practice is recommended in crime scene and evidence collection manuals.
See:
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Handbook of Forensic Science 100 (rev. ed. 1984); C. O’Hara, Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation 79-84 (5th ed. 1980).”
http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1308&context=faculty_publications
\\][//
No matter the size of Connally´s entry wound, the key issue is how CE 399, after entering JFK back, could hit Connally. That´s why WC Gerald Ford doctored the report for allowing CE 399 exiting from the throat. And that´s JFK murder is maybe the only criminal case in US history in which the bullet wounds were not dissected.
Arnaldo, how about giving an example of a case where bullet wounds were actually dissected out in the manner that you claim was so common ?
In high profile murders cases by gunfire, it´s standard procedure to track the trajectory of the bullet wounds through the body to trace the bullet path, to test if the wound is a transiting one, and to note where it entered and exited. However, not only the wound to JFK back, which Ford transferred to the neck, but even the fatal skull wound wasn´t sectioned, as if the victim wouldn´t have been a U.S. sitting president, but a dog killed on the street.
Name one.
Lee Harvey Oswald
http://www.jmasland.com/cat_content.asp?contentid=108
Here’s another: J.D. Tippit:
http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338568/m1/11/
How many more do you require?
No incision of a wound is mentioned in either autopsy. The bullet paths were defined based on the standard “Y” type incision, including paths through the organs normally examined and removed. There is no mention of actual wound dissection.
For Photon: Are you seriously trying to maintain that a wound incision and “following the course of a wound” through the body are not, in essence, the same thing?
Absolutely.
JohnR,
Don’t let “Dr” Photon pull your leg, an incision is any cut through the skin that is made during surgery.
\\][//
For Mr. Whitten: Thank you. I felt like a man alone in a raft, beating off a shark. Sigh. I suppose I should just let Photon be Photon. I know many of you believe he’s in the CIA, but I sometimes wonder who he’s taking to the prom.
Photon,
We don’t need other examples. The sectioning was necessary on JFK’s throat and back wounds to solve where the bullets went.
It wasn’t done. Therefore we don’t know. But we do know that they were both entrance wounds.
\\][//
Willy, there aren’t any. This whole discussion is based on a falicy-that it was common to dissect out bullet wounds post-mortem. In actuality it was rarely done, and almost always to recover a bullet for evidence purposes.
See above “The course of the wound is followed” for the case of the insignificant LHO. Read below the case of an elder woman so insignificant we don´t know her name.
http://medind.nic.in/jal/t08/i4/jalt08i4p231.pdf
No Photon, “this whole discussion” is the entire discussion now your little side track of trivial quibbling. In the context of the issue at hand a dissection of the bullet paths were obviously necessary, and were not done for obviously nefarious reasons.
Your use of sweeping generalities, that may or may not be true are a distraction to “the whole discussion.”
Reason in Law, and Reason in Medicine maintain the same position as Reason in General.
What is reasonable in post-mortem examinations will necessarily depend on the details of the specific case.
As you yourself say, “In actuality it was rarely done, and almost always to recover a bullet for evidence purposes.”
What could be clearer than the fact that this very same purpose made it crucial to perform such dissection on Kennedy’s back and throat wounds?
\\][//
Photon:
This was the POTUS. This should have been the most COMPLETE autopsy in the history of the WORLD. His wounds should have been dissected. Dissected, X-rayed, put a drill bit through them, I don’t care. This should have been medical science at its finest. It was NOT. It might be the WORST autopsy in the history of the world. Humes burns his notes because of the blood stains, which i get, but then is “not sure” if he put all of the material he wrote on the new copy?
FYI—the dissection of the wounds had to be known, otherwise why would Finck testify at Shaw’s trial that he was “ordered not to, but can’t remember who gave the order.” So the notion that this procedure was not on their minds is again disingenuous on the part of the LN crowd
Absolutely hilarious, Arnaldo. You had to go to a case report from INDIA to find any evidence of dissecting out the wound-and even that conformed to what I had stated-that the dissection was done to RECOVER the missile, not to establish a bullet’s path.
Thanks for making my point.
Please provide proof that this procedure was “rarely done,” then provide some explanation as to why any such bullets recovered from JFK’s corpse would not have been needed “for evidence [sic]purposes.” Or are you suggesting that there was no need to provide evidence against Oswald, who was still very much alive at that point?
All this reminds me of something I’ve read (can’t remember who said it), that “Oswald received an autopsy worthy of a president, while JFK was given an autopsy you’d perform on a Bowery bum.”
Fearfaxer, why don’t you give us evidence that it was EVER done.
Photon,
In this area, you have NO point to make. The autopsy of the POTUS was awful at best and deceitful at its worst. The laundry list is long, but I think Finck’s testimony in the Shaw trial that he was told NOT to dissect the neck wound but does not remember by whom will suffice for YEARS.
The litany of the uniformed.
The autopsy was good enough to withstand the test of time.
Every forensic pathologist (save Wecht) who has reviewed the data and stated an opinion agrees with the findings of the autopsy team-two shots from behind and above. No shots from anywhere else. Even Earl Rose, who would have done the autopsy if the body had stayed in Dallas concurred with the Bethesda team’s findings. A world renowned bullet wound expert was part of the team; CTers tend to forget that.
Why after 50 years has your side been unable to produce a single forensic pathologist aside from Wecht to disagree with the Bethesda conclusions? Could it possibly be that despite all of the criticism they were entirely correct in their conclusions?
“The litany of the uniformed.
The autopsy was good enough to withstand the test of time.”~Photon
We have been over these false assertions too many times on other threads to revisit it again.
\\][//
Photon, I’ve provided two examples. Your turn.
No you did not. See my response from 11:23 PM.
Neither autosy mentions dissecting out the bullets’ paths.
It was unnecessary as the standard “Y” incisions and head dissections gave all necessary information for a final cause of death.
If dissecting gunshot wounds was not standard practice, why were the autopsy pathologists ordered not to perform a dissection of Kennedy’s back and throat wounds?
Probably because the ” inexperienced and incompetent ” pathologists “who had “never done an autopsy on a gun shot victim” suggested it after they could not find the missile on x-ray.
Are you now claiming that these tyros were following standard forensic pathology techniques after all and that all of the criticism of them related to inexperience is unwarranted?
“It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to determine damage and pathway.” – 7HSCA, 168
This quote is from the panel of forensic pathologist at HSCA.
http://hdblenner.com/critique.htm
\\][//
“…And that´s JFK murder is maybe the only criminal case in US history in which the bullet wounds were not dissected.”
Not really, Arnaldo. The bullet wound through Dr. King’s jawbone was also not dissected. The medical examiner felt it was unnecessary and would needlessly “mutilate” the body.
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=998278
Well surprise surprise Jean, the other case you site of not dissection of a bullet wound is none other than Martin Luther King, whom a jury determined in a court of law was killed by government snipers.
Quite a coincidence. Isn’t it?
\\][//
Willy Whitten
April 2, 2015 at 11:48 pm
Well surprise surprise Jean, the other case you site of not dissection of a bullet wound is none other than Martin Luther King, whom a jury determined in a court of law was killed by government snipers.
Quite a coincidence. Isn’t it?
\\][//
That isn’t exactly the whole story, is it Willy?
Jean, I can’t follow your logic. I know you’re not a mind reader, but why would the doctor feel the need to explain why he didn’t perform such a RARE procedure? His defense only makes sense if it’s a common and expected part of the autopsy.
JohnR,
I don’t know that the MLK medical examiner was trying to “defend” his decision. He may’ve simply been asked if he had dissected the wound and that was his reply.
You’re throwing apples and oranges, Jean. With MLK, they believed he’d been hit but once, and they had the bullet. It seemed extremely probable then that the bullet entered where there was an entrance and ended up where it was found, beneath the skin on his back, if I recall. With JFK they had what appeared to be an entrance wound on his throat, and a large wound on his head. The purpose of the autopsy was to 1) find bullets, and 2) find out if these wounds were connected, as presumed by the Dallas doctors, or separate. As a result, the failure of the autopsy doctors to 1) study the neck to see if the wounds were connected, 2) find a track through the brain proving the wound discovered on the back of the head at autopsy linked up with the massive head wound observed in Dallas, and 3) find a track through the body proving the wound discovered on Kennedy’s back at autopsy linked up with the wound on the throat observed in Dallas, has gone down in history as the most colossal screw-up in the history of Forensic Medicine. And no amount of spin can change that. Jeez.
They’re your own apples and oranges, Pat, since I didn’t compare the two autopsies or say anything like that. Arnaldo suggested that JFK’s might be the only criminal case in US history in which the bullet wounds were not dissected, and I said no, it’s not.
MEMORANDUM
Bob Tanenbaum
FROM: Andy Purdy
DATE: February 7, 1977
RE: Ballistics Testing, Edgewood Arsenal–Dr. aosep
I spoke with Dr. Dolce about information he may
have about the nature of the wounds of Kennedy and
Connally. He indicated that he has the original
“‘:write-up” of the ballistics testing (55 pages including
….° Photographs) and that there are significant discrepancies
between the conclusions of the original write-up and
the conclusions which were later given to the’Warren
Commission by the people he worked with.
Dr. Dolce would like to meet with us to relate the
information he has and give us access to the write-up.
Dr. Dolce would like a written indication of:our interest:.
DAPslb
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/D%20Disk/Dolce%20Joseph%20Dr/Item%2009.pdf
\\][//
Let us return to the contrived controversy concerning Dr Joseph Dolce.
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/D%20Disk/Dolce%20Joseph%20Dr/Item%2010.pdf
JFK ASSASSINATION SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION FORM
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
AGENCY: HSCA
RECORD NUMBER: 180-10088-10221
AGENCY FILE NUMBER: 000781
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
ORIGINATOR: HSCA
FROM: PURTY, ANDY
TO: TANENBAUM, BOB
TITLE: BALLISTICS TESTING: EDGEWOOD ARSENAL – DR. JOSEPH R. DOLCE
DATE: 02/07/77
PAGES: 1
SUBJECT: WOUND BALLISTICS: “Expert in explosives” (Handwritten note)
. . . . .
Gerald D. McKnight is professor of history at Hood College, it is his opinion that Dr Dolce was indeed the expert and leading authority at Edgewood Arsenal at the time. According to all the documents now housed at Hood College, historian Harold Weisberg is in agreement, as well as the HSCA that Dr Dolce was the expert he claimed to be, and that he was brought in by the Warren Commission itself as such an expert. It was only when Dr Dolce would not agree to the ballistics that the Commission demanded for their Magic Bullet theory, that the Commission turned to the two experts under Dr Dolce’s direction, and ignored Dolce himself.
\\][//
Willy,
I don’t think the handwritten note says “expert in explosives.” It looks like “report descrepancies” to me. There’s no “l” in the second word, e.g.:
http://www.rxproxy.com/index.php?rxproxyuri=aHR0cDovL2pmay5ob29kLmVkdS9Db2xsZWN0aW9uL1dlaXNiZXJnJTIwU3ViamVjdCUyMEluZGV4JTIwRmlsZXMvRCUyMERpc2svRG9sY2UlMjBKb3NlcGglMjBEci9JdGVtJTIwMTAucGRm
I know that McKnight and other CT authors have said that Dolce was an expert and leading authority at Edgewood. All I ask is, where’s the evidence to back that up? I’m willing to admit it if I’m wrong, but show me.
“It looks like “report descrepancies” to me.”~Jean
Perhaps you are correct, it is hard to tell with such sloppy handwriting.
So you propose that these investigators wouldn’t check to see if Dolce was at Edgewood at the time? You propose that they would waste time sending Fonzi down to tape record an interview with Dolce without checking on his position and the fact that the Warren Commission had originally brought him into the investigation?
If the handwritten note does say, “report discrepancies”, that is exactly the matter Dolce was concerned about, the discrepancies between the report he had overseen, and that Olivier and Dziemian, did not testify in accordance with their experimental findings.
. . . .
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/D%20Disk/Dolce%20Joseph%20Dr/Item%2002.pdf
“Enclosed Is a tape recording of my interview with Dr. Joseph
Dolce yesterday at his office in Riviera Beach, Florida Dr.’
Dole is a Surgeon and’a nationally recognized expert on
ballistics and firearm wounds. He holds the rank,of an Army
Colonel (Reserves) and still does consulting work for the
Army. .At the beginning of the tape, I read, at his suggestion,two significant honors the Army has awarded him „one the highest civilian award possible.
03-09-1997 05:02PM 1 904 624 3755
–
I. • – , •
yr.11Trpm. ••••
1′ V .. -,
MEID::- 3/23/77
TO: Tanenbaum 001026
FROM: Fonzi •
Dr.Dolce was called by the Warren Commission to serve.as a
consultant in analyzing the wounds of Kennedy and Connally but from what I gather, it was on a limited basis. He was present when , Connally viewed the Zapruder film and helped question him
He also suggested the types and structures of the tests: which; the Commission did on the bullets. He was questioned by staff counsels of the Warren Commission but he does not know and has never seen the commission documents relating to his questioning.”
. . . . .
\\][//
Ms. Cranor,
“Does Jean Davison read original testimony? Are the people she quotes truthful? Take a look at what she posted at 9:39 on March 23, and compare it with expert testimony.
Quoting Duncan MacPherson: ‘The bullets used in this assassination are much more resistant to deformation than most rifle bullets. The major effect in bullet 399 is ‘toothpasting’, i.e., a small amount of the lead core has been squeezed out of the jacket base like toothpaste from a tube. This probably occurred when the bullet hit Connally’s ribs at a high yaw angle …’
A “high yaw angle?” That would mean the bullet struck sideways. But the evidence, both internal and external, proves the bullet did not strike sideways. Why have supporters of the Single Bullet Theory been promoting this false information for decades?”
You may be convinced that it’s “false information” and that the evidence “proves the bullet did not strike sideways,” but others don’t agree with you — including Duncan Macpherson, who is a recognized wound ballistics expert. He wrote this book, e.g.:
http://www.amazon.com/Bullet-Penetration-Modeling-Incapacitation-Resulting-ebook/dp/B00L7CSV7E
“Rationale: It struck sideways because it was tumbling; it was tumbling because it first went through John Kennedy’s neck—and, presto, proof of the SBT.”
Who called it “proof”? I don’t think it is. The ovoid shape of Connally’s back wound rather than its size apparently led the HSCA’s forensic pathology panel (with the exception of Dr. Wecht) to conclude that the bullet had probably “yawed or tumbled” before it hit Connally:
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=39154
The evidence that the wound was egg-shaped comes from Shaw’s drawings of it for the WC and HSCA. He initialed this one “R.R.S.”:
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1137&relPageId=52
“The lie started with John Lattimer’s false claim that the wound in Connally’s back was 3cm long, the result of a sideways hit.”
The 3cm figure started with Dr. Shaw’s operative report of 11/22/63, not with Lattimer, as you well know.
“External Damage: Original size of Connally’s back wound, before debridement, was only 1.5 cm—the same size allegedly as the entrance wound in Kennedy’s head. It was 3 cm after cleaning and enlarging—as Connally’s surgeon, Robert Shaw, M.D., testified. (4 WCH 104, 107; 6,WCH 85-86, 88) In his operative report, Shaw simply described the wound’s size after surgery, but in his testimony he said the original size was only 1.5 cm.”
IMO, it’s misleading to say, “In his operative report, Shaw simply
described the wound’s size after surgery.” His report is written in narrative form, step by step. When he first described the wound, starting about line 534, he described it as 3 cm:
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946&relPageId=555
On the next page near the end he describes cleaning and enlarging the wound, but he gives no size there at all:
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946&relPageId=556
I’m not arguing that the wound actually was 3cm, because I don’t know that. Shaw may well have made a mistake in his report, putting “3 cm” in the wrong place. All I’m saying is that if Lattimer decided that Shaw’s original figure of 3 cm for the size of the wound was more likely to be correct than his later testimony, that’s his opinion. It may be right or wrong, but being wrong doesn’t make it a lie.
“Internal Damage: According to Shaw, 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 WCH 116)
So, obviously, MacPherson was promoting the SBT with false information….”
That’s not obvious at all. I don’t know why you think it is.
“As for this particular lie, its author is John Lattimer.”
Do you think everyone who disagrees with you is lying, Ms. Cranor? Ever heard of a “difference of opinion”?
Jean, you should have noted as is put here several times, that Dr Shaws testimony at the Warren Commission says that the original size of Connally’s posterior wound was one and a half centimeters.
Will you accept this “official testimony”?
Can we take it from there without animosity on the part of any of us here? Let us try that. Okay?
\\][//
Jean, I just answered your question about Dr. Dolce.
Now if you would be so good as to answer my question:
Do you accept Dr Shaw’s testimony at the Warren Commission that says that the original size of Connally’s posterior wound was one and a half centimeters?
\\][//
Willy,
Of course I accept that Shaw testified that the entrance wound was 1.5 cm. Do you accept that his operative report says the “wound of entrance was approximately three cm in its longest diameter”?
“Do you accept that his operative report says the “wound of entrance was approximately three cm in its longest diameter”?”~Jean
Yes I do, and I consider his amendment in testimony to the WC as 1.5 cm. In Shaw’s operative report he was describing Connally’s back wound after his débridement of that wound.
He entered the surgery room after the other doctors had done emergency procedures, as has been gone over ad nauseam already on this thread.
\\][//
Willy,
“In Shaw’s operative report he was describing Connally’s back wound after his débridement of that wound.”
That’s your interpretation, not what he actually said in his report:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/app8.htm
(370) A report on a committee interview with Dr. Shaw included
the following :
The rear entrance wound was not 3 centimeters [in diameter]
as indicated in one of the operative notes. It was a puncture-type wound, as if a bullet had struck the body at a slight declination [i .e ., not at a right angle] . The wound was
actually approximately 1.5 centimeters in diameter. The ragged edges of the wound were surgically cut away, effectively enlarging it to approximately 3 centimeters. (59)
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M53b_Connally.pdf
\\][//
Jean
SA Robert A Frazier examined Connally’s suit coat, and found a perfectly round 3/8″ diameter hole in the front of the coat. As a 6.5mm bullet is just a shade over 1/4″ in diameter, this bullet made an exit hole in the coat only 1/16″ larger on each side than the diameter of the bullet, which is pretty darn small for an exiting bullet.
I see no evidence whatsoever o a tumbling bullet.
Robert,
“I see no evidence whatsoever of a tumbling bullet.”
How would you explain the “toothpasting” Duncan MacPherson mentioned (lead sticking out of the end) and the slightly flattened appearance of CE 399? I’m certainly no expert but it looks to me as if it has hit something hard sideways:
http://www.dayvectors.net/g2011m04_08.jpg
Is there another explanation for this?
“Is there another explanation for this?”~Jean
There can be many other explanations depending on trajectory and the angle of materials a missile may go through. Just the pressures on a jacketed bullet can cause so-called ‘tooth-pasting.
\\][//
Yes there is. The bullet struck the side of Connally’s rib cage, not the back of the rib cage. To say the bullet “struck” the rib cage is not actually accurate, as it was more of a glancing blow. You see, at this point, the bullet was almost travelling parallel to the 5th rib.
Now, Jean, you are preaching to the choir if you think you can teach me anything about how a FMJ bullet sheds lead out of its base, similar to toothpaste out of a tube. What you are forgetting is that the FMJ bullet will also shed this extruded lead in little flakes that inevitably get left behind in the wound, and can be seen in x-rays as a trail of tiny flakes. An example of this can be seen in Connally’s wrist wound x-rays.
So, my friend, if you are convinced this “tumbling” bullet that struck Connally’s back was shedding lead flakes in the back wound, could you show us an x-ray of Connally’s thorax that might show some of these lead particles?
Could you show us anything in Dr. Shaw’s medical report where he claimed to have found anything but shards of bone in Connally’s chest wound?
P.S.
Connally’s wrist entrance wound was rather oblong. I believe this would account for any flattening of a bullet, and subsequent shedding of lead particles from its base.
Bob,
I’m puzzled by your reply. I didn’t claim CE 399 struck the rib cage, only that the toothpasting indicated that it had probably hit something hard according to MacPherson. Whether that was a rib or the wrist bone, I dunno.
I also didn’t claim it left metal flakes in Connally’s chest. I know his x-ray showed flakes only in his wrist and thigh. Maybe you were talking to someone else and I misunderstood?
Jean:
Question: Robert Frazier testified under oath that the hole in Connally’s jacket was “3/8 of an inch in diameter and since it had been cleaned and pressed he was not certain it was a wound of exit or entrance.” Leaving aside everything else, how does a bullet hole of 3/8 inch in a jacket become a wound of 3 cm in the back of the man wearing that jacket? If my education background is correct, there are 2.54 centimeters in an inch. So how did a 3/8 inch hole “grow” to well over an inch in the space of the distance between Connally’s jacket and his back?
Jean
Can you think of a reason why Dr. Shaw would lie about the size of the entrance wound, and change its size from 3 cm. to 1.5 cm.?
Bob,
“Can you think of a reason why Dr. Shaw would lie about the size of the entrance wound, and change its size from 3 cm. to 1.5 cm.?”
Of course not. It’s not a question of lying, it’s the same old everyday “human error” that crops up everywhere. Surely one or the other number is wrong, conceivably even both of them!
In other words, it is almost a certainty the wound was originally 1.5 cm., and was opened to a size of 3 cm. during debridement by Dr. Shaw, wouldn’t you say? Or do you think a 3 cm. wound shrunk to become a 1.5 cm. wound during the operation? Jean?
Jean:
If my math is correct, 3 cm is 1.81 inches, almost 1 and a quarter inches. How can a hole in a jacket that was described by FBI agent Frazier as 3/8 inches in diameter at its greatest distance enlarge almost 3/4 of an inch in the space of the distance between Connally’s back and his jacket? I would assume that Connally’s sitting against the back of the seat would discount his jacket and/or shirt from being allowed to move. I am confused as to how this could difference could happen? I do know that Connally’s jacket and shirt were cleaned and pressed, but I don’t know what process was used to do that in 1963.
Jean:
Should read 1.181 inches.
3 centimeters = 1.18110236 inches
\\][//
As I said in my post to Ms. Cranor, I’m not arguing that the wound was in fact 3 cm, because I don’t know that. I was arguing against her claim that Lattimer lied, because the “3 cm” actually came from Shaw’s original report.
It may well be that the smaller number Shaw testified to is correct, but where did that number come from, I wonder? Not from his original report, that’s for sure. If he kept other notes he didn’t mention them so far as I know. So, was the “1.5 cm” from memory? I can understand why Lattimer might prefer Shaw’s same-day document rather than his later testimony.
The HSCA forensic panel relied more on the oval shape of the wound/clothing hole, not its size. Frazier described the jacket hole as “elongated in a horizontal direction to the length of approximately 5/8 of an inch” and c. 1/4 inch “in height” (V, 64):
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=40&relPageId=73
There are other reasons why I believe the SBT is the most plausible solution that have nothing to do with the size of Connally’s back wound. One is that after 50 years the CT community still hasn’t agreed on a viable alternative. They mostly keep repeating their same old arguments against the SBT. IMO, if there were clear evidence for a plausible alternative to the SBT, reaching a consensus shouldn’t be that hard.
Jean:
I agree with you. I don’t know the exact size either. I am going on the same testimony that everyone else is and the same problem that had dogged this investigation from 1963 is still in place today. People said one thing in 63, and then through the years stories change and then change again. It really is like a house of mirrors.
My question had to do with the physical evidence, that being the hole in Connally’s coat and shirt. If Frazier is to be believed, the holes don’t match up to the wound. There has to be a reason. I have no idea what it is. Someone, somewhere is not telling the truth.
As far as not having an alternative to the SBT, I personally believe that the BEST pieces of evidence we had available—and this is strictly my opinion only— were JFK’s body, Connally’s body AND the limo. We know that JFK’s autopsy was less than perfect. We do have Connally, but that has been hard to figure out due to changing stories. The limo, if I remember correctly, was never sealed off as a crime scene that it was, the blood and other material were scrubbed off at Parkland, and then it was loaded on to Air Force One, and then I have no idea who or what did the investigating from there. There could have been—again, only my opinion—evidence in that limo of other ammo used in the assassination. However, we will never know. I think we can all agree that a MAJOR piece of evidence was NEVER investigated as thoroughly as it should have been.
I do know that I have viewed the limo in the Ford museum in Dearborn, Michigan. Simply eerie to stand that close to a car where a man died.
Jean — Read “Breach of Trust” by historian Gerald McKnight and see if you think Hoover left any “clear evidence” for anyone to discern the truth in this case.
“There are other reasons why I believe the SBT is the most plausible solution that have nothing to do with the size of Connally’s back wound. One is that after 50 years the CT community still hasn’t agreed on a viable alternative.”~Jean
Yes we have agreed on a viable alternative; that being that there were other shooters in Dealey plaza and that Kennedy and Connally were struck by separate bullets.
In fact you are very familiar with these viable alternatives, you call them “conspiracy theories”. Is that not so Jean?
It may be your opinion that these alternatives are not viable, but they are there nevertheless.
Now, all of us here are aware of the underlying desperation of the WC defenders to protect the Magic Bullet story. It is because the entire “Lone Nut” proposition hinges on this story. If the full absurdity of this story is highlighted and revealed, your whole case falls like the house of marked cards that it is.
\\][//
”There are other reasons why I believe the SBT is the most plausible solution that have nothing to do with the size of Connally’s back wound. One is that after 50 years the CT community still hasn’t agreed on a viable alternative. “ – Jean Davison
How many logical and argumentative fallacies can one possibly squeeze into two short sentences?
To the unbiased mind, the SBT is by far the LEAST plausible “solution”… To those who are somewhat knowledgeable about physics, ballistics and anatomy, SBT is nothing short of a miracle. And if those same people who are physics-savvy also happen to know a few basic facts about the incident and its aftermath, SBT is outright impossible!!!!
In the old world, there is a saying… One madman throws a pebble in the ocean, a million geniuses can’t get it back out. So… Someone decides to place only three spent bullets in the patsy nest, and all kinds of agents, operatives, scientists, WC members and their handlers, politicians, investigators, mockingbird journalists and authors end up spending years trying to forge together the SBT. They simply had to. They had no choice. In their haste to pin down the LOH-LN story, they had already told the whole world….
Not to mention that there is absolutely no valid evidence produced so far that directly ties LHO to the shootings of the president or Tippit, whether it was with three bullets or thirty three.
And what is this thing about a “CT community”???? Is it by invitation only? Where can I sign up?
The main long term goal of a cover-up/damage-control operation is to prevent, at any cost, for the dissenters to the official narrative to unite, organize and form such a community. As we have already seen in their FOIA documents, with unlimited resources and determination, any time any kind of formation starts resembling a “community” it has been destroyed, divided, ridiculed, and squashed by our beloved alphabet agencies though infiltration, deception, ad hominem, coercion, and sometimes even murder.
Even then, unless you are talking about conspiracy nuts who think shape shifting lizards are behind everything, I would argue that any randomly picked page, among pretty much any of the countless JFK blogs and discussion forums would have a “viable alternative” to the SBT. Just pick one!
The so-called CT community might not necessarily agree on an explanation in the absence of access to documents, evidence and witnesses while multiple parties actively try to derail, mislead and run out the clock until all directly involved conspirators and witnesses die away … But, they certainly disagree with the very silly SBT.
Jean, I can’t speak for all of us but I think Conspiracy Realists do agree on some basic facts and probabilities as a result of these facts. The “plausible alternative” is more than one shooter.
Which our Government, yours and mine, reached in 1978. Four shots = Conspiracy.
They make the Arlen Specter fantasy, the Magic Single Pristine bullet pointless.
I think most would agree too that this fact means LHO was not a lone nut.
Then there are things like the Warren Commission concluding Jack Ruby had no Mafia ties. That’s Bullshit. That’s a Fact.
Steve,
“…the same problem that had dogged this investigation from 1963 is still in place today. People said one thing in 63, and then through the years stories change and then change again…”
But it’s normal for memories to change over time. Look at these Google search results, e.g.:
https://www.google.com/#q=memories+change+over+time+study
“If Frazier is to be believed, the holes don’t match up to the wound. There has to be a reason. I have no idea what it is. Someone, somewhere is not telling the truth.”
I agree that someone was wrong about this wound size but no one was necessarily lying about it. It would be impossible, imo, to collect many thousands of documents and testimony from hundreds of people (all of them fallible) and not get numerous errors and contradictions, especially when many witnesses were interviewed 15 or more years later.
Bogman,
“Jean — Read “Breach of Trust” by historian Gerald McKnight and see if you think Hoover left any “clear evidence” for anyone to discern the truth in this case.”
I’ve read “Breach of Trust.” How do you know that what it says is correct? As I recall one of its claims is that Oswald had a “crypto” security clearance, but what is the evidence for that? There is none, so far as I know.
Willy and Ronnie,
“More than one gunman” is not an alternative to the SBT. That’s not what I’m talking about.
If a single bullet didn’t wound both men, how do you explain it? There’s no CT consensus on number and location of gunmen, how many bullets, where they went, and so on.
It’s not that easy. For instance, when JFK was x-rayed at Bethesda no bullets were found anywhere in his torso. A bullet transiting his body explains that. How do you explain it?
“For instance, when JFK was x-rayed at Bethesda no bullets were found anywhere in his torso. A bullet transiting his body explains that. How do you explain it?”
A shot of a low powered bullet that hit Kennedy in the back which was worked out as the physicians at Parkland desperately pounded on his chest attempting to resuscitate him.
This could be the pointed hunting bullet found later in the hallway, that later magically transformed into the Carcano CE399, during that break in the chain of custody.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
April 3, 2015 at 8:01 pm
“For instance, when JFK was x-rayed at Bethesda no bullets were found anywhere in his torso. A bullet transiting his body explains that. How do you explain it?”
A shot of a low powered bullet that hit Kennedy in the back which was worked out as the physicians at Parkland desperately pounded on his chest attempting to resuscitate him.
bc. Willy, you are good. I’ll give you great credit for that.
Where did this “low powered bullet” come from? Do you realize that a bullet so underpowered would have a trajectory more similar to the indirect fire of a mortar? It would have been impossible to hit anything with such a bullet.
David,
“To those who are somewhat knowledgeable about physics, ballistics and anatomy, SBT is nothing short of a miracle.”
Can you name some of these people? The experts I’ve heard about have no problem with the SBT.
Willy,
You explained JFK’s back wound this way:
“A shot of a low powered bullet that hit Kennedy in the back which was worked out as the physicians at Parkland desperately pounded on his chest attempting to resuscitate him….”
I see a couple of problems there, but let’s go on. Was the frontal throat wound caused by another low-powered bullet? What might have happened to that one?
In your theory, was the bullet that hit Connally from a second or a third gunman? How many bullets hit Connally and where did they go? Please continue, Willy.
Most government agencies have three levels of security clearances: Confidential, Secret and Top Secret.
Acronyms such as CRYPTO, NOFORN, ORCON, are not clearances. They are categories of classified information, some of which have extra need-to-know restrictions or require special access authorizations.
Oswald’s primary training was radar operation; a position requiring a security clearance of confidential.
According to the WC testimony of lieutenant John Donovan who worked closely with Oswald while based at Santa Ann, California, Oswald “must have had secret clearance to work in the radar center” and that he “had the access to the location of all bases in the west coast area, all radio frequencies for all squadrons, all tactical call signs, and the relative strength of all squadrons, number and type of aircraft in a squadron, who was the commanding officer, the authentication code of entering and exiting the ADIZ, which stands for Air Defense Identification Zone. He knew the range of our radar. He knew the range of our radio. And he knew the range of the surrounding units’ radio and radar.”
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=36&relPageId=306
In his May 18, 1964 WC testimony, Kerry Wendell, a Marine Corps buddy of Oswald (11H82ff), claimed Oswald had a higher security clearance, stating “I believe he at one time worked in the security files, it is the S&C files, somewhere at LTA or at El Toro.”
I will point out that some bullets are simply duds, there are misfires, there are bullets that are loaded with faulty gun powder that do not perform as advertised. There are long shots that loose power and velocity. Many factors can come into play, and all of these are infinitely more plausible than the Magic Bullet story. The bottom line FACT in this matter is that the wound in Kennedy’s back was shallow, less than a finger length in depth.
\\][//
David Regan
April 4, 2015 at 9:54 am
But all of his buddies doing the same job as Oswald had a confidential security clearance. Just like Oswald.
Just because the Lieutenant had a Secret clearance doesn’t mean the men under him required one.
Willy Whitten
April 4, 2015 at 10:42 am
I will point out that some bullets are simply duds, there are misfires, there are bullets that are loaded with faulty gun powder that do not perform as advertised.
bc. Yes, this is true but I have never seen these bullets you describe hit any place close to the target. Have you? Did you understand my point about indirect mortar fire?
There are long shots that loose power and velocity.
bc. Yes, this is true too. But this wasn’t the case with the bullet that hit JFK. That bullet would be described as short range.
“I see a couple of problems there, but let’s go on. Was the frontal throat wound caused by another low-powered bullet? What might have happened to that one?”~Jean
The throat wound was caused by a bullet that had gone first through the windshield of the limousine. That was enough to slow it down.
How many shooters? Crossfire at least three teams with spotters both in the plaza and some next to shooters.
I think Connally was hit by two bullets, one from the back from DalTex this one is the one that took out his rib. Another from another angle hit him in the wrist and deflected from there into his thigh.
As I surmised the first bullet to Kennedy’s back could have been a dud with little power. It may also have went through the leaves of a tree and slowed down. What is certain is that it was a shallow wound, and the bullet did not pass through Kennedy’s body, therefor it did not strike Connally.
How long do you guys want to play this game of trivia? the bottom line here is that the break in chain of custody proves that the bullet found in Parkland was not the Carcano round (CE 399) that was substituted by the FBI in Washington.
The bullet found in Parkland was a pointed tipped unjacketed hunting round, probably a 30.06.
\\][//
David,
“Acronyms such as CRYPTO, NOFORN, ORCON, are not clearances. They are categories of classified information, some of which have extra need-to-know restrictions or require special access authorizations”
McKnight wrote in Breach of Trust (p. 130) that Oswald “had to have ‘Crypto’ clearance…,” but he gave no reference for that. I’ve tried to find where this “crypto” idea came from and could only trace it to an anonymous caller who talked to Weisberg when Weisberg was a guest on a radio show. If that’s all there is, it’s not worthy of belief, imo.
The HSCA looked at the military records of Oswald and several other men in his radar crew and found that they all had relatively low “confidential” security clearances.
Jean/Bill,
Comrades of Oswald testified to their belief that he had a higher security clearance.
Regardless, his primary training was radar operation, a position requiring a security clearance. A May 1957 document states that he was “granted final clearance to handle classified matter up to and including CONFIDENTIAL after careful check of local records had disclosed no derogatory data.”
Warren Commission Hearings, vol. 19, Folsom Exhibit No. 1, p. 665
Is it not odd that despite at El Toro, Oswald had emerged as a babbling Russophile and a “communist”, he was not stripped of his security clearance He kept his security clearance and retained access to sensitive radar information and classified data from secret facilities?
David Regan
April 4, 2015 at 9:46 pm
Jean/Bill,
Is it not odd that despite at El Toro, Oswald had emerged as a babbling Russophile and a “communist”, he was not stripped of his security clearance He kept his security clearance and retained access to sensitive radar information and classified data from secret facilities?
I don’t have an answer to this one, David. But yes, it does seem odd. It would be my guess that Oswald’s communist chatter never reached the right man to do something about it. Perhaps the chatter was kept in the barracks or in private with fellow enlisted men.
What I do know is that “IF” Oswald was issued a higher security clearance (Secret) it would have required a new investigation and his leanings would probably have been exposed at this point.
For my investigation to get a Secret classification we were finger printed (and these were no doubt ran), neighbors in my old neighborhood were interviewed by the FBI and my university was questioned. So these investigation are much more that simply shuffling some paper work.
“Is it not odd that despite at El Toro, Oswald had emerged as a babbling Russophile and a “communist”, he was not stripped of his security clearance He kept his security clearance and retained access to sensitive radar information and classified data from secret facilities?”
David, If I remember correctly, Oswald never got above the rank of PFC and his security clearance was about as low as it got. He was more careful about what he said around officers, apparently. Oswald discussed politics with Thornley and Delgado, but his crew boss Donovan said:
“I never heard him in any way, shape or form confess that he was a Communist, or that he ever thought about being a Communist.
Mr. ELY. Did you hear him express sympathy for Castro specifically?
Mr. DONOVAN. Yes–but, on the other hand, so did Time Magazine at that time.”
Oswald’s more blatant “Russophile” behavior around enlisted men apparently didn’t start until after he left Japan and returned to the U.S. in late 1958.
Atsugi wasn’t a “secret facility,” only the U-2 program going on there was secret. Oswald may have seen U-2 takeoffs and landings while stationed there but that part of it couldn’t be kept secret, and the Russians were already tracking the U-2 across its territory.
Shaw told Petty the wound was not 3 cm, then diagramed it to scale at 1.5 cm. I searched for and found the original drawing marked by Shaw for the HSCA. (See Figure 1.):
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/images/figure_1_lrg.jpg
Petty was correct; Shaw’s scale drawing of the entry hole was “1.5 x 0.8 cm.” That Shaw was of the opinion that the entry hole in Connally’s back was not 3 cm is also backed up by his Warren Commission testimony where he described the wound was “approximately a centimeter and a half in length.”[20] Fourteen years later, Shaw told HSCA staffer, Andrew Purdy the same thing. This is how Purdy characterized Shaw’s recollection:
“The rear entrance wound was not 3 cm as indicated in one of the operative notes. It was a puncture-type wound, as if a bullet had struck the body at a slight declination (i.e. not at a right angle). The wound was actually approximately 1.5 cm. The ragged edges of the wound were surgically cut away, effectively enlarging it to approximately 3 cm. [7HSCA325] (Emphasis is original.)
Notice that in both the Petty and Purdy interviews, Shaw is reported to have been of the opinion that the Connally’s wound was created by a bullet that hit the skin on an angle and was not 3 cm in width as originally reported. The size of the entry hole as derived from Shaw’s diagram (1.5 x 0.8 cm) is backed up by the size of the holes in the shirt and coat Connally wore that day.”
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
Only a conspiracy advocate would consider the opinions recorded nearly 15 years after an event to be superior to written documents dictated 15 minutes after the event.
The testimony of Dr. Robert Shaw taken at 6 p.m., on March 23, 1964 – under oath, is essentially the same testimony he gave to HSCA.
Only the disingenuous would fail to mention this common and oft repeated information on the very same thread as this extant one here and now.
\\][//
Only a true LN would believe a report “created” by a butt-kissing, lapdog congressman from Michigan trying to make a name for himself and a lawyer from Pennsylvania trying to do the same thing when they ignored the testimony of Mr. Connally WHILE he was still in the hospital recovering from his wounds when he stated that he was hit by a different bullet than the one that struck JFK to write what became known as the biggest piece of myth (trash, garbage, pack of lies) in American history.
There is this little nugget from Mr. McCloy of the beloved WC and his wonderings about this bullet:
“I think too much effort is expended on attempting to prove that the first bullet, which hit the president, was also responsible for all of Connally’s wounds,” McCloy wrote. (Note: the commas are not in the original.) “The evidence against this is not fully stated.” He added that a section of the report dealing with the possibility of shots being fired at Kennedy’s motorcade from an overpass was “not well done.” Elsewhere, McCloy questioned the commission’s account that a bullet found on a stretcher at Dallas’ Parkland Hospital – where Kennedy and Connally were treated after being shot – was the “magic bullet.” He wrote: “The statement concerning the bullet which was found on the stretcher is not particularly persuasive because there is no indication that the `stretcher bullet’ was in fact the bullet which caused the [Connally] wrist wound.”
It has been perhaps the conclusion most criticized by conspiracy theorists. The document recently released by the U.S. Assassination Records Review Board – which screens Kennedy assassination documents and releases those that will not endanger national security – also contains many other suggestions by McCloy on revising the draft report. Some of those suggestions were adopted by the commission. But the commission did not revise the sections dealing with the “magic-bullet” theory. Nor did it revise other sections criticized by McCloy, dealing with the Kennedy and Connally wounds. He asked at one point, for example: “Why is there no citation of authority with regard to the wound in the president’s back and its path through his body?”
The “butt-kissing, lapdog congressman ” from Michigan was given the ” Profiles in Courage” award by the family of John F. Kennedy.
Big deal.
Do you know why? For pardoning the second most corrupt president in the history of the United States, Mr. Nixon. I guess it does take “governmental courage” to pardon a crooked politician, so as to avoid going to prison like Nixon’s other confederates. It also allows the hidden sins of Nixon to remain in the shadows forever.
Does that sound like another incident that our government pulled on the American people?
FYI—if I remember correctly, Mr. Ford received the award from Ted Kennedy. Ever heard of Mary Jo Kopechne?
The REAL point is that you insist Shaw testimony’s years later is bogus. Connally gave his interview while in the HOSPITAL. Yet, his beliefs were later ignored by the WC buffoons.
Care to comment on your hypocrisy?
Photon:
What to make of this exchange?
Mr. McCloy: This business bullet leaves me confused.
Chairman Warren: It’s totally inconclusive.
Senator Russell: They couldn’t find where one bullet came out that struck the President and yet they found a bullet in the stretcher?
Any ideas why they were having problems?
Willy, 4/3 8:01 above. A frangible bullet would have also not transited the body. See the comments of Bob Prudhome elsewhere on this site or the eduforum.
Jean:
I have read page 63 and 64 several times. I believe the 5/8 by 1/4 inch is referring to Connally’s sleeve. At the bottom of page 63, Frazier states that the hole in the jacket is 3/8 in diameter. If i am wrong, I would welcome the help.
That is the hole Frazier found in the front of Connally’s jacket. He also described it as a round hole.
A round hole made by a tumbling bullet is a pretty amazing thing, wouldn’t you say, Jean?
It’s a little confusing because Frazier referred to the sleeve in locating the hole in the back of the jacket:
Mr. SPECTER – What did your examination reveal with respect to the back side of the coat?
Mr. FRAZIER – There was found on the coat by me when I first examined it, near the right sleeve 1 1/8 inches from the seam where the sleeve attaches to the coat, and 7 1/4 inches to the right of the midline when you view the back of the coat, a hole which is elongated in a horizontal direction to the length of approximately five-eights of an inch, and which had an approximate one- quarter inch height.
Hole in sleeve:
Mr. SPECTER – Did you find any damage on the right sleeve of the jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER – Yes, sir; on more or less the top portion of the right sleeve very near the end of the sleeve there is a very rough hole [….] The hole was approximately five-eights of an inch in length, and three-eights of an inch in width.
Front of jacket:
Mr. SPECTER – All right. Will you now turn to the front side of the coat and state what, if any, damage you observed on the body of the garment?
Mr. FRAZIER – When considered from the wearer’s standpoint, on the right chest area of the coat there is a hole through the lining and the outer layer of the coat [….] This hole was approximately circular in shape, three-eights of an inch in diameter…
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr2.htm
Diagram locating mid axillary line:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Axillary_lines.png/250px-Axillary_lines.png
The greatest misconception, and one that seems to be encouraged by WC supporters, is that the bullet striking Connally’s back caused a through and through wound of his right lung. Nothing could be further from the truth, and Dr. Robert Shaw’s medical report, found in Appendix VIII of the WCR, proves this.
In fact, technically, the entrance wound was not actually a back wound at all but, rather, a tangential wound striking the right side of his chest, almost parallel, in its path, to the rib it struck. In other words, it was a glancing blow.
According to the medical report, the bullet struck the 5th rib at the right “mid axillary line”. If you place your hand on the extreme outside of your right rib cage, just under your right arm, this is where the bullet contacted his 5th rib. It also explains the oval shape of the entrance wound, as the bullet did not hit squarely.
The bullet followed the 5th rib for 10 cm. (4 inches), stripping out much of the rib but not penetrating the rib or pleural cavity. The open pneumothorax (sucking chest wound) suffered by Connally was the result of shards of rib bone acting as “secondary missiles” penetrating the pleural cavity.
After entering at the mid axillary line and following the 5th rib downward for 10 cm., the bullet exited just to the left of and below Connally’s right nipple. In other words, the bullet entered at the extreme right side of his chest, and exited to the LEFT of his right nipple.
This bullet was travelling at a right to left angle across Connally’s chest, and, if Connally was facing forward at the time the SBT occurred, his wound could not be caused by a bullet exiting JFK’s throat. To receive a wound of this nature, Connally would have to be turned quite a ways to his right.
Bob Prudhomme,
Note in this testimony that Shaw says that the entrance wound “was a small wound approximately a centimeter and a half in its greatest diameter.”
. . . . . .
Testimony Of Dr. Robert Roeder Shaw to the Warren Commission
Mr. SPECTER – Will you describe in as much detail as you can the wound on the posterior side of the Governor’s chest?
Dr. SHAW – This was a small wound approximately a centimeter and a half in its greatest diameter. It was roughly elliptical. It was just medial to the auxiliary fold or the crease of the armpit, but we could tell that this wound, the depth of the wound, had not penetrated the shoulder blade.
Mr. SPECTER – What were the characteristics, if any, which indicated to you that it was a wound of entrance then?
Dr. SHAW – Its small size, and the rather clean cut edges of the wound as compared to the usual more ragged wound of exit.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/shaw1.htm
\\][//
Yes, Willy. Also note that Shaw describes the wound as “medial to the ‘auxiliary’ (sic – should read ‘axillary’) fold or the crease of the armpit”. I maintain the entrance wound was elliptical on the horizontal plane, and was that way because the bullet entered a surface that was not perpendicular to the path of the bullet but, rather, almost parallel to the path of the bullet.
As the bullet entered at the mid axillary line, and exited just to the left of Connally’s right nipple (between nipple and centre of chest), Connally either had to be turned to his right when struck, or the bullet had to originate at the west end of the TSBD.
Bob, thanks for explaining the path of the bullet along the rib, again. Some keep clinging to Connally’s “back” wound and the through the lung myth.
Willy, I’d never read the WC testimony regarding the arm pit.
Thanks also.
If they do not cling to the through the lung myth, it becomes painfully obvious that creations such as Dale Myers’ cartoon are nothing but a monstrous fraud.
If a bullet is travelling sideways it will make a big hole when entering a body, if it is tumbling it is impossible to know what size of hole it will make, other than it will not be smaller than the diameter of the bullet, and not much bigger than the length of the bullet. The size of the hole looks like an area of cover up, but does the size of the hole kill the SBT?
Here is an experiment you can try for yourself.
Stand a piece of plywood up at 50-100 yards so the flat side is facing you and fire a bullet at it. As it is 90° to the path of the bullet, it should make a nice little round hole, if the bullet is travelling straight and true.
Now, turn the plywood so that it is almost parallel to the path of the bullet, or edge on to the shooter, with only a small view of the flat side presented to the shooter.
Shoot another bullet at this flat surface, and I’ll bet you a dollar that you have an oblong hole, with its horizontal side longer than its vertical side.
AND, neither bullet was tumbling.
Connally was not shot on the flat of his back. The bullet hit the side of his rib cage, and that surface was almost parallel to the path of the bullet. The bullet more than likely hit more on its side than it did on its nose. This is called a tangential strike, and is capable of producing an oblong hole WITHOUT the bullet tumbling as it enters the wound.
I don’t see it.
External evidence; if the bullet didn’t begin tumbling until it hit the rib of JBC then obviously the entrance wound wouldn’t reflect tumbling when it broke skin. It had yet to begin tumbling when it broke skin.
Internal evidence; Bullet wound channels contract after the bullet passed. I’d have to see more evidence on this channel before I ruled out tumbling.
I have said many times that bullets do some very strange things when they strike bone and muscle. Nothing much would surprise me anymore.
And I cast my vote for primary sources. They really cut down on the confusion and BS.
Let’s try to keep to the terminology of ballistic science here so as not to add to confusion.
“Internal ballistics” has to do with the missile while inside of the firing chamber, inside of a gun when dealing with bullets. So the use of the term “Internal evidence” can cause confusion.
“Terminal ballistics” is the study of the results of what a bullet does to the target. This would include the medical evidence of the bullet wounds.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
March 31, 2015 at 8:48 pm
Thank you Willy but I am familiar with internal, external and terminal ballistics. I have more than a little experience with all three.
But what I replied to was speaking of internal and external EVIDENCE.
See the difference?
EVIDENCE YOU SAY?
Here’s some evidence:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/04/zapruder-frame-343-new-proof-of-blowout-at-back-of-jfks-head/
It looks like the goons who got the original Zapruder film fudged up on frame 343. Proving that when you lie or attempt to cover something up, all it takes is one little shred of evidence to muck up your lie.
Do you believe in magic? Not only can it change direction, but it can correct itself for the yaw LN’rs say it had to have upon exiting JFK. That was one magical projectile all right. I never understood the true extent of those supernatural powers until this day.
The bullet didn’t “change direction,” Frank. That’s a JFK myth, one of many.
“The bullet didn’t “change direction,” Frank. That’s a JFK myth, one of many.”~Jean Davison
Frank, Jean is correct here, but not in the way that she thinks. The bullet did not “change direction,” because there was NO SUCH BULLET. It is the Magic Bullet itself which the JFK myth.
\\][//
Why would Jean Davison rely on MacPherson et al without first checking out what they say? This data is available to any serious researcher. She not only relies on secondary and even tertiary sources, she quotes sources that distort the facts to sell the Warren Report.
Duncan Macpherson isn’t a “secondary” or “tertiary” source, Leslie, and I don’t think he distorted anything.
Jean, was MacPherson present in the emergency room? Did he treat Governor Connally’s wounds? Is that not the definition of a primary source, one who has first hand experience i.e., hands on treatment of the patient?
Otherwise, the word “remora” comes to mind. MacPherson glommed on to data he was not particularly interested in, and by all accounts the info came to him from secondary sources.
Leslie,
MacPherson is a ballistics expert who gave his opinion about the “toothpasting” appearance of CE 399 and what he thought probably caused it. I don’t consider him a secondary source because he wasn’t repeating what a primary source said.
As I understand it, “primary” means firsthand or direct, like testimony from a witness to an event or an original document or record. “Secondary” is secondhand information, like most JFK books.
“As I understand it, “primary” means firsthand or direct, like testimony from a witness to an event or an original document or record. “Secondary” is secondhand information, like most JFK books.” ~Jean Davison
You understand the term “primary” correctly Jean, but MacPherson learned his information from a ‘JFK book’, Lattimer’s book, Kennedy and Lincoln.
\\][//
“You understand the term “primary” correctly Jean, but MacPherson learned his information from a ‘JFK book’, Lattimer’s book, Kennedy and Lincoln.”
No he did not. MacPherson wrote his own book on wound ballistics:
http://www.amazon.com/Bullet-Penetration-Modeling-Incapacitation-Resulting/dp/0964357704
Wikipedia describes MacPherson and Martin Fackler as wound ballistics experts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Fackler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_gelatin
Jean, “[MacP] . . . gave his opinion about the “toothpasting” appearance of CE 399 . . .”
But that wasn’t all MacPherson gave his “opinion” about, was it? He stated with great certainty as if it were a fact, that the bullet struck at a “high yaw angle.” He ignored other ‘primary’ testimony and relied on John Lattimer’s selective ‘evidence.’
Jean,
Please quote from and give the page numbers to MacPherson’s discussion of Kennedy’s wounds in his book “Bullet Penetration:”
\\][//
Jean & Lesley,
There is a distinction in the definition of a “primary source”and the definition of “expert testimony” … an apple and an orange.
MAcPherson wrote a highly acclaimed book on ballistics having to do with “stopping power”. This makes him an “expert” in ballistics on the topic of what the physics are to causing incapacity by gunshot.
I will propose here and now, that there is not a single mention of CE 399 in this book. If Ms Davison wishes to prove me wrong she is going to have to serve such crow with specific quotes and page numbers.
I propose that for MacPherson to have used Lattimer’s take on the size of Governor Connally’s back wound, can only mean that he did not know the record of that wound, even so far as it has been explored here on these pages.
If MacPherson DID understand that there was controversy on the size of the entrance wound, and that Dr Shaw himself cleared up that controversy as early as his testimony before the Warren Commission; MacPherson fails to address this, and therefor fails in making a complete and compelling case for those reasons.
\\][//
Leslie wrote:
“But that wasn’t all MacPherson gave his “opinion” about, was it? He stated with great certainty as if it were a fact, that the bullet struck at a “high yaw angle.” He ignored other ‘primary’ testimony and relied on John Lattimer’s selective ‘evidence.’”
“Probably” indicates “great certainty” to you, Leslie?
Here’s the quote again:
“G [interviewer]: Is it possible to deform a bullet the way CE399 is deformed by firing the bullet into water?
MacP: Probably not. Bullet 399 really isn’t deformed much; a point often made by those who dispute the “single bullet” conclusion. The bullets used in this assassination are much more resistant to deformation than most rifle bullets. The major effect in bullet 399 is “toothpasting”, i.e., a small amount of the lead core has been squeezed out of the jacket base like toothpaste from a tube. This PROBABLY occurred when the bullet hit Connally’s ribs at a high yaw angle after it had been considerably slowed by travel through soft tissue (a bullet in a reconstructed firing showed deformation similar to and slightly larger than bullet 399). The bullet would yaw in water, but PROBABLY would not “toothpaste” without contact with a hard object.”
MacPherson didn’t need to rely on Lattimer or anyone else to offer an opinion on why CE399 PROBABLY looked the way it did. He was a wound ballistics expert and wrote a book on the subject:
http://www.amazon.com/Bullet-Penetration-Modeling-Incapacitation-Resulting-ebook/dp/B00L7CSV7E
Jean, you state “MacPherson didn’t need to rely on Lattimer or anyone else to offer an opinion on why CE399 PROBABLY looked the way it did . . . ”
to reemphasize, you say: “CE399 PROBABLY”
Is your position that an expert – in your subjective assessment MacPhereson – who opined that a projectile ‘PROBABLY’ looked the way it did is sufficient to convince you – and you think it should convince others – that 399 was in any way, shape or form a credible piece of evidence?
Can you point us to a single example of your having accepted the flimsy, ambiguous designation of “probably?” Not good enough Jean, not 50 years later.
I observe that when facts are uncomfortable, the terms and phrases: “goofed” (sorry I think that should be attributed to photon), ‘after all they were only human,’ ‘perhaps they just made a mistake,’ surface as a defense. Are you asking us now to accept “probably” to your argument?
“Likewise, the work of Lattimer and Fackler is simply a very sound, complete, and careful examination and reconstruction of the facts that should be the standard in all cases, but isn’t.
[…]
Some argument can be made in the typical investigation that the talent and resources just are not available to meet a first class standard, but one can hardly argue that this situation is applicable to the Warren report. The Warren commission should have used all of the best talent available to make the most complete analysis possible, but they didn’t.”~Duncan MacPherson
. . . . .
So Jean,
It is clear enough that MacPherson is a ballistics expert, and his book on ‘Bullet Penetration’ is highly recognized.
However his opinion on the Magic Bullet is based on incomplete information, relying on Lattimer, who’s work he finds, “simply a very sound, complete, and careful examination and reconstruction of the facts.”
Again Jean, the criticisms we have put forth here, and the record that backs up that criticism show that Lattimer’s work was far from a complete, and careful examination and reconstruction of the facts.
MacPherson should have known this if he in fact made himself aware of those facts.
I therefore assert that MacPherson did NOT study the original sources, and the original record to reach his conclusions; but relied on the spurious assertions of Lattimer – which are counter-factual to that known record.
Again I remind you that MacPherson made a distinct point that he has avoided the JFK assassination literature. I see this as proud and purposeful ignorance, and an unworthy mindset for a serious person.
\\][//
Photon:
This is an area where we could use your multiple levels of expertise. How does a tumbling bullet leave a 1.5 centimeter hole? Was it tumbling so much that it straightened out the millisecond before entrance?
Operative report states a 3 cm long wound.
“Operative report states a 3 cm long wound.”~Photon
Dr. Shaw revised his description of the back wound for his Warren Commission testimonies. On March 23, 1964, Shaw testified in Dallas. He told the commission that Connally had a 1.5-cm roughly elliptical wound of the right posterior shoulder to the left of the right armpit. During his testimony in Washington, D.C. on April 21, 1964, he repeated the earlier description of the wound and added that the bullet did not penetrate the shoulder blade.
\\][//
The operative report does not state if the 3cm wound was the size before the skin was removed or after. Shaw cleared this up in his testimony. This was the WC at its best. That some, starting with Lattimer, but continuing on down to today, seek to muddy up one of the few things the WC did right just goes to show how crazy things have gotten.
Au contraire, Dr. Speer. The description of the entrance wound is in exactly the same sentence describing the appearance of the chest exit wound; both descriptions are following the standard operative report procedure of physical description of the initial findings and reason for the procedure, PRIOR to initiation of the procedure.
This is the standard way that operative reports are composed.You never describe the appearance of a sutured wound at the end of surgery prior to description of the procedure itself. Your claim is not correct.
You do not ” clear up ” an operative report in testimony given 4 months later. There is no evidence that Shaw ever corrected his operative report in the standard manner within 24 hours, nor any evidence that he ever dictated an addendum to the report. The operative report stands and is the legally defined record of what actually took place, despite all of the hue and cry from non-physicians who cannot understand that Shaw’s testimony to the WC was geared to explanations that he thought would be more understanding to laymen.
But this topic brings up another interesting item. CTers continuously bring up the initial perceptions of the head wound by the Parkland doctors, even though only two doctors appear to have had a good look at the wound – Clark and Jenkins( and the later made colossal errors despite that). Many of the descriptions of the doctors involved mention the fact that many if not most did not really examine the head. And yet these rushed and incomplete descriptions are distorted to claim that they all favored a back of the head wound, without ever mentioning the qualifying statements. Virtually every Parkland doctor save McClelland later agreed with the WC findings and the autopsy descriptions. But CTers continuously claim that these comment made later have no value, were coerced or could never be as accurate as the observations made on Nov. 22, when their recollections would be most accurate.
How can you possibly accept the Parkland descriptions( as interpreted) as gospel when by the same standards you must reject Shaw’s ” corrections” stated four months after he completed a written operative report?
A simple typo by a man who had gone through a harrowing experience. It’s not conceivable that, under duress, Dr. Shaw wrote the size of the wound following debridement, 3 cm., when he meant to write the size of the wound PRIOR to debridement, that being 1.5 cm.?
Can you think of a good reason, “Dr.” Photon, why Dr. Shaw would lie about the size of the entrance wound?
You are clinging to the most pathetic bits of evidence. It is rather sad to watch you embarrassing yourself.
“both descriptions are following the standard operative report procedure of physical description of the initial findings and reason for the procedure, PRIOR to initiation of the procedure.”~Photon
But the procedure had started. As Dr Shaw stated the entry and exit wounds were bandaged and tubed at the time he entered the operating room:
“The patient was brought to the OR from the EOR. In the EOR a sucking wound of the right chest was partially controlled by an occlusive dressing supported by manual pressure. A tube had been placed through the second interspace in the midclavicular line connected to a waterseal bottle to evacuated the right pneumothorax and hemathorax. An IV infusion of RL solution had already been started. As soon as the patient was positioned on the OR table the anesthesia was induced by Dr. Giesecke and an endotracheal tube was in place. As soon as it was possible to control respiration with positive pressure the occlusive dressing was taken from the right chest and the extent of the wound more carefully determined. It was found that the wound of entrance was just lateral to the right scapula close to the axilla yet had passed through the latysmus dorsi muscle shattered approximately ten cm of the lateral and anterior portion of the right fifth rib and emerged below the right nipple. The wound of entrance was approximately three cm in its longest diameter and the wound of exit was a ragged wound approximately five cm in its greatest diameter. The skin and subcutaneous tissue over the path of the missile moved in a paradoxical manner with respiration indicating softening of the chest. The skin of the whole area was carefully cleansed with Phisohex and Iodine.”
\\][//
Photon, you’re wrong. Your analogy doesn’t hold. A comparison between the initial Parkland reports and subsequent testimony before the WC shows that CTs accept the WC testimony in both instances.
But I get your point. A better analogy is Boswell’s measurement for the large head wound. The skull was such a mess that they didn’t measure the wound until they pulled the scalp back, and chunks of skull fell to the table. A lot of CTs seem to think his measurement is a measurement of the wound as originally observed, but that isn’t so. Same thing with Shaw’s measurement of Connally’s wound. When Shaw began working on Connally, it was a life or death situation. There was no time to stop and measure the entrance hole. It only follows then that his measurement was taken after.
And no, this wasn’t a violation of any protocol. Surgeons are tasked with saving lives first. You might wish to believe that they are required to record the size of bullet holes as originally observed but that just isn’t so.
Quite frankly the suspension of common sense in regards to the Operative Report seems to be getting out of hand. The second sentence after the description of both exit and entrance wounds describes the preparation of the surgical sites with Phisohex and Iodine-PRIOR to any surgical incision. Obviously if Shaw described the wounds prior to the surgical incisions in the OR he is describing the wounds as he initially saw them.Of course this type of pre-operative preparation has not been done for decades, but it does establish the chronological order of the report. You can’t put the Genie back in the bottle.
Photon,
How many operative reports have you written or dictated? I’ve done thousands, including in situations that ended up being medical-legal cases. We surgeons make every effort to be clear and precise in those reports, yet imprecision occurs commonly and it’s common for surgeons to add detail later during testimony.
Besides, Shaw’s recollection that the back wound was but 1.5 cm when he first examined it has been corroborated by the FBI’s measurement of hole in Connally’s jacket and the HSCA’s measurement of the hole in the governor’s shirt.
If you’re going to cleave solely to original witness statements and throw out everything they said afterward, you’re going to cripple Gerald Posner, John McAdams and a whole host of Warrenistas who endlessly cite pro-Warren Commission claims made years later by witnesses whose early statements they find inconvenient.
Take a look, for example, at Marion Thomas (“Pepper”) Jenkins in my 1994 compilation: ssassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
Oops!
Here’s the right url:
If you’re going to cleave solely to original witness statements and throw out everything they said afterward, you’re going to cripple Gerald Posner, John McAdams and a whole host of Warrenistas who endlessly cite pro-Warren Commission claims made years later by witnesses whose early statements they find inconvenient.
Take a look, for example, at Marion Thomas (“Pepper”) Jenkins in my 1994 compilation: assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
Right, except that the “wounds” in both Connally’s shirt and coat match the 1.5-cm wound Shaw testified was there when he first examined the governor.