Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just pointing out that you blew the the definition of cavitation as applied to bullets, and now you're throwing around back-splatter like you know what you're talking about - even though it does not apply to the JFK Assassination.

He's not playing a game, there is no back-splatter from the entry wound, and there's a very good reason why.

Man your hobby sucks. What are you even doing? Cavitation is a cavity of air produced by a projectile, deflection is when a projectile is deflected. Backspatter is when blood and debris is blown outwards from a point of entry for a projectile, forward spatter is blood and debris blown forwards from a point of exit for a projectile.
 
Whoa. I realize "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds' [Emerson] but the key word in there is 'foolish'.

You've been consistently arguing that the cowlick area was cut off by the craniotomy BEFORE the brain was removed, and then you show us an autopsy photo with the brain removed and claim the cowlick area is visible right in the middle of the photo.

That makes NO sense. According to your own arguments, it should be someplace else on the autopsy table by this time.

Hank

I did not mean to say that the center of the photograph (showing skull bone beveled OUTWARD) was lower parietal bone, but perhaps upper occipital bone, which appears to be the area that actually correlates to the red spot in the BOH photographs. In this situation, the red spot would be best explained as an exit for a fragment, since the reflected scalp shows a tiny dimple which perhaps correlates to the beveled exit on the skull bone. The relatively low-quality black and white versions are ambiguous to where a suture line could be, if it does show one at all.

Didn't mean to sound confusing, when it comes to specifics, "cowlick" can mean a lot of things. Kennedy's actual cowlick in the upper left of his head, the presumed area of parted hair on the BOH photographs, the upper area on the X-rays theorized to be an entry wound, etc.
 
Considering that you have not seen all of the photographs you can't say what any of them detail. You don't know if they are missing or not.

You have no proof of any pictures being destroyed before they were inventoried (this is a sophomoric lie), the photographs were in the possession of the KENNEDY FAMILY. Are you really stupid enough to believe the Kennedy's didn't make copies?

Don't answer that, it's obvious.

Axxman, anybody who has read all of the Dr.'s statements know it would be silly to think there was never a photograph showing the bruise on Kennedy's lung. Then you have other statements by the doctors and photographer about close-ups of the EOP wound in the scalp, outer and inner surface of the skull, a view showing most of his entire body laying on the table, a view showing his inner body upon dissection. Then you have the other stories of an X-ray showing a probe going from the back to the throat, Knudsen's two or three probes going through the body, etc.
 
Interesting, except we know that's false.

You yourself quoted Humes arguing for the white matter at the hairline below the EOP as the entry wound. This is what you get when you decide to accept recollections instead of hard evidence. Wounds that move all over the place.

Don't you remember this exchange?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11978266#post11978266

Hank

The confusion with the white splotch is, to me, just a sign that the doctors were using their honest-to-God fifteen-year-old memory to relate what they experienced: That the wound was low in the head. A centimeter here or there is a reasonably expected discrepancy between the original records and fifteen-year-old memory (but you better believe that their memory of that event stayed pretty strong since they were literally examining the President's dead naked body for several hours).

That, and it can be confusing looking at an incomplete autopsy photographic record which appears to have been picked clean by vultures with an agenda to keep everything as vague as possible.
 
Last edited:
Great. Now you're conceding the prior argument by you was wrong. That the back wound had to be moved... we know that's false because you just admitted the back wound and the throat wound were always connected from Saturday morning, 11/23/1963 onward... once Humes and Dr. Perry spoke.

Dr. Perry thought it was an entrance wound or a fragment wound, and probably told Dr. Humes that at around midnight while the autopsy was still in progress. A good deal of evidence indicates that the official story was almost that the throat wound was somehow the consequence of a (or the) head spot. Richard Lipsey's observations as well as the endless early reports claiming that the autopsy concluded the throat wound was a fragment from the head shot.

A possible back-to-throat connection may have been investigated during the autopsy, as indicated by the hearsay CBS memo with the X-ray of a probe going through the body, or perhaps Knudsen's recollections of seeing a photographic negative of probes going through Kennedy's body. But, ultimately, the majority of the statements from the autopsy participants indicate the back wound was shallow. James Curtis Jenkins claimed to distinctly recall seeing a probe poking up against the lining of Kennedy's chest cavity.

It's ironic that after telling us that Humes is a lying scoundrel who moved the back wound up to aid in a coverup of the truth, you then want to hang your hat on where Humes put the back of head wound 35 years after the fact. That's more than ironic, in fact, it's downright funny.

Don't you recall claiming this earlier today?

You don't get to pick and choose which of Humes claims are trustworthy.

The lack of a motivation for Humes to lie about an entrance wound on the back of the head or the nature thereof, combined with his signs of a reasonable discrepancy in human memory as the "white splotch" confusion shows, combined with the vast corroboration, shows that Humes is trustworthy on the EOP wound.

And no such missile was found in the limousine. Only two large fragments, both of which were ballistically traceable to Oswald's weapon and both of which struck the back of the head and caused the massive explosion of brain and skull out the front top of JFK head as seen in Zapruder frame 313. As determined by HUMES (and Boswell and Finck and a dozen forensic pathologists).

Oh wow, the limousine, a piece of forensic evidence known for being botched and overlooked, how convincing. I'm sure if somebody found, say, skull fragments in the limousine, we would have them today to study.

And how can you know anything about the fragments besides perhaps that they were from a 6.5 Carcano round? They're too mangled to show rifling. Neutron Activation analysis is debunked. What are you talking about "ballistically traceable"?

And for what it's worth, there's always this little story from Secret Service agent Paul Landis in the 2010 book The Kennedy Detail: JFK's Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence"

"Agents Hill, Lawson, Kellerman, and the sobbing Dave Powers lifted the president out of the limo and placed him on the gurney as Bill Greer steadied it.

When Agent Paul Landis helped Mrs. Kennedy out of the car he saw a bullet fragment in the back where the top would be secured. He picked it up and put it on the seat, thinking that if the car were moved, it might be blown off. And then he saw a bloody Zippo lighter with the presidential seal on it. He picked it up and put it in his pocket. He picked up her hat and purse and brought them inside
".

Yes, I know, it's a 47-year-old recollection. I said "for what it's worth".

The contemporaneous evidence indicates no such thing. You're back to cherry-picking from the recollections of the autopsy personnel from 35 years after the fact. That won't do. Everyone knows how unreliable those recollections are.

Besides, connecting the two on the night of the assassination instead of the following morning doesn't help you any. It just makes your argument that Humes had to move the wound up much more problematic. If he was going to lie about it, why not lie about it from the very beginning, instead of starting in March when Rydberg made the drawing? Your arguments don't even fit together in any cohesive manner.

Hank

35 years after? I would suggest you go back and review the evidence for the "early throat wound discovery" theory I posted before:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11931229&postcount=956

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11931291&postcount=962

You have failed to refute the 11/29/1963 George Barnum diary entry saying this: "[Dr. Burkley said, regarding the shots that hit JFK, that] The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat. The second shot striking him above and to the rear of the right ear, this shot not coming out…" The last part is a little confusing, but the point stands and it makes no sense to just ignore it.
 
Man your hobby sucks. What are you even doing? Cavitation is a cavity of air produced by a projectile, deflection is when a projectile is deflected. Backspatter is when blood and debris is blown outwards from a point of entry for a projectile, forward spatter is blood and debris blown forwards from a point of exit for a projectile.

Excuse me, I was confused, on page 35 some moron posted this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11972686#post11972686

From Martin Hay's review of Beyond Reasonable Doubt by Mel Ayton and David Von Pein:

Quote:
It goes without saying that the authors believe the only bullet to strike JFK's skull came from the rear. In support of this contention they write that the Zapruder film "clearly shows the President's head bursting open in the front and the right...a large flap of scalp hangs down from the large exit wound...And, as HSCA pathologists testified, the particulate matter (brain tissue) from the President's head, after the head shot, is spraying forwards, as can be seen from a high-contrast photo of frame 313 of the Zapruder film." (pgs. 98-99) From this it appears that Ayton and Von Pein are under the impression that the massive wound on the right side of JFK's head was an exit wound and the cloud of matter seen in Z-313 is exit spray. Neither of these things is true.

As ballistics expert, and Warren Commission apologist, Larry Sturdivan, stated in his 2005 book, The JFK Myths; a book Ayton and Von Pein cite but either did not read or failed to comprehend; "the explosive rupture of the side of the president's head over his ear was not caused by an exiting bullet fragment." (Sturdivan, p. 186) In actual fact, the explosion, which occurred after the bullet had already exited the skull, was a typical "Kronlein Schuss," named for the German ballistics expert who first demonstrated the effect with clay-filled skulls. The energy deposited as the bullet passed through the brain imparted a momentum so great that a temporary cavity was formed. Consequently, a violent wave of hydraulic pressure was applied to the cranium at which point fractures radiating from the point of entrance gave way to the brain fluid and tissue which burst upwards through the cracks. As Sturdivan explained, "the center of the blown-out area of the president's skull was at the midpoint of the trajectory; not at the exit point." (Ibid, p. 171) Sturdivan noted that the blood and matter seen in Z-313 "appears to be directed upward and only slightly forward...Since the tears [in the scalp] were so extensive, the spray went in all directions, just like the skull fragments did." (Ibid, p. 175) A "similar explosion would have taken place" whichever direction the bullet was travelling. (Ibid, p. 171) As Dr. Donald Thomas put it in his book on the Kennedy assassination forensic evidence, Hear No Evil, "While the Kronlein Schuss effect explains why the brain matter and bony fragments flew upward, it does not reveal the direction of the bullet." (Thomas, p. 351) As medical expert Milicent Cranor, based upon her reading of authority Dr. Vincent DiMaio, has written, another term for this is cavitation.

The cloud of matter in Z-313 was not exit spray, and the hole which encompassed most of the right side of Kennedy's head was not an exit wound. In actual fact, JFK's lead pathologist, Dr. James J. Humes, testified to the Commission that after a "careful examination of the margins of the large bone defect" the doctors were unable to find a point of exit on the skull. He attributed this failure to the fact that there was a large amount of missing bone. (2H353)

So while you're posting stuff to counter our arguments you actually undermine yours. You either don't read what you cut and paste, or you don't understand it.:thumbsup:
 
Axxman, anybody who has read all of the Dr.'s statements know it would be silly to think there was never a photograph showing the bruise on Kennedy's lung. Then you have other statements by the doctors and photographer about close-ups of the EOP wound in the scalp, outer and inner surface of the skull, a view showing most of his entire body laying on the table, a view showing his inner body upon dissection. Then you have the other stories of an X-ray showing a probe going from the back to the throat, Knudsen's two or three probes going through the body, etc.

They never probed the neck wound all the way through.

They didn't have to because the fiber evidence spells out a single entry to the back and a single exit out the front.

Those photographs are still in the archives, and their descriptions of what they detail show that they have all of that. Your source material is almost all CT based, and should not be trusted as all if it was written in the name of making money, not shedding light on the truth.:thumbsup:
 
That, and it can be confusing looking at an incomplete autopsy photographic record which appears to have been picked clean by vultures with an agenda to keep everything as vague as possible.

Prove it. Give us the film roll numbers which have missing exposures.

Don't tell us about vultures unless you name them. Who are these shadowy people with seemingly magical powers?

You assume conspiracy without being brave or intellectually honest enough to lay it out for us. WHY? You talk about mystery autopsy photos being destroyed before they are inventoried without explaining the process or how this could occur. Maybe you're unaware but JFK's brother was the Attorney General of the United States, and a man who had been actively attempting to kill Fidel Castro - so how does RFK sound like a guy you want to cross?

This last point is why the assassination CTs are so offensive to honest people, they assume that RFK and the rest of the Kennedys would just lie down and remain silent. This idea shows a galaxy-sized depth of ignorance of history, and while it is every American's right to be a slack-jawed moron it is not their right to spread lies. Both Kennedy brothers faced off against the mafia, JFK went to war in a small wooden boat to face off against Japanese destroyers. These are not men who backed down from a fight, and if you messed with one Kennedy you took on all of them. So in what universe does RFK roll over and let the murder of his brother become a fiction?

Not in this one.

And if you knew anything about the Kennedy's you'd know that any conclusion about the killer of JFK that was not the truth would have resulted in political carnage unseen since the Civil War.

My advice: get into Bigfoot. It will get you out in the fresh air.:thumbsup:
 
Dr. Perry thought it was an entrance wound or a fragment wound, and probably told Dr. Humes that at around midnight while the autopsy was still in progress. A good deal of evidence indicates that the official story was almost that the throat wound was somehow the consequence of a (or the) head spot. Richard Lipsey's observations as well as the endless early reports claiming that the autopsy concluded the throat wound was a fragment from the head shot.

This is a lie.

The fiber evidence from Kennedy's clothes, and exit wounds leave something called an "Abrasion Collar", and the tracheostomy had left one edge of the exit wound intact. X-Rays show no missile inside the body, but they do show wounds to the internal structures of the neck suggesting that the back was the entrance wound. In fact, these X-rays are the strongest evidence for trajectory leading back to the 6th floor of the TSBD.

What I wrote above is the truth.


A possible back-to-throat connection may have been investigated during the autopsy, as indicated by the hearsay CBS memo with the X-ray of a probe going through the body, or perhaps Knudsen's recollections of seeing a photographic negative of probes going through Kennedy's body. But, ultimately, the majority of the statements from the autopsy participants indicate the back wound was shallow. James Curtis Jenkins claimed to distinctly recall seeing a probe poking up against the lining of Kennedy's chest cavity.

They never completely probed the back wound. Didn't have to.


The lack of a motivation for Humes to lie about an entrance wound on the back of the head or the nature thereof, combined with his signs of a reasonable discrepancy in human memory as the "white splotch" confusion shows, combined with the vast corroboration, shows that Humes is trustworthy on the EOP wound.

Humes never lied, never had a reason to lie.

Oh wow, the limousine, a piece of forensic evidence known for being botched and overlooked, how convincing. I'm sure if somebody found, say, skull fragments in the limousine, we would have them today to study.

Botched?

What are your bonafides again to make this claim? How many homocide crime scenes have you worked, or are you just a Secret Service veteran?

There was nothing to botch. They got the President to Parkland as fast as possible, and got him out and into the ER. THIS WAS PRIORITY ONE. None of the detail was think about "Preserving a Crime Scene" because they were out in the real world doing their job. This all took place within minutes of the President being shot.

You can't handle the stress on a internet message board without posting stupid pictures and whining about how unfair we are/life is, but these guys got JFK to the hospital, and took care of the First Lady, and the Governor of Texas while keeping it together.

You can learn a lot from these men.

And how can you know anything about the fragments besides perhaps that they were from a 6.5 Carcano round? They're too mangled to show rifling. Neutron Activation analysis is debunked. What are you talking about "ballistically traceable"?

We know because the fragments matched. We know because the only bullets fired were 6.5x52mm.

A subsonic round would have never exited the skull if fired from the proposed distances you allege, which you'd know if you went to a firing range a few times.


You have failed to refute the 11/29/1963 George Barnum diary entry saying this: "[Dr. Burkley said, regarding the shots that hit JFK, that] The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat. The second shot striking him above and to the rear of the right ear, this shot not coming out…" The last part is a little confusing, but the point stands and it makes no sense to just ignore it.

The evidence refutes it. Even the pictures you've posted refute it.
 
Man your hobby sucks. What are you even doing? Cavitation is a cavity of air produced by a projectile, deflection is when a projectile is deflected. Backspatter is when blood and debris is blown outwards from a point of entry for a projectile, forward spatter is blood and debris blown forwards from a point of exit for a projectile.

Wrong again:

https://www.hornady.com/team-hornady/ballistic-calculators/ballistic-resources/terminal-ballistics


The primary way a bullet causes damage to an animal is through the permanent cavity it leaves - the hole that is created as the bullet passes through skin, bone or flesh. This wound channel is the same diameter as the bullet/bullet fragments and is a function of bullet penetration and expansion.

A secondary way that a bullet causes damage is by the temporary cavity it causes. When a bullet hits soft tissue, the tissue acts more like a fluid than a solid as it gives way and tries to absorb the bullet’s energy. The bullet does not immediately penetrate the tissue; instead, it makes an impact crater that stretches in until the bullet penetrates the tissue.

As the bullet continues its path, it violently pushes the tissue ahead of it both directly and indirectly in such a way that the tissue is stretched beyond its elasticity and is cut and torn as it quickly tries to return to its original position and beyond.


Maybe the mind that invented the ventriloquist suppressor believes that projectiles create air and air damages flesh, muscles and organs, but the fact is that the human body doesn't cope well with metal intruders of the ballistic type.

And again:

https://www.azflse.org/download.cfm?filename=BLOODSPATTERVOCABULARY&type=pdf&loc=csiarizona

"Arterial Spurting (or gushing) Pattern -- Bloodstain pattern(s) resulting from blood exiting the body under pressure from a breached artery. Back Spatter -- Blood directed back towards the source of energy or force that caused the spatter. Bloodstain -- Evidence that liquid blood has come into contact with a surface."

How about providing one single reference in forensic literature citing a video of a injured person as an example of "back spatter."
 
While we're talking bullets, and cavitation, here's a cool video just uploaded featuring the Underwood .30 caliber designed to cavitate. While it's not 6.5x52mm the act of cavitation, as well as yaw, and tumbling are clearly depicted in this video using ballistic gel blocks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4NHSMcnSd8

For a good ole boy just having fun with a WWII carbine, this video is pretty comprehensive for demonstrating what some bullets do when they find their target.

Warning: Ham is massacred in this video.
 
Viewing the results is impressive. One can easily realize the damage that the bullet caused exploding the skull, causing massive fracturing.
 
Cosmic Yak, I challenge YOU to go to the JFK thread and refute my points against the EOP wound. Nobody can without using BS. A parkland doctor looking at Kennedy's body from a certain angle and thinking his large head wound was more occipital than parietal is one thing, but nobody can refute the oodles of reasons to think there was a wound near Kennedy's external occipital protuberance, starting with the autopsy doctors who handled his body for several hours and repeatedly attested to exactly that. I think i won the JFK thread, but feel free to read through that thread and the prior thread to see the evidence and present your own case. And if you believe the entry wound in the back of Kennedy's head really was near his EOP, feel free to explain why you think that can be compatible with the official story. I don't think it can...

Not really.
 
And how can you know anything about the fragments besides perhaps that they were from a 6.5 Carcano round? They're too mangled to show rifling. Neutron Activation analysis is debunked. What are you talking about "ballistically traceable"?

This is the false claim I referenced in the 9/11 thread.

Specifically, here:
No, you were arguing your interpretation of the words gleaned from testimony. Which doesn't make it factual, as it contradicted every conclusion reached by the experts. You also don't understand the facts when they are presented to you. Or deny them outright. I will point out one such factual error by you in my next post in that thread, concerning your claim about the ballistic evidence. You were absolutely wrong there, but I don't expect an retraction or even an admission that you misunderstood the evidence. I expect you'll attempt to bluster your way through or change the subject ("Oh, yeah, well, what about ...?").

The two largest fragments found in the limo were, contrary to your assertion, ballistically traceable to Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

Here's how the Warren Commission wrote it up:
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html
Expert Testimony
Four experts in the field of firearms identification analyzed the nearly whole bullet, the two largest fragments and the three cartridge cases to determine whether they had been fired from the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository. Two of these experts testified before the Commission. One was Robert A. Frazier, a special agent of the FBI assigned to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C. Frazier has worked generally in the field of firearms identification for 23 years, examining firearms of various types for the purpose of identifying the caliber and other characteristics of the weapons and making comparisons of bullets and cartridge cases for the purpose of determining whether or not they were fired in a particular weapon.136 He estimated that he has made "in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 60,000" firearms comparisons and has testified in court on about 400 occasions.137 The second witness who testified on this subject was Joseph D. Nicol, superintendent of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation for the State of Illinois. Nicol also has had long and substantial experience since 1941 in firearms identification, and estimated that he has made thousands of bullet and cartridge case examinations.138
In examining the bullet fragments and cartridge cases, these experts applied the general principles accepted in the field of firearms identification, which are discussed in more detail in appendix X at pages 547-553. In brief, a determination that a particular bullet or cartridge case has been fired in a particular weapon is based upon a comparison of the bullet or case under examination with one or more bullets or cases known to have been fired in that weapon. When a bullet is fired in any given weapon, it is engraved with the characteristics of the weapon. In addition to the rifling characteristics of the barrel which are common to all weapons of a given make and model, every weapon bears distinctive microscopic markings on its barrel, firing pin and bolt face.139 These markings arise initially during manufacture, since the action of the manufacturing tools differs microscopically from weapon to weapon and since, in addition, the tools change microscopically while being used. As a weapon is used further distinctive markings are introduced. Under microscopic examination a qualified expert may be able to determine whether the markings on a bullet known to have been fired in a particular weapon and the markings on a suspect bullet are the same and, therefore, whether both bullets were fired in the same weapon
Page 85
to the exclusion of all other weapons. Similarly, firearms identification experts are able to compare the markings left upon the base of cartridge cases and thereby determine whether both cartridges were fired by the same weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons. According to Frazier, such an identification "is made on the presence of sufficient individual microscopic characteristics so that a very definite pattern is formed and visualized on the two surfaces."140 Under some circumstances, as where the bullet or cartridge case is seriously mutilated, there are not sufficient individual characteristics to enable the expert to make a firm identification.141
After making independent examinations, both Frazier and Nicol positively identified the nearly whole bullet from the stretcher and the two larger bullet fragments found in the Presidential limousine as having been fired in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the Depository to the exclusion of all other weapons.142 Each of the two bullet fragments had sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis for an identification.143 However, it was not possible to determine whether the two bullet fragments were from the same bullet or from two different bullets.144

You previously asserted you had read the Warren Commission Report. Here is another example of you not being familiar with its contents. I still doubt you ever read the Warren Report or the 26 volumes of evidence. Your posts disprove that claim repeatedly. You only appear to be familiar with conspiracy bullet points, and not in a good way.

Here's the testimony of Frazier on the fragments:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

Mr. EISENBERG - I now hand you a bullet fragment [CE567], what appears to be a bullet fragment, in a pill box which is labeled jacket and Lead Q-2, and it has certain initials on it. For the record, this was found--this bullet fragment was found--in the front portion of the car in which the President was riding. I ask you whether you are familiar with this object.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG - Is your mark on--
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this? Is this a bullet fragment, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. This consists of a piece of the jacket portion of a bullet from the nose area and a piece of the lead core from under the jacket.
Mr. EISENBERG - How were you able to conclude it is part of the nose area?
Mr. FRAZIER - Because of the rifling marks which extend part way up the side, and then have the characteristic leading edge impressions and no longer continue along the bullet, and by the fact that the bullet has a rounded contour to it which has not been mutilated.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this bullet to determine whether it had been fired from Exhibit 139 to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment was fired in this rifle, 139.
....
Mr. EISENBERG - Can we go back a second? I don't think I asked for admission of the bullet fragment which--Mr. Frazier identified. May I have that admitted?
Mr. McCLOY - It may be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG - The bullet fragment will be 567 and the photograph just identified by Mr. Frazier will be 568.
Mr. McCLOY - It may be admitted.
...
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, may I have this bullet fragment marked Q-3 admitted as Commission 569?
Mr. McCLOY - It may be admitted.
...
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment [CE569] with a view to determining whether it had been fired from the rifle, Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment, Exhibit 569, was fired from this particular rifle, 139.
Mr. EISENBERG - Again to the exclusion of all other rifles?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.


I am certain this language is contained in this thread or its predecessor threads. I may even have posted it directly in response to one of your claims in the past.

Here's the testimony of Nicol on the fragments:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/nicol.htm
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Nicol, did you examine the three exhibits which were given to you as Q-1, Q-2, and Q-3, and which are now, I believe 567, 569, and 399?
Mr. NICOL. Yes sir; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. To determine whether or not they had come from the identical barrel as that in which the two--the bullets in Exhibit 572 had been fired?
Mr. NICOL. Yes, I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your conclusions?
Mr. NICOL. Yes. It is my opinion that the same weapon that fired Commission's Exhibit 572 also fired the projectiles in Commission's Exhibits 569, 567, and 399.
Mr. EISENBERG. That would be to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. NICOL. Correct.


MicahJava, go back and actually read the above. Don't just skim it.

Did both Frazier and Nicol testify there were sufficient lands and grooves in the two bullet fragments to offer sufficient markings to determine whether those fragments matched the test bullet fired from Oswald's rifle? Yes, they did.

Did both those men say the fragments were ballistically traceable to Oswald's weapon, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world? Yes, they did.

Did the Warren Commission Report adequately and accurately cover this testimony, pointing out that the fragments in the limo were ballistically traceable to Oswald's weapon, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world? Yes, it does.

Was your claim to the contrary false?

You said above: (They're too mangled to show rifling... What are you talking about "ballistically traceable"? )

Your claim that the fragments in the limo aren't ballistically traceable to Oswald's rifle is absolutely false. It has been false in the past, it is false now, and it will be false the next time you make the claim, and every time thereafter.

Hank
 
Last edited:
I concur. But he's got his own definitions for 'not ballistically traceable" and dozens of other claims, what's one more?

Hank

YAWN. You shouldn't have to quote a long line of WC dialogue to give a straight answer. Where's the specific proof that the fragments can be traced to the rifle in evidence to the exclusion of all other weapons? the fragments were so mangled that nobody could see that 'rifling marks' are next to useless.
 
So why isn't the EOP wound basically considered historical fact?

A. The autopsy report, partially based on contemporary notes made during the autopsy (2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance).

B. All statements from those present at the autopsy, including the autopsy doctors and autopsy photographer, support a wound low in the head near the EOP.

C. The official autopsy photographs and X-rays cannot be excluded from being compatible with the EOP wound.

D. Dr. Finck arrived at the autopsy after the brain had already been removed, and that he was able to examine the entry wound within the rest of the intact, open cranium. This almost certainly cannot be true unless the entry wound was low in the head, near the EOP.

???
 
YAWN. You shouldn't have to quote a long line of WC dialogue to give a straight answer. Where's the specific proof that the fragments can be traced to the rifle in evidence to the exclusion of all other weapons? the fragments were so mangled that nobody could see that 'rifling marks' are next to useless.

What did you think of the Warren Commission Report findings about it?

LOL.
 
What did you think of the Warren Commission Report findings about it?

LOL.

Based on what? I can understand the rifling marks on CE 399, since it is a pristine bullet, consistent with a bullet fired through water as shown by Henry Hurt, by why those mangled fragments? It seems like all that can be shown is that they can be consistent with the rifle in evidence, not proven to have come from the rifle in evidence.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom