Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
HSienzant said:
See the testimony of Frazier and Nicol, along with the referenced Commission Exhibits, all previously provided.

I am sorry but reading it will have to do. They didn't videotape the testimony.

Hank
Click to expand...

A. Please don't tell me that at no point did anybody think at make imprints of the test bullet markings like they did with RFK.

B. If somebody did, please don't tell me that those records have gone missing along with other crucial forensic evidence.
 
Apparently the kind of camera used to capture the bullet markings for that RFK demonstration had been in existence since the 1930's!

From the Association of Firearm and ToolMark Examiners:

Balliscan Camera

The trade name for a camera which will photograph the entire cylindrical surface of a bullet on one plate. This is accomplished by rotating the bullet in front of the camera lens while moving the camera film. The camera film is synchronized to the rotation of the bullet. When used for comparison purposes, the photographs of the test and evidence bullets are cut laterally and overlaid. The panoramic bullet camera was initially developed in the early 1930's and subsequently reintroduced at periodic intervals. Because of technical problems, it has never received wide acceptance by firearms examiners and none are being commercially produced at the present time. The following panoramic cameras have been reported:
- Capt. C.A. Peterson's camera at Miami, Florida, early 1930s
- Kenneth A. Dawson's Pantascopic bullet camera at Cambridge, Massachusetts, early 1940s
- Belaunde Photo Comparator in Argentina, 1940s and 1950s
- Bullet Periphery Camera in England, 1960s
- Balliscan Camera by Hycon of Monrovia, California, early 1970s.
Click to expand...

So the concept of, you know, photographic evidence instead of one man's word was nothing new in 1963, although the 70's Hycon Balliscan Camera was the one used in that RFK demonstration.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
A. Please don't tell me that at no point did anybody think at make imprints of the test bullet markings like they did with RFK.

B. If somebody did, please don't tell me that those records have gone missing along with other crucial forensic evidence.
Click to expand...

Can't help you if you don't look at the exhibits I already posted links to.

Ignorance of the evidence is one thing. Willful ignorance is quite another.

Neither of the things you suggest are true. Neither happened.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
So the concept of, you know, photographic evidence instead of one man's word was nothing new in 1963, although the 70's Hycon Balliscan Camera was the one used in that RFK demonstration.
Click to expand...

See the links I already provided. You want to pretend there is something missing in the evidence in this regard. There isn't. All that is missing is your acknowledgment that the evidence indicates, exactly as I said and you denied, that the two large fragments recovered from the assassination limousine were ballistically traceable to Oswald's rifle -- to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

And let's note how you denigrate the evidence provided -- claiming it's only 'one man's word' when it's actually far more than that.

Remember this list?

FBI's Robert Frazier: Fragments match test bullet fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
Joseph Nicol: Fragments match test bullet fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
HSCA Firearms Panel: Fragments match test bullet fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

The firearms panel consisted of four men (MONTY C. LUTZ, DONALD E. CHAMPAGNE, JOHN S. BATES, JR., AND ANDREW M. NEWQUIST), so that's six experts that examined the Oswald test bullet and the two large fragments and reached the same conclusion.

The testimony of the HSCA firearm panel experts is here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/firearm.htm

You can whine and argue and hold your breath and stomp your feet as much as you want. That evidence won't change one iota.

Frazier and Nicol examined the actual fragments and test bullets. The HSCA firearms panel, after determining the rifle wasn't in the same condition necessary to perform the test anew, did the same test 15 years after the assassination, utilizing the FBI test bullet. The HSCA firearms panel reached the same conclusion of Frazier and Nicol.

Those photographs were reproduced in the Warren Commission volumes of evidence. I thought you were familiar with the Warren Commission report? You should not have needed me to provide the evidence or the links to that evidence (including the comparison photos) if that were true. You claimed in the past to have read it, but again you display little knowledge of its contents.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Hank, see this video from the RFK Assassination investigation where an expert is explaining the differences and similarities in victim bullets and test bullets using enlarged photographs of the marking imprints?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydP5hXqWKhY&t=74m1s

Where's that for JFK?
Click to expand...

When you read the entire Warren Commission Report what did you find?

The 6.5x52mm round was proprietary to the Carcano rifle. The rifling on the rounds (as pictured in the link you never looked at) match the Carcano recovered from the TSBD owned by Oswald. For fun they matched it to the one fired into General Walker's home and guess what? It was a match as well.

Had Oswald owned a .762 caliber you might have a case, but the 6.5x52mm is a lone banana on an apple farm.
 
MicahJava said:
How convenient.
Click to expand...

Well then tell us about your extensive range time with high-powered rifles, and your vast experience with how those rounds behave on different targets.

No?

Okay, we'll settle for your experience with gunshot wounds during your time as an E.R. attendant, nurse, or doctor (we already know you're not a pathologist).
 
MicahJava said:
A. Please don't tell me that at no point did anybody think at make imprints of the test bullet markings like they did with RFK.

B. If somebody did, please don't tell me that those records have gone missing along with other crucial forensic evidence.
Click to expand...

You've never let someone explaining the facts of life to you slow you down so far, so why now?

Oh, I am remiss in not recalling that in conspiracylandia humans never make mistakes and there's no way there's any difference between 1963 in Texas and 1968 in Los Angles.
 
MicahJava said:
So the concept of, you know, photographic evidence instead of one man's word was nothing new in 1963, although the 70's Hycon Balliscan Camera was the one used in that RFK demonstration.
Click to expand...

From the National Archive:

272.6 STILL PICTURES (GENERAL)
1963-64
1,000 images

Photographs: Scenes at the Texas School Book Depository building, the Dallas Police Department building, and other places in Dallas, 1963-64 (350 images). Various subjects, taken from the numbered documents and key persons files, and from the exhibits file, 1963-64 (376 images).

376 images of exhibits, which would include the bullets.

For the normal people reading this, here's a link to the National Archives' JFK photo collection of assassination artifacts:

https://catalog.archives.gov/search...entNaId=305131&f.level=item&sort=naIdSort asc

If you're just a history buff it's a great way to kill an hour. The photos are high resolution so you can see details.
 
Some more testimony for MicahJava to ignore.

This from one of the members of the HSCA firearms panel on the two fragments:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/firearm.htm

Mr. McDONALD. Would you please explain to us what analysis you conducted regarding CE-567 which is in the upper left-hand corner, the two exhibits in the upper left-hand corner, and if the clerk would put up JFK exhibit F-106, I think that would help in the explanation.
Mr. NEWQUIST. After work sheets had been filled out describing the exhibits, their various markings, their weight, they were then placed on a comparison microscope and compared with tests from the Federal to observe the similarity or dissimilarity of the two objects. CE-567 comparison is in the lower enlarged photomicrograph. The CE-567 being on the left side and the Federal test being on the right side showing the identifiable individual area in the middle; to the left and right of the line of demarcation or the splitting of the two photographs.
Mr. MCDONALD. When you say Federal tests, you are referring to the FBI tests of CE-139 in 1963?
Mr. NEWQUIST. That is correct.
Mr. MCDONALD. And you took the fragment, is it labeled CE-567, and microscopically compared it with the test-fired bullet from the FBI that was fired out of 139?
Mr. NEWQUIST. That is correct.
Mr. McDONALD. And what was the result of your examination?
Mr. NEWQUIST. From mine and the panel's comparison, of these two exhibits, it is our opinion, they had been fired from the same firearm.
Mr. MCDONALD. In other words, CE-567, which was the bullet fragment found on the front seat of the Presidential limousine, it is you conclusion through your analysis that it was fired from CE-139, which is before us this morning?
Mr. NEWQUIST. That is correct.
Mr. MCDONALD. What did you do regarding CE-569?
Mr. NEWQUIST. The same being true for CE-569, it was placed on a microscope and compared with the FBI test bullets fired from the Oswald rifle to observe the similarity or dissimilarity, the result or a photographic representation of the identification is in the upper photograph. CE-569 on the left side of the line of demarcation, the FBI test, CE-572 is on the right side showing the concurrence of the individual characteristics as seen on the comparison microscope.
Mr. MCDONALD. And the conclusion is that they were both fired from the same weapon?
Mr. NEWQUIST. That is correct.
Mr. McDONALD. Could you move your microphone just a little bit higher? We are having difficulty hearing you.
In effect, what we are doing, we are taking the actual evidence that the FBI used, the test-fired bullets, the fragments found in the
Presidential limousine, and you are taking those and independent-
ly reevaluating them again in 1978; is that correct?
Mr. NEWQUIST. That is correct.
Mr. McDONALD. And you are reaching the same conclusion that the FBI reached 15 years ago?
Mr. NEWQUIST. That is correct.
 
Currently watching the History Channel dump "Tracking Oswald" to fill a Saturday night programming hole. They've run the entire series.

I'll bottom line it:

Baer's theory is that Oswald linked up with a rogue Cuban exile paramilitary unit called Alpha 66 in New Orleans. He lays out some testimony that Oswald met with their leader, and attended meetings at a house in Dallas. This house and five other Alpha 66 homes were centered along the bus route Oswald had a transfer for on the day of the assassination.

There is a lot of compelling stuff like a defector from Cuban intelligence who claims that Alpha 66 was riddled with Cuban spies, and that on the day of the assassination Castro directed their electronic surveillance to monitor radio traffic out of Dallas.

They bring in acoustical experts to diagram Dealey Plaza to show how sound echoed, and accounts for the confusion of ear-witness testimony. This was worth the hours wasted on the show alone.

He links Oswald to a garage in New Orleans that house government vehicles.

There's a half hour to go. I'll fill you in on the final 30 minutes.
 
Turns out the last 30 minutes said nothing new.

To sum up, "Tracking Oswald" is an extravagant way to blow eight hours if you're a JFK Assassination buff. There's little new information, but it's cool to see the locations we've only read about (like the CIA training camps in Louisiana where the Cubans trained).

At the very least, Bob Baer and his team did the leg work. It's too bad they had to present the information from the files in such an over-dramatic way as if they were the ones who've discovered these files...from the Warren Commission, DPD, HSCA, and so on. Many of which you can find links to right here on the far too many JFK threads:D.

Oh, and they do a head-shot into a skull packed in ballistic gel and the hilarious thing about it is the bullet enters the back of the head low - where MJ claims it does. It's beautiful because first - it demonstrates that a lower entry point is possible from the 6th floor of the TSBD, and second - the lower entry doesn't blow the top of the skull off like the true higher entry point did.

The show is peppered with enough of these little gems to make it worth suffering through.:thumbsup:
 
Axxman300 said:
Oh, and they do a head-shot into a skull packed in ballistic gel and the hilarious thing about it is the bullet enters the back of the head low - where MJ claims it does. It's beautiful because first - it demonstrates that a lower entry point is possible from the 6th floor of the TSBD, and second - the lower entry doesn't blow the top of the skull off like the true higher entry point did.

The show is peppered with enough of these little gems to make it worth suffering through.:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

The EOP shot did not cause the large head wound.
 
MicahJava said:
The EOP shot did not cause the large head wound.
Click to expand...
We agree! Especially since there was no EOP shot. The shot that hit JFK in the head came from above and behind, struck JFK near the top of the back of the head, and exited the right front.

To say otherwise is to contradict the expert forensic pathologists who had the extant autopsy materials to study.

Note how you present your argument: You start off by begging the question by imbedding in your claim the 'fact' of the EOP shot when that is the very issue under dispute. Then you state, based on nothing whatsoever, that the large exit wound had no connection to the wound in the back of the head, contrary to the findings of the autopsists who had the body in front of them on the night of the autopsy, and every other forensic pathologist who has examined the extant autopsy materials. ALL of them said the bullet that caused the entry wound in the back of the head -- regardless of precisely where they placed the wound (and the autopsists were imprecise) then went on to cause the large head wound on the top right side of the head.

Hank

PS: Has enough time gone by now that we're supposed to forget you claimed the two large bullet fragments found in the car were NOT ballistically traceable to Oswald's weapon, to the exclusion of all the other weapons in the world? You can see some of your argument on this very page. While I cited six difference experts who said it was traceable, you ignored their testimony (Frazier and Nicol) & statements (four members of the HSCA Firearms Panel), tried to quibble over the conclusions of one man (Nicol), and eventually dropped the argument without ever conceding you were wrong. You're doing the same thing here -- ignoring the expert testimony to come up with your own unique and contrary opinion. I'm going to remind you once more - you are neither an expert in ballistics nor pathology. Your layman's opinion means nothing. Learn to live with that.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
KennedysAndKing.com has reviews of each Tracking Oswald episode

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/jfk-declassified-tracking-oswald

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/jfk-declassified-tracking-oswald-2

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/jfk-declassified-tracking-oswald-3

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/jfk-declassified-tracking-oswald-4
Click to expand...

This guy is so far down the rabbit hole it's pathetic. His entire premise is that JFK was killed because he wanted to pull out of Vietnam, which is wishful thinking at best, and most likely not true considering the events of 1964 so we don't know what he would have done.

Almost all of his "facts" are made up, hearsay, or misapplied. The only thing he gets right is that the President was shot in Dallas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom