• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
Because it's a ridiculous hypothetical, irrelevant question that has nothing to do with the question of conspiracy to assassinate the President. It is another one of your Red Herrings. I don't know that any photos were destroyed and neither do you. I don't know if there any photos prior them being made up and forged on the night of Nov. 22nd. And if there were such photos, I don't know if there was a rifle in them or not and neither do you.. AlI know is that the photos in evidence are faked and were used to convict LHO in the court of public opinion in order to prevent a public and/or congressional clamor to find the real shooters and/or accomplices.
Click to expand...


If the photos have nothing to do with the question of conspiracy, why did you cite them as evidence of a conspiracy, Robert? Quite simply, if the photos are forgerd, they are evidence of a conspiracy, if they are legitimate, then they are not evidence of a conspiracy. So the issue of whether they are forged or not, and if forged, why they were forged, has a lot to do with the question of conspiracy to assassinate the president.

Your claim of forgery raises questions you cannot answer, hence you want to say it doesn't matter. It matters a great deal.

Marina has always said she took photos of her husband holding a rifle in the Neely Street backyard. Has she been lying for the last 48 years - even though for the last 20 or so she has believed in a conspiracy?

You don't know the photos are faked. You *believe* the photos are faked.
There's a big difference, and you haven't provided any evidence the photos are faked.

You claim they were faked on the night of 11/22/63... but the photos were taken in daylight, not at night. As always, your claims make no sense.

Legitimate photo experts examined those photos for the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassination, and those experts all concluded there is no evidence of fakery.

Quite simply, regarding the photos, you have no case for conspiracy, and cannot articulate one.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
McCelland dictated the drawing as you very well should know.
Click to expand...

How do you "dictate" a drawing, Robert? The drawing is from Josiah Thompson's 1967 book Six Seconds in Dallas and was approved by McClelland. You have also implied in previous posts that McClelland was "dictating" the concensus of what all the trauma room doctors observed.

Robert Prey said:
And the back of the head wound as described by all the Parkland Docs as dictated by Dr. McCelland: That is Evidence.
Click to expand...

This is not true. Listen to McClellands own words, as recorded for a 2009 radio show, here. (He also talks about the misidentified wound and his conspiracy beliefs.) Over a decade after the assassination, when McClelland first saw the Zapruter film, he thought the Z film confirmed his belief that he saw a rear head wound in 1963.

[McClelland] wouldn’t feel confident in his initial assessment until 11 and a half years later, when he and his wife watched an episode of The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. As the couple got ready for bed, Carson introduced his guest, a young, ambitious television host named Geraldo Rivera. Rivera had with him footage of the assassination previously unseen by the public, footage known simply as “the Zapruder film.” Shot by Abraham Zapruder, an immigrant from the Ukraine, the 8-millimeter Kodachrome movie shows the motorcade through the duration of the assassination. As McClelland watched it for the first time, he saw the back of the president’s head blasted out. He saw the president swayed “back and to the left,” a phrase later repeated ad nauseum in Oliver Stone’s JFK. McClelland was convinced he had been standing over an exit wound.

http://www.dmagazine.com/Home/2008/10/24/The_Day_Kennedy_Died.aspx
Click to expand...

But the Z film shows no such thing. The Z film shows the front of the president's head blasted out. The Z film directly contradicts McClelland's "unimpeachable" testimony. McClelland was confused about what he saw in the trauma room and confused about what he saw in the Z film. McClelland is an unreliable witness.
 
Last edited:
Walter Ego said:
How do you "dictate" a drawing, Robert? .
Click to expand...

"Alright Ms Jeaney i need you in my office for some dictation ." door opens, secretary walks in

" Okay get this down..ahem, draw me a very irish looking ear , okay, that looks good, then another one, now right above that one i need a big hole., whoa! not that big!....." lol:D
 
Robert Prey said:
One question at a time so I'll only answer the first one. The only differences in the two drawings is the fact that McClelland's reflects the Parkland observations, the O'connor reflects what he saw at Bethesda. They both show a large blow-out in the back of the head which makes them consistent.
Click to expand...

One shows a large hole in the front of the head - the forehead region. The other does not. Deal with the point I made, Robert, not the one you wish to address.

The autopsy photo shows (according to you) a small bullet hole in the front of the head in the forehead region. That wound is not visible in the McClelland illustration nor the O'Connor drawing, and the shot must have come from somewhere in the car.

http://www.simfootball.net/JFK/JFK-head.jpg

You previously claimed the autopsy photos were forged. Remember stating that? Now you are citing evidence of a gunshot from one of these supposed forged photos. You need to make up your mind.

Quite simply, none of the three drawings / photos you cite agree with any of the others.

Deal with the issues instead of ignoring them.

Hank
 
Robert contradicts himself within less than a day. First, only the opinion of those experts who actually saw the wounds are of any value, then, other experts who didn't see the wound are of value (but only when they agree with Robert).

One could ask Robert if Dr. Berg or Dr. Green were at Parkland or at Bethesda on 11/22/63, but I doubt he'd get the point.

Robert Prey said:
Before I run out and buy those books, perhaps you could enlighten me on one fact: Were either Di Maio or Dodd present at Parkland or at the autopsy at Bethesda? Did they actually view the wounds? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Robert Prey said:
(quoting from Conspiracist Michael Griffith)
... The two medical examiners who replied, Dr. Jimmy W. Green and Dr. Eric Berg, both indicated they felt this was unlikely. Dr. Green said that "almost all FMJ bullets fired from rifles of medium to high velocity do not fragment with numerous pieces. . . ." Dr. Berg was even more skeptical that an FMJ bullet would leave numerous fragments in a skull..."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Knucklehead stuff based solely on poor copies of the Z-film.

I thought that was discredited 30 years ago when better copies of the Z-film first became available to the general public. There are still people peddling this nonsense?
Click to expand...

Yes! 7 year olds right here in River City! :eye-poppi
 
Robert Prey said:
And the Warren Commission concluded that a single full metal jacketed bullet was the bullet that hit the president's head. But what was observed on those authenticated x-rays was snow-storm spray of fragments indicating a frangible bullet. A supporting explanation comes from the book of your very own 'expert" Vincent Di Maio:


FORENSIC SCIENCE AND PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S HEAD WOUNDS

Michael T. Griffith
2002
@All Rights Reserved
Second Edition

"The Warren Commission claimed President Kennedy was struck in the head by a 6.5 mm full-metal-jacketed (FMJ) bullet fired from a low-to-medium-velocity Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, and that no other missile hit his skull. The Clark Panel and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) claimed that a sizable fragment was sheared off from this alleged missile as it entered the president's skull, that the fragment imbedded itself on the outer table of the skull, and that the remainder of the bullet went on to leave dozens of tiny fragments inside the skull. There is compelling evidence that these claims are incorrect, and that President Kennedy was struck in the head by high-velocity, frangible ammunition.

As stated earlier, I asked several medical examiners about the likelihood that an FMJ bullet would leave dozens of fragments inside a skull. The two medical examiners who replied, Dr. Jimmy W. Green and Dr. Eric Berg, both indicated they felt this was unlikely. Dr. Green said that "almost all FMJ bullets fired from rifles of medium to high velocity do not fragment with numerous pieces. Having said that, it is known that the .223 bullet as used in an M-16 rifle will produce multiple fragmentation even though it is an FMJ bullet. This is due to its high velocity (about 3200 fps) and inherent instability when it enters the body. These combined effects tear open the jacket and expose the lead core. . . ." Dr. Berg was even more skeptical that an FMJ bullet would leave numerous fragments in a skull, and he quoted from Dr. Vincent DiMaio's book Gunshot Wounds. That quote is worth repeating, and note that Dr. DiMaio says that even in cases where an FMJ bullet perforates bone only rarely will the missile leave fragments, and that even then the fragments will be "few":
In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a "lead snowstorm". . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1999, p. 318, emphasis added)
Click to expand...

(Please note I also inserted back into the Dr. Green quote the stuff you left out. I bold-faced it in the above).

Did either of the men cited actually perform any experiments to see what would happen to a full metal-jacketed bullet striking a skull?

I remind you (or maybe you never knew) that the Warren Commission commissioned those very tests on a test skull filled with gelatin and guess what?

The bullet fragmented, and the bullet split in two, and the two halves resembled closely the two pieces found in the limo after the assassination, and the result of the bullet caused wounds to the test skull similar to those suffered by the late President Kennedy. It also left a number of small fragments of lead behind, similar to those seen in the JFK autopsy x-rays.

Here's the pertinent part of the Warren Commission Report detailing those tests:
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0305a.htm
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0305b.htm

Here's the photos of the two large fragments of the head-shot bullet found in the limo after the assassination:
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0141b.htm
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0142a.htm

Here's the photos of the test bullet deformed after hitting the skull:
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0439a.htm

Here's a photo of the small lead fragments after the test bullet struck the test skull:
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0439b.htm

Here's a photo of the test skull after being struck with the above:
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0440b.htm

Oh, and by the way, the quote from DiMaio you cited above doesn't say what you think it says.
In x-rays of through-and-through [e.g., bullets striking no bones] gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone.

This is exactly what is seen in the JFK X-rays, as well as what happened when the test bullet struck the test skull. It left behind small lead fragments. That is exactly what happened during the JFK assassination.
And of course, that is exactly what you claim couldn't happen with a full metal jacketed bullet.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
If the photos have nothing to do with the question of conspiracy, why did you cite them as evidence of a conspiracy, Robert? Quite simply, if the photos are forgerd, they are evidence of a conspiracy, if they are legitimate, then they are not evidence of a conspiracy. So the issue of whether they are forged or not, and if forged, why they were forged, has a lot to do with the question of conspiracy to assassinate the president.

Your claim of forgery raises questions you cannot answer, hence you want to say it doesn't matter. It matters a great deal.

Marina has always said she took photos of her husband holding a rifle in the Neely Street backyard. Has she been lying for the last 48 years - even though for the last 20 or so she has believed in a conspiracy?

You don't know the photos are faked. You *believe* the photos are faked.
There's a big difference, and you haven't provided any evidence the photos are faked.

You claim they were faked on the night of 11/22/63... but the photos were taken in daylight, not at night. As always, your claims make no sense.

Legitimate photo experts examined those photos for the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassination, and those experts all concluded there is no evidence of fakery.

Quite simply, regarding the photos, you have no case for conspiracy, and cannot articulate one.
Click to expand...

The B/Y photos which I have proven nine ways to Sunday, to be forged have nothing to do with the question of conspiracy to kill the President, but everything to do with conspiracy to frame a Patsy. To the extent you keep bringing them up betrays another attempt by you to deflect away from the real issue by dwelling on a Red Herring.
 
HSienzant said:
(Please note I also inserted back into the Dr. Green quote the stuff you left out. I bold-faced it in the above).

Did either of the men cited actually perform any experiments to see what would happen to a full metal-jacketed bullet striking a skull?

I remind you (or maybe you never knew) that the Warren Commission commissioned those very tests on a test skull filled with gelatin and guess what?

The bullet fragmented, and the bullet split in two, and the two halves resembled closely the two pieces found in the limo after the assassination, and the result of the bullet caused wounds to the test skull similar to those suffered by the late President Kennedy. It also left a number of small fragments of lead behind, similar to those seen in the JFK autopsy x-rays.

Here's the pertinent part of the Warren Commission Report detailing those tests:
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0305a.htm
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0305b.htm

Here's the photos of the two large fragments of the head-shot bullet found in the limo after the assassination:
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0141b.htm
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0142a.htm

Here's the photos of the test bullet deformed after hitting the skull:
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0439a.htm

Here's a photo of the small lead fragments after the test bullet struck the test skull:
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0439b.htm

Here's a photo of the test skull after being struck with the above:
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0440b.htm

Oh, and by the way, the quote from DiMaio you cited above doesn't say what you think it says.
In x-rays of through-and-through [e.g., bullets striking no bones] gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone.

This is exactly what is seen in the JFK X-rays, as well as what happened when the test bullet struck the test skull. It left behind small lead fragments. That is exactly what happened during the JFK assassination.
And of course, that is exactly what you claim couldn't happen with a full metal jacketed bullet.

Hank
Click to expand...

I do not respond to multiple questions or issues designed to dilute the real issue of whither conspiracy. One at a time or no dialogue.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
The B/Y photos which I have proven nine ways to Sunday, to be forged have nothing to do with the question of conspiracy to kill the President, but everything to do with conspiracy to frame a Patsy. To the extent you keep bringing them up betrays another attempt by you to deflect away from the real issue by dwelling on a Red Herring.
Click to expand...

What is your single best piece of evidence that the backyard photos are forged? The ones that Marina admits taking and that Oswald signed and have proven to be genuine.

And what times are it?



LOL.
 
Robert Prey said:
And the Warren Commission concluded that a single full metal jacketed bullet was the bullet that hit the president's head. But what was observed on those authenticated x-rays was snow-storm spray of fragments indicating a frangible bullet...
Click to expand...

Oh, by the way, Michael Griffith also writes this in the article you quote from:
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/forensic.htm

"When Failure Analysis Inc. conducted ballistics tests on the behavior of FMJ missiles through human skulls, not one of the test bullets broke up into fragments. The bullets used by Failure Analysis were FMJ missiles coated with nickel-chrome, whereas the ones allegedly used by Oswald were copper-jacketed. When they were fired into human skulls, not one of the Failure Analysis missiles broke up into fragments, much less into numerous tiny fragments."

You realize that the Failure Analysis tests aren't meaningful because FA used nickel-chrome jacketed bullets, whereas Oswald used copper jacketed bullets, right?

Now, why would Griffith cite a non-meaningful test as if it were meaningful? Maybe because he doesn't want too cite the meaningful test conducted in 1964 for the Warren Commission using copper jacketed bullets of the same make and manufacturer as Oswald's?

Here's the citation to the results of that test again:

http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0305a.htm
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0305b.htm

Griffith goes on to quote from Livingstone's interview of Detective Roach:

"The head wound [JFK's head wound as seen in the x-rays] has all the hallmarks of 5.56 mm bullet performance. I would expect that if JFK were struck in the head from above and behind by a 6.5 Carcano bullet, the bullet would have crashed into the skull, out the other side, intact, and continued on till it hit something else. (In Livingstone, Killing the Truth, p. 59)"

But that was explained in the Warren Commission Report as well. As noted therein, "Prior to the tests, Dr. Olivier had some doubt that such a stable bullet would cause a massive head wound like that inflicted on the President. He had thought it more likely that such a striking bullet would make small entrance and exit holes. The tests, however, showed that the bones of the skull were sufficient to deform the end of the bullet causing it to expend a great deal of energy and thereby blow out the side of the skull."

Now, why would Livingstone and Griffith not mention the Warren Commission test results using copper jacket ammo just like Oswald's, and then cite non-meaningful tests using different ammo, and instead cite the opinion of three men who had conducted no tests (Drs. Green and Berg, and Detective Roach), none of who had conducted any tests on human skulls to determine what would actually happen?

My theory is that they were trying to conceal the truth from you, as they knew they were making claims that would not withstand serious scrutiny.

But you won't fall for that, because you have enough common sense to check this stuff out for yourself, right?

And just to clarify - there is only one issue addressed here - whether a frangible or copper-jacketed bullet caused the head wound.
Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
The B/Y photos which I have proven nine ways to Sunday, to be forged have nothing to do with the question of conspiracy to kill the President, but everything to do with conspiracy to frame a Patsy. To the extent you keep bringing them up betrays another attempt by you to deflect away from the real issue by dwelling on a Red Herring.
Click to expand...

You never posted any evidence they were forged. That's a lie by you.

You simply continue to duck and dodge on this issue because you have no answers. Remember that Oswald signed one of the photos, inscribing it "To my Daughter June". Remember as well that noted photo analysis experts for both the Warren Commission and the HSCA - not the clown you cite - said there was no evidence of falsification found in the photos.

Earlier you claimed the photos had nothing to do with a conspiracy so that is why you wouldn't address the issues raised...

Robert Prey said:
Because it's a ridiculous hypothetical, irrelevant question that has nothing to do with the question of conspiracy to assassinate the President...
Click to expand...

...but now you admit those backyard photos do have to do with a conspiracy - "The B/Y photos ...have ... everything to do with conspiracy to frame a Patsy."

Fine by me. It's all part of the same conspiracy you allege, isn't it?

You remember that one, the one to assassinate JFK and frame a patsy for the assassination so the real conspirators could get away with it?

So explain now why any one of these brilliant conspirators that have remainder undiscovered for 48 years would want to introduce falsified photos into the record that could be discovered to be falsified (and thereby prove the conspiracy), whereas there were already legitimate photos of Oswald with a rifle in existence and admittedly taken by his own wife, who to this day confirms she took the backyard photos.

You have no evidence of conspiracy, nor any explanation for the nonsense you believe from conspiracy books, so just bluster some more.

I can only surmise that Robert will next be claiming not to answer any questions dealing with a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. Of course, since that's been what he's been doing all along, it wouldn't make any real difference to the discussion in any case.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
I do not respond to multiple questions or issues designed to dilute the real issue of whither conspiracy. One at a time or no dialogue.
Click to expand...

Gee, and here I thought we were making real progress by your demonstrating earlier that you had learned that you can post a response to any point you choose from my post in question. Do you remember writing this (emphasis added):

Robert Prey said:
One question at a time so I'll only answer the first one. The only differences in the two drawings is the fact that McClelland's reflects the Parkland observations, the O'connor reflects what he saw at Bethesda. They both show a large blow-out in the back of the head which makes them consistent.
Click to expand...

I guess you un-learned that in a hurry, because you chose above not to give a meaningful response.

And there is only one issue addressed in the below. It's whether a frangible or a copper-jacketed bullet caused the damage to the head. Care to respond to that one issue?

Here's my points again on that one issue.

HSienzant said:
(Please note I also inserted back into the Dr. Green quote the stuff you left out. I bold-faced it in the above).

Did either of the men cited actually perform any experiments to see what would happen to a full metal-jacketed bullet striking a skull?

I remind you (or maybe you never knew) that the Warren Commission commissioned those very tests on a test skull filled with gelatin and guess what?

The bullet fragmented, and the bullet split in two, and the two halves resembled closely the two pieces found in the limo after the assassination, and the result of the bullet caused wounds to the test skull similar to those suffered by the late President Kennedy. It also left a number of small fragments of lead behind, similar to those seen in the JFK autopsy x-rays.

Here's the pertinent part of the Warren Commission Report detailing those tests:
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0305a.htm
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0305b.htm

Here's the photos of the two large fragments of the head-shot bullet found in the limo after the assassination:
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0141b.htm
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0142a.htm

Here's the photos of the test bullet deformed after hitting the skull:
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0439a.htm

Here's a photo of the small lead fragments after the test bullet struck the test skull:
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0439b.htm

Here's a photo of the test skull after being struck with the above:
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0440b.htm

Oh, and by the way, the quote from DiMaio you cited above doesn't say what you think it says.
In x-rays of through-and-through [e.g., bullets striking no bones] gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone.

This is exactly what is seen in the JFK X-rays, as well as what happened when the test bullet struck the test skull. It left behind small lead fragments. That is exactly what happened during the JFK assassination.
And of course, that is exactly what you claim couldn't happen with a full metal jacketed bullet.

Hank
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Oh, by the way, Michael Griffith also writes this in the article you quote from:
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/forensic.htm

"When Failure Analysis Inc. conducted ballistics tests on the behavior of FMJ missiles through human skulls, not one of the test bullets broke up into fragments. The bullets used by Failure Analysis were FMJ missiles coated with nickel-chrome, whereas the ones allegedly used by Oswald were copper-jacketed. When they were fired into human skulls, not one of the Failure Analysis missiles broke up into fragments, much less into numerous tiny fragments."

You realize that the Failure Analysis tests aren't meaningful because FA used nickel-chrome jacketed bullets, whereas Oswald used copper jacketed bullets, right?

Now, why would Griffith cite a non-meaningful test as if it were meaningful? Maybe because he doesn't want too cite the meaningful test conducted in 1964 for the Warren Commission using copper jacketed bullets of the same make and manufacturer as Oswald's?

Here's the citation to the results of that test again:

http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0305a.htm
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0305b.htm

Griffith goes on to quote from Livingstone's interview of Detective Roach:

"The head wound [JFK's head wound as seen in the x-rays] has all the hallmarks of 5.56 mm bullet performance. I would expect that if JFK were struck in the head from above and behind by a 6.5 Carcano bullet, the bullet would have crashed into the skull, out the other side, intact, and continued on till it hit something else. (In Livingstone, Killing the Truth, p. 59)"

But that was explained in the Warren Commission Report as well. As noted therein, "Prior to the tests, Dr. Olivier had some doubt that such a stable bullet would cause a massive head wound like that inflicted on the President. He had thought it more likely that such a striking bullet would make small entrance and exit holes. The tests, however, showed that the bones of the skull were sufficient to deform the end of the bullet causing it to expend a great deal of energy and thereby blow out the side of the skull."

Now, why would Livingstone and Griffith not mention the Warren Commission test results using copper jacket ammo just like Oswald's, and then cite non-meaningful tests using different ammo, and instead cite the opinion of three men who had conducted no tests (Drs. Green and Berg, and Detective Roach), none of who had conducted any tests on human skulls to determine what would actually happen?

My theory is that they were trying to conceal the truth from you, as they knew they were making claims that would not withstand serious scrutiny.

But you won't fall for that, because you have enough common sense to check this stuff out for yourself, right?

And just to clarify - there is only one issue addressed here - whether a frangible or copper-jacketed bullet caused the head wound.
Hank
Click to expand...


You keep referring to Oswald as the shooter. The fatal shot to the Presidint's head was probably a hollow point or frangible bullet but it wasn't fired by Oswald since it came from the vicinity of the Grassy Knoll.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom