JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[BStrong]

Actually I'm pretty solid on Kindergarten-Grade ballistics and shooting. When I did ride-alongs with my local police I once asked about the test to see if a gun had been recently fired and 4 cops snort-laughed, and told me "good luck with that".

Here we are in 2016 with all kinds of gee-whiz tech and we still can't tell if a weapon was fired an hour ago or last year.




Yeah...no...




All the evidence points to it being shot from the 6th floor, and being the ONLY weapon involved.




His gun, his bullets, his place of work from which he was the only one who fled, his prints on the gun, and GSR on both hands.



You know what? I believe in ghosts, but I don't believe in an accurate test to see if a weapon has been fired within a fixed time frame. The irony here is that both do not exist, and while my belief is inconsistent with my knowledge you won't catch me posting things I can't prove on this board.



Because he probably thought the FBI had magic powers.



Dude, I was a JFK-CT moron just like you. For most of 30 years I made the same stupid arguments you and MC are making right now. I believed that all of those authors who'd written all of those books knew what they were talking about. I thought they had done their homework. Turns out that not a single one of them had ever considered Oswald as the lone shooter, and instead had worked to prove whatever slackjawed theory they were pedalling .

The fact that there is no single consistent counter-theory to the WC should be a giant red-flag to any sane, intellectually honest person.

More to the point, JFK was not a great president, and there was no guarantee he would be re-elected in 1964. So why kill him? The only one with motive on 11-22-63 was Oswald, and his motive was to get into Cuba, and the history books.

Plus, I love when a CTer complains about lack of credentials since CTers base their existence on ridiculing people with credentials.

Thanks for playing.

Bolded. above, no individual would be happier to know that their great accomplishment was being discussed in 2016 than that little man with a rifle.

 

[Ranb]

You were spot on until the last two sentences. This is an easy and often performed test (at least by the Phoenix Police).

Got a link to support this claim?

Copper will oxidize rapidly and if the gun barrel is not maintained it will pit along with many other actions that will disrupt the ability to perform the function properly. It is extremely easy to perform the test to see if the gun has been fired within 48 hours. When the FBI took position of the evidence and tested the rifle in their labs, it was sufficient time to determine if this weapon had been fired within the past 48 hours.

While I'm aware that copper will turn slightly darker as it oxidizes, I think it takes more than 48 hours unless conditions are ideal. How is this test performed?

Copper reacts quickly especially when it is contact with a dissimilar metal.

This has not been my experience. Leaving copper fouling in the bore will not pit it; shooting corrosively primed ammo or allowing moisture to condense on the barrel surfaces will though.

We are talking about a surplus rifle, that has pitted surfaces in the barrel and copper was present... Metal fouling is loose, they are loose because a projectile went corkscrewing out of the barrel at a wicked speed and left some particles behind as it also created some on the way out. There would have been metal fouling if it was fired.

It is also my experience that copper fouling is very adherent. Swabbing the bore with a powder solvent is not enough. It takes a copper solvent which turns the fouling green and easy to remove, or an electrolytic cleaner to dissolve it into solution.

 

[MicahJava]

Can you circle it on the photograph?

That photograph isn't very clear. There are some dark spots, but I don't see which one could be the best. The EOP wound could also be hiding under a patch of hair while the scalp is being pulled.

NSFW - autopsy photograph

The most unambiguous evidence for the EOP wound we have now is probably the F8 photo.

NSFW - autopsy photograph

 

[traxy]

Boswell is saying that the red spot next to the ruler is nothing more than a minor defect on the scalp, and that the real entry wound was much lower. That picture shows the scalp being pulled back a bit, so that spot was actually way above the level of the ears. As long as everybody agrees the cowlick entry wound is bunk, and that the small wound was really located lower in back of the skull, my quest for right now is complete.

Mr. CORNWELL. Now, I would like to ask you today if you have had at least a greater opportunity to look at the photographs along the lines that I have just indicated to you and if, after doing so, you have a more well-considered or a different opinion or whether your opinion is still the same; as to where the point of entry is?

Dr. HUMES. Yes, I think that I do have a different opinion. No. 1, it was a casual kind of a discussion that we were having with the panel members, as I recall it. No. 2, and I think before we talk about these photographs further, if I might comment, these photographs were made on the evening of November 22, 1963. I first saw any of these photographs on November 1, 1966, almost 3 years after the photographs were made, which was the first opportunity that I had to see those photographs. At that point, Drs. Boswell, Finck and I were asked to come to the National Archives to categorize these photographs, label them, identify them and we spent many hours going through that. It was not the easiest thing to accomplish, I might say, after 3 weeks short of 3 years. But we identified them and I think in light of the very extensive opportunity that various panels of very qualified forensic pathologists have had to go over them, we did a reasonably accurate job in cataloging these photographs. So, I saw them on that occasion. I saw them again on the 27th of January of 1967 when we again went to the Archives and made some summaries of our findings. I go back further to the original autopsy report which we rendered, in the absence of any photographs, of course. We made certain physical observations and measurements of these wounds. I state now those measurements we recorded then were accurate to the best of our ability to discern what we had before our eyes. We described the wound of entrance in the posterior scalp as being above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance, a bony knob on the back of the head, you heard Dr. Baden describe to the committee members today. And it is obvious to me as I sit here how with this his markedly enlarged drawing or the photograph that the upper defect to which you pointed or the upper object is clearly in the location of where we said approximately where it was, above the external occipital protuberance; therefore, I believe that is the wound of entry. It relative position to boney structure underneath it is somewhat altered by the fact that there were fractures of the skull under this and the President's head had to be held in this position thus making some distortion of anatomic views produced in this picture. By the same token. the object in the lower portion, which I apparently and I believe now erroneously previously identified before the most recent panel, is far below the external occipital protuberance and would not fit with the original autopsy findings.

 

[Tomtomkent]

That photograph isn't very clear. There are some dark spots, but I don't see which one could be the best. The EOP wound could also be hiding under a patch of hair while the scalp is being pulled.

NSFW - autopsy photograph

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/L5i0VzZ.jpg[/qimg]

The most unambiguous evidence for the EOP wound we have now is probably the F8 photo.

NSFW - autopsy photograph

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/xJwItWe.jpg[/qimg]

Unambiguous indeed. But not supportive of your claims, I am sorry to say.

But let us move on to the other aspect here.

You claim the identifiable wound on the photos, the one that is matched to the diagrams you also posted, is not the "real" entry point to the head wound. Given the full compliment of photographs available, could you explain how the wound got there?

 

[MicahJava]

Mr. CORNWELL. Now, I would like to ask you today if you have had at least a greater opportunity to look at the photographs along the lines that I have just indicated to you and if, after doing so, you have a more well-considered or a different opinion or whether your opinion is still the same; as to where the point of entry is?

Dr. HUMES. Yes, I think that I do have a different opinion. No. 1, it was a casual kind of a discussion that we were having with the panel members, as I recall it. No. 2, and I think before we talk about these photographs further, if I might comment, these photographs were made on the evening of November 22, 1963. I first saw any of these photographs on November 1, 1966, almost 3 years after the photographs were made, which was the first opportunity that I had to see those photographs. At that point, Drs. Boswell, Finck and I were asked to come to the National Archives to categorize these photographs, label them, identify them and we spent many hours going through that. It was not the easiest thing to accomplish, I might say, after 3 weeks short of 3 years. But we identified them and I think in light of the very extensive opportunity that various panels of very qualified forensic pathologists have had to go over them, we did a reasonably accurate job in cataloging these photographs. So, I saw them on that occasion. I saw them again on the 27th of January of 1967 when we again went to the Archives and made some summaries of our findings. I go back further to the original autopsy report which we rendered, in the absence of any photographs, of course.

They handled the body, they knew what they were doing, everybody who placed the wound at the EOP aren't wrong. Humes reported that the open cranium photograph depicted the small and large wound in one picture. Humes also originally thought the red spot was a dried drop of blood, while Boswell remembered it in 1977 as a superficial scalp injury. If it was a superficial scalp injury, Humes may not have remembered when Boswell explained that in front of him.

We made certain physical observations and measurements of these wounds. I state now those measurements we recorded then were accurate to the best of our ability to discern what we had before our eyes.

Good, you know how to use a ruler. So the red spot can't be the small head wound, because the same photograph proves that your original measurements are a different size than the red spot.

We described the wound of entrance in the posterior scalp as being above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance, a bony knob on the back of the head, you heard Dr. Baden describe to the committee members today. And it is obvious to me as I sit here how with this his markedly enlarged drawing or the photograph that the upper defect to which you pointed or the upper object is clearly in the location of where we said approximately where it was, above the external occipital protuberance; therefore, I believe that is the wound of entry. It relative position to boney structure underneath it is somewhat altered by the fact that there were fractures of the skull under this and the President's head had to be held in this position thus making some distortion of anatomic views produced in this picture. By the same token.

I think Dr. Humes is being deceived by the BOH photograph. The photograph depicts the scalp being significantly pulled back, but you wouldn't necessarily know (or remember!) it by looking at it. The actual location of the red spot was identified here in this HSCA diagram:

This isn't haggling over an inch or so. That hypothetical placement of the head wound is way above the level of the ears, at least 4 inches higher than any professional witness ever placed the small wound.

the object in the lower portion, which I apparently and I believe now erroneously previously identified before the most recent panel, is far below the external occipital protuberance and would not fit with the original autopsy findings.

Humes was never shown any unambiguous photographs that the small wound was in the EOP by the time the cowlick theory came about. When shown the BOH photograph, the best Humes could do is place the small wound at the dark spot by the white piece in the middle of the edge of the hairline, basically on the upper neck. That's probably too low of a location. The rest of the evidence supports the wound being near or slightly below the level of the ears.

Sorry, not the holy grail confession it's made out to be.

 

[Tomtomkent]

They handled the body, they knew what they were doing, everybody who placed the wound at the EOP aren't wrong. Humes reported that the open cranium photograph depicted the small and large wound in one picture.

And yet you keep posting evidence that suggests they were mistaken.
ETA: Or at the very least, YOUR interpretation of their statements is off.

 

[MicahJava]

You claim the identifiable wound on the photos, the one that is matched to the diagrams you also posted, is not the "real" entry point to the head wound. Given the full compliment of photographs available, could you explain how the wound got there?

How the red spot got there? Humes thought it might've been a drop of blood, Boswell said it was a minor scalp defect.

Who shot the president and made a hole near his external occipital protuberance? it is a good candidate for a weapon or ammunition that is sub-sonic or noise-suppressed in some way.

 

[MicahJava]

And yet you keep posting evidence that suggests they were mistaken.
ETA: Or at the very least, YOUR interpretation of their statements is off.

All of the evidence I've posted is no older than the HSCA. You have to reach far into the AARB times to get Hume's "dying confession" that the red spot may have been the entry wound. The evidence shows that Humes simply forgot the reasons why the red spot can not be the entry wound. The farthest I've reached is 12-year-old memory.

Also, do you not accept that the F8 autopsy photo shows the EOP wound? I think I kind of accept it, seeing both versions of the photo you can see how the light shines off the edges of the hole in the skull.

 

[Tomtomkent]

How the red spot got there? Humes thought it might've been a drop of blood, Boswell said it was a minor scalp defect.

But we can see it is a wound. How did THAT wound get there?

Who shot the president and made a hole near his external occipital protuberance? it is a good candidate for a weapon or ammunition that is sub-sonic or noise-suppressed in some way.

The wound you identified in several places, on two photographs? Well, there is certainly as much evidence for that, as you have offered for a silenced weapon. Your inexpert opinion is not enough to dissuade me from the autopsy records, or the photographs, where we can see wounds as the WC placed them.

Your argument seems to be that you have chosen to favour the memories of people who were neither cataloguing or recording the wounds over accurate records. You are now looking for "evidence" to support these. Whatever your opinions of the photograph, that is all you are offering: Your opinions.

 

[No Other]

Hank, below is the exchange between McCloy and Agent Frazier:

Mr. McCLOY. How soon after the assassination did you examine this rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. We received the rifle the following morning.

Mr. McCLOY. Received it in Washington?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. And you immediately made your examination of it then?

Mr. FRAZIER. We made an examination of it at that time, and kept it temporarily in the laboratory.

It was then returned to the Dallas Police Department, returned again to the laboratory--the second time on November 27th, and has been either in the laboratory's possession or the Commission's possession since then.

Mr. McCLOY. When you examined the rifle the first time, you said that it showed signs of some corrosion and wear?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good shape?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.

Mr. McCLOY. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?

Mr. FRAZIER. I did not examine it for that.

Mr. McCLOY. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as you found it?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not an indication of the condition of the barrel, since if a barrel is allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean barrel.

Mr. McCLOY. Thank you.


If the FBI would have checked for metal fouling, they very well could have eliminated all other days the weapon was fired. As it stands today, there are bullets that are traced back to the rifle but when they were fired is still open. The chain of custody was sloppy, at best, as we have numerous situations where evidence came after the fact: 1. the magic bullet 2. the spy camera 3. the blanket for the rifle 4. the bag that the rifle came in was never located 5. the brain and I can go with others but the point is made.

Below are links that speak within their site about metal fouling. It is not uncommon, it is something that is emphasized for maintenance of the firearm and how fouling affects accuracy.

 

[Tomtomkent]

All of the evidence I've posted is no older than the HSCA. You have to reach far into the AARB times to get Hume's "dying confession" that the red spot may have been the entry wound. The evidence shows that Humes simply forgot the reasons why the red spot can not be the entry wound. The farthest I've reached is 12-year-old memory.

Or to put it another way: You are handwaving away methodical records, for decade old subjective recollections.

Also, do you not accept that the F8 autopsy photo shows the EOP wound? I think I kind of accept it, seeing both versions of the photo you can see how the light shines off the edges of the hole in the skull.

No. I accept the photographs match the HSCA testimony you offered no rebuttal to, the autopsy records, and the WC conclusions.

You claim you can see the wound in one photo, then are unable to match it in the scattergun of circles you drew on the other. Take a step back. Look at it from my point of view: You are not identifying a wound. You are trying to make a mark into a wound, and you can't place it on the head from another angle. There is an obvious reason why. As obvious as the "coincidence" of the hair being parted to best display the wound. (Oh no! They moved the hair away to clearly frame some other random and meaningless mark! Silly me!)

Your posts have the hallmarks of somebody who has started with a conclusion they want to justify, and are trying to bolster it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

If the FBI would have checked for metal fouling, they very well could have eliminated all other days the weapon was fired.

Please cite the methodology for doing this in a relevant text book from the time. (You will note I have already quoted the relevant text book in previous post).

Please cite the procedures in place, from which you can claim these WOULD have been carried out as par for the course.

 

[No Other]

Hank, below is the exchange between McCloy and Agent Frazier:

Mr. McCLOY. How soon after the assassination did you examine this rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. We received the rifle the following morning.

Mr. McCLOY. Received it in Washington?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. And you immediately made your examination of it then?

Mr. FRAZIER. We made an examination of it at that time, and kept it temporarily in the laboratory.

It was then returned to the Dallas Police Department, returned again to the laboratory--the second time on November 27th, and has been either in the laboratory's possession or the Commission's possession since then.

Mr. McCLOY. When you examined the rifle the first time, you said that it showed signs of some corrosion and wear?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good shape?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.

Mr. McCLOY. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?

Mr. FRAZIER. I did not examine it for that.

Mr. McCLOY. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as you found it?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not an indication of the condition of the barrel, since if a barrel is allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean barrel.

Mr. McCLOY. Thank you.


If the FBI would have checked for metal fouling, they very well could have eliminated all other days the weapon was fired. As it stands today, there are bullets that are traced back to the rifle but when they were fired is still open. The chain of custody was sloppy, at best, as we have numerous situations where evidence came after the fact: 1. the magic bullet 2. the spy camera 3. the blanket for the rifle 4. the bag that the rifle came in was never located 5. the brain and I can go with others but the point is made.

Below are links that speak within their site about metal fouling. It is not uncommon, it is something that is emphasized for maintenance of the firearm and how fouling affects accuracy.

apparently links are not allowed... If you wish to look them up, put the necessary commands in front them.
bluesheepdog.com
projects.nfstc.org
policemag.com/channel/weapons/.../how-to-keep-your-firearms-fit-for-duty.
navysbir.com/n16_2/N162-077.htm
federalpremium.com/news/new_products
scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1153&context
acq.osd.mil/osbp/sbir/solicitations/sbir20162/navy162.docx

 

[No Other]

Please cite the methodology for doing this in a relevant text book from the time. (You will note I have already quoted the relevant text book in previous post).

Please cite the procedures in place, from which you can claim these WOULD have been carried out as par for the course.

Just to better understand your position... are you saying this method does not work? Your "relevant text book" was not used in 1963.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Just to better understand your position... are you saying this method does not work? Your "relevant text book" was not used in 1963.

How much simpler can I make this: Show me, in the text book I cited, or any other used by the Dallas PD or FBI labs, in 1963, where there is a method which could have " could have eliminated all other days" on which a rifle was fired.

Heck, show me the method for identifying WHICH day a rifle was fired on.

Because I have already cited the text book used at the time, stating clearly it was impossible to tell how recently a rifle was fired.

Yet you stated it would have happened. Show me where these tests are cited, and where they are in the standard procedures used at the time.

 

[MicahJava]

But we can see it is a wound. How did THAT wound get there?


The wound you identified in several places, on two photographs? Well, there is certainly as much evidence for that, as you have offered for a silenced weapon. Your inexpert opinion is not enough to dissuade me from the autopsy records, or the photographs, where we can see wounds as the WC placed them.

The existing BOH photos are ambiguous for where exactly the EOP wound could be, the open cranium photograph isn't.

The WC drawings incorrectly place the back wound and incorrectly portray Kennedy's posture (nobody can deny this), but accurately portray the location of the small head wound (again, hard to deny).

I offered the possibility of a silenced weapons because of the information about a bullet striking the curb near a manhole cover (not James Tague), which apparently is where a small indention in the cement can still be seen. Perhaps too small to be explained with a high-powered weapon. It was also rumored that the bullet found in the grass near the manhole cover mark was .45 caliber. Someone may have tried to use this thing on the president: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsUALdGog4U

Your argument seems to be that you have chosen to favour the memories of people who were neither cataloguing or recording the wounds over accurate records. You are now looking for "evidence" to support these. Whatever your opinions of the photograph, that is all you are offering: Your opinions.

This really is an emperor-wears-no-clothes type of situation. There is nothing you're missing when you stare at the red spot in the BOH photograph: That looks like a dried drop of blood or small superficial scrape. The spot on the X-ray that is supposed to be the cowlick wound just looks like a skull fracture. It is also a different shape and size than reported in the official record and contradicts the opinion of every known professional who handled the body.

 

[BStrong]

apparently links are not allowed... If you wish to look them up, put the necessary commands in front them.
bluesheepdog.com
projects.nfstc.org
policemag.com/channel/weapons/.../how-to-keep-your-firearms-fit-for-duty.
navysbir.com/n16_2/N162-077.htm
federalpremium.com/news/new_products
scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1153&context
acq.osd.mil/osbp/sbir/solicitations/sbir20162/navy162.docx

None of those links go anywhere that has anything to do with your assertion.

Please enlighten me as to this great test that in over 50 years of experience with every aspect of firearms I've never once heard of.

 

[BStrong]

Just to better understand your position... are you saying this method does not work? Your "relevant text book" was not used in 1963.

TTK has his questions, I have mine.

Your supposed test for firearms time-of-us never came up in the curriculum at FLETC, so if I was improperly trained I want to know how and why.

What test proves when a firearm was used?

 

[Tomtomkent]

The existing BOH photos are ambiguous for where exactly the EOP wound could be, the open cranium photograph isn't.

The WC drawings incorrectly place the back wound and incorrectly portray Kennedy's posture (nobody can deny this), but accurately portray the location of the small head wound (again, hard to deny).



This really is an emperor-wears-no-clothes type of situation. There is nothing you're missing when you stare at the red spot in the BOH photograph: That looks like a dried drop of blood or small superficial scrape. The spot on the X-ray that is supposed to be the cowlick wound just looks like a skull fracture. It is also a different shape and size than reported in the official record and contradicts the opinion of every known professional who handled the body.

And yet you have been unable to prove any of this.
Worse, you posted evidence that argues directly against your interpretation.
Worse still, others have shown that your claims are NOT the conclusions of those who carried out the autopsy.

And to top it all off: What you swear is in one photograph, and unambiguous, you then complain is too ambiguous in another photograph. Here's the thing: If you were actually showing, what you think you are showing, then you would have given a definite answer before. Drawn one circle on one photo, that matched the location you circled on another.

Instead you circled several bits of hair you happen to suspect was a wound, none of which pair up to your "unambiguous" mark on the second.

I could either take the word of those experts who carried out the autopsy, xrays, etc, as recorded in the HSCA and WC. Or your interpretation.

You just keep giving us reasons to discount your opinion.