Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Shell Game


Recommended Posts

Hi folks,

During all my investigations if the JFK case I have always assumed that some day I can testify in court about the cover-up.

This has meant excluding disinformation whenever possible.

I think I could have erred in my last update of the cover-up by stating that the WC lied about three empty shells found when the Dallas police and FBI records say only two spent shells were found.

Well It seems that the WC may have already covered that in that the 3rd empty shell could have been held back in Dallas for further testing for some unknown reason but here is an explanation of the story on that:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/round.htm

But I found out something else that if true could be just as important and it concerns a dented empty shell which is very hard to dent and would be hard to fire such a shell because it could not held the bullet in place before firing.

see http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/g...nted_shell.html

So maybe the shooter knew he was being set up and left a dented shell behind to prove it.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi folks,

During all my investigations if the JFK case I have always assumed that some day I can testify in court about the cover-up.

This has meant excluding disinformation whenever possible.

I think I could have erred in my last update of the cover-up by stating that the WC lied about three empty shells found when the Dallas police and FBI records say only two spent shells were found.

Well It seems that the WC may have already covered that in that the 3rd empty shell could have been held back in Dallas for further testing for some unknown reason but here is an explanation of the story on that:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/round.htm

But I found out something else that if true could be just as important and it concerns a dented empty shell which is very hard to dent and would be hard to fire such a shell because it could not held the bullet in place before firing.

see http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/g...nted_shell.html

So maybe the shooter knew he was being set up and left a dented shell behind to prove it.

Jim

There would have been no need for a 3rd shell if a bystander had not been wounded by shrapnel from a

bullet which should not have existed.

I have no doubt that had a 2nd person been wounded in a similar manner elsewhere in the plaza there would

now be a 4th shell in the evidence.

Explanations are not difficult to conjure up. Evidence is not difficult to conjure up.

What is hard to do is destroy evidence which has already been entered into the public record.

Thus the need for an explanation for an extra shell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some months ago I attempted to compare the cartridges in order to see if there were any inconsistencies.

What I found is inconclusive as there are ways that can cause said inconsistencies to appear, such as the distance from the camera to the cartridges. So, I decided not to mention it.

Seeing as there is now a topic specifically about the shells here are the findings.

They are borderline but interesting.

It appears to me that two of the fired shells have are slightly more deformed and a slightly wider diameter and depending on which photo sets one looks at they have a slightly different color to the third fired bullet and the unfired one, both of which have a similar diameter.

The third cartridge which doesn't have a bullet in it has the end deformed. The outline of this deformity appears to, if it was round would be of a slightly smaller diameter to the other two fired cartridges. The deforming of the odd cartridge throat makes it difficult to at light scrutiny to differentiate it from the other two. The image shows the surface area (grey) of the odd cartridge superimposed on the two other shells.

IF the camera was at the same distance from the cartridges at the time they were photographed and one can trust the scale (which can be used to equalise the photos) then it is possible to say that this third cartridge maybe was not fired but rather the bullet extracted from it to provide a third shell.

(image)

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some months ago I attempted to compare the cartridges in order to see if there were any inconsistencies.

John. This is pretty amazing.

Did you get to handle the cartridges yourself?

If as the diagram shows, the fired shells have a different color than the dented shell and the unfired one.

And also the fact that the unfired shell has a smaller diameter similar to the dented shell seems to imply that the firing of the cartridges makes the lip of the shell a bit wider then the loaded and damaged shell.

I wonder if this has ever been tested.

I also wonder what further tests were done on the shell that was held back if indeed it was held back.

Also I wonder if the Dallas Police had a photo with all 4 shells (three empty and one unfired) all together on the floor in one photo to prove how many were found.

Also I wonder if a metal jacketed bullet like the magic one would explode into dozens of fragments that were in JFK's skull and the ones found in the limousine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There would have been no need for a 3rd shell if a bystander had not been wounded by shrapnel from a bullet which should not have existed.

That is simply not so. From the earliest moments, the story had been that a shot hit Kennedy, then a one hit Connally, then the third hit and killed Kennedy.

If James Tague hadn't been hit by shrapnel, there'd have been no need for the single-bullet theory. Tague's was a fourth bullet. There were others, including one that had made a mark on the north sidewalk. If someone had been hit by shrapnel from that bullet too, then there would have been a real problem asserting a single assassin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There would have been no need for a 3rd shell if a bystander had not been wounded by shrapnel from a bullet which should not have existed.

That is simply not so. From the earliest moments, the story had been that a shot hit Kennedy, then a one hit Connally, then the third hit and killed Kennedy.

If James Tague hadn't been hit by shrapnel, there'd have been no need for the single-bullet theory. Tague's was a fourth bullet. There were others, including one that had made a mark on the north sidewalk. If someone had been hit by shrapnel from that bullet too, then there would have been a real problem asserting a single assassin.

I stand corrected Duke, TY.

BTW...whatever i have posted these last couple of days may not have been my best stuff.

I had just found out that my younger brother had died and I was just trying to keep myself busy in an attempt to avoid my grief. I finally accepted the fact and had a good cry over it...life goes on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some months ago I attempted to compare the cartridges in order to see if there were any inconsistencies.

What I found is inconclusive as there are ways that can cause said inconsistencies to appear, such as the distance from the camera to the cartridges. So, I decided not to mention it.

Seeing as there is now a topic specifically about the shells here are the findings.

They are borderline but interesting.

It appears to me that two of the fired shells have are slightly more deformed and a slightly wider diameter and depending on which photo sets one looks at they have a slightly different color to the third fired bullet and the unfired one, both of which have a similar diameter.

The third cartridge which doesn't have a bullet in it has the end deformed. The outline of this deformity appears to, if it was round would be of a slightly smaller diameter to the other two fired cartridges. The deforming of the odd cartridge throat makes it difficult to at light scrutiny to differentiate it from the other two. The image shows the surface area (grey) of the odd cartridge superimposed on the two other shells.

IF the camera was at the same distance from the cartridges at the time they were photographed and one can trust the scale (which can be used to equalise the photos) then it is possible to say that this third cartridge maybe was not fired but rather the bullet extracted from it to provide a third shell.

(image)

Nice work John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"IF the camera was at the same distance from the cartridges at the time they were photographed and one can trust the scale (which can be used to equalise the photos) then it is possible to say that this third cartridge maybe was not fired but rather the bullet extracted from it to provide a third shell" and thus (speculation) necessitated 'crimping' or deforming the throat to make it difficult to measure the circumference of the shells throat area.

Thank you, Chuck and Jim.

Jim, I'm in no position to handle the shells. I'm 'down-under'. This is from HSCA published photo's. They are odd also in the sense that the dented photo is photographed side-on so the width of the throat of the shell appears the same diameter as the two undented ones. It is only when comparing the areas defined by the head-on photo's that the dented ones throat seems to not have expanded as the ones that one can say with reasonable certainty have been fired.

Not only is the dented shell closer to the overall diameter of the cartridge with a bullet in it, it's sides are also straighter. The two fired ones are slightly deformed with bulged out sides.

I came across a few different sets of color photo's and choose the ones with the best resolution and oriented/rotated and resized according to the scale on the photo's. This I did as carefully as I could.

Because of using mixed sets to get the best resolution the color difference doesn't stand out here, but does in another set. I imagine that the heating/stressing of a fired shell would cause it to corrode/oxidise differently if maintained in the same environment as an unfired one.

I don't know whether they were or not.

(the unfired extracted bullet on the left care of Tom posted image)

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"handle the shells"

If I was in a position to handle the shells I would make sure I had a caliper micrometer with me. Plus I would photograph all of them and the bullet(s) and fragments in one photo on a neutral background with lighting that did not cause any reflection of the background onto the shells so the edges would be sharply defined.

That would be the next step IMO.

Otherwise I really have nothing further than speculations to offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"handle the shells"

If I was in a position to handle the shells I would make sure I had a caliper micrometer with me. Plus I would photograph all of them and the bullet(s) and fragments in one photo on a neutral background with lighting that did not cause any reflection of the background onto the shells so the edges would be sharply defined.

That would be the next step IMO.

Otherwise I really have nothing further than speculations to offer.

I guess the one obvious thing to check would be the interior of the shells. An unfired shell would have a fairly clean interior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"handle the shells"

If I was in a position to handle the shells I would make sure I had a caliper micrometer with me. Plus I would photograph all of them and the bullet(s) and fragments in one photo on a neutral background with lighting that did not cause any reflection of the background onto the shells so the edges would be sharply defined.

That would be the next step IMO.

Otherwise I really have nothing further than speculations to offer.

I guess the one obvious thing to check would be the interior of the shells. An unfired shell would have a fairly clean interior.

One would think so, yes. This is an issue that should be easily resolved if someone who can gain access to the shells would just have a look. The apparent crimping of the odd shell's throat, if that is what it is, then perhaps a burning off of remnats of powder would have been thought of as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There would have been no need for a 3rd shell if a bystander had not been wounded by shrapnel from a bullet which should not have existed.

That is simply not so. From the earliest moments, the story had been that a shot hit Kennedy, then a one hit Connally, then the third hit and killed Kennedy. ...

Thought I'd add to this with some stuff I've tripped across in the past couple of days.

January 30, 1964 memorandum from David W. Belin to J. Lee Rankin:

In determining the accuracy of Oswald, we have three major possibilities: Oswald was shooting at Connally and missed two of the three shots, the two misses striking Kennedy; Oswald was shooting at both Kennedy and Connally and all three shots struck their intended targets;
Oswald was shooting only at Kennedy and the second bullet missed its intended target and hit Connally instead.

If there was no mass media coverage that Connally would be riding in the Presidential car, it would tend to confirm the third alternative that Kennedy was the only intended target. This in turn bears on the motive of the assassination and also on the degree of markmanship [sic] required, which in turn
affects the determination that Oswald was the assassin and that it was not too difficult to hit the intended target two out of the three times in this particular situation.

April 27(!) memorandum from Norman Redlich to J. Lee Rankin:

The purpose of this memorandum is to explain the reasons why certain members of the staff feel that it is important to take certain on-site photographs in connection with the location of the approximate points at which
the three bullets struck the occupants of the Presidential limousine
.

Our report presumably will state that
the President was hit by the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the President by the third and fatal bullet
. The report will also conclude that the bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD building.

This is actually pretty late in the game - three months into the "investigation" - and we don't yet see the development of the SBT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SBT (AFAIK) was also dependent on the scope being correctly mounted and that the rifle was held in an ergomically unrealistic way mounted on a tripod. The limitations of the space in the nest, and the shifting of position as the Limo proceeded down Elm street makes a tilt of the rifle to the left a possibility which, while the sight may be correct the bullet itself would, as a rifles barrel is tilted up to give a proper trajectory, make a proper sighting impossible. A tilt one way or the other may shift a shot intended for Connally to Kennedy's position or from K to C.

The SBT tests and the assumptions that were made, which are easily shown to be unrealistic on a number of issues, by itself nullifies the theory, or at least are irrelevant in a discussion of it. Basically the SBT is not an issue. It's demonstrably non-sensical, and that it is even harped on today is odd to say the least.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...