The Dal-Tex bldg -- speaking of trig....

[Thomas H. Purvis]

...Was it one of them "silent bullets" that struck the trim and therefore made no noise whatsoever?

I'm beginning to think this thread is a meeting of the Mutual Admiration Society.

Happy to flick off those pesky little gnats with sardonic asides as with not responding to those which are perhaps a tad more challenging and continuing with sweeping generalities.

If, as noted before, there was no dent in the windshield frame at Love Field, and there was one at Parkland, then I guess one of those "full velocity" "silent bullets" that "made no noise whatsoever" must've done it.

Unless there's another solution?

And how do we know there was "no noise whatsoever?" The acoustics analysis, for whatever weight you might give it, did not attempt to analyze where any impulses there may have been had emanated from - whether the TSBD or elsewhere, or anywhere in particular from the TSBD - so to say that a noise that was not analyzed did not come from any particular location is, again, a fallacy. "I heard a noise but don't know where it came from, so that fallen tree over there didn't make it." Hullo?!?

Still haven't heard back on the question of how you know any "full velocity" round was involved since, presumably lacking evidence of that what kind of round it may have been, we don't know what its full velocity was.

You're offering presumptions as proof and derision to create doubt. If this is a crusade, I fear it's failing miserably.

As near as I have been able to determine, there is little physical evidence that would indicate anything but a 6.5mm Carcano was fired that day.

Unless you are thinking it possible someone was plinkin away at the President with a .22 then a less than full velocity strike to the chrome would stand. Im sure Tom would know that as well as I do. I just add this for you, because you may not be aware of the impact energy of some projectile.

I also do agree with you that there was no damage to the chrome at Love Field. It had to have happened during the shooting event.

And the answer is:

[Mike Williams]

...Was it one of them "silent bullets" that struck the trim and therefore made no noise whatsoever?

I'm beginning to think this thread is a meeting of the Mutual Admiration Society.

Happy to flick off those pesky little gnats with sardonic asides as with not responding to those which are perhaps a tad more challenging and continuing with sweeping generalities.

If, as noted before, there was no dent in the windshield frame at Love Field, and there was one at Parkland, then I guess one of those "full velocity" "silent bullets" that "made no noise whatsoever" must've done it.

Unless there's another solution?

And how do we know there was "no noise whatsoever?" The acoustics analysis, for whatever weight you might give it, did not attempt to analyze where any impulses there may have been had emanated from - whether the TSBD or elsewhere, or anywhere in particular from the TSBD - so to say that a noise that was not analyzed did not come from any particular location is, again, a fallacy. "I heard a noise but don't know where it came from, so that fallen tree over there didn't make it." Hullo?!?

Still haven't heard back on the question of how you know any "full velocity" round was involved since, presumably lacking evidence of that what kind of round it may have been, we don't know what its full velocity was.

You're offering presumptions as proof and derision to create doubt. If this is a crusade, I fear it's failing miserably.

As near as I have been able to determine, there is little physical evidence that would indicate anything but a 6.5mm Carcano was fired that day.

Unless you are thinking it possible someone was plinkin away at the President with a .22 then a less than full velocity strike to the chrome would stand. Im sure Tom would know that as well as I do. I just add this for you, because you may not be aware of the impact energy of some projectile.

I also do agree with you that there was no damage to the chrome at Love Field. It had to have happened during the shooting event.

And the answer is:

Gee Tom, why was it again we were examining a Carcano Bullet??

[Thomas H. Purvis]

...Was it one of them "silent bullets" that struck the trim and therefore made no noise whatsoever?

I'm beginning to think this thread is a meeting of the Mutual Admiration Society.

Happy to flick off those pesky little gnats with sardonic asides as with not responding to those which are perhaps a tad more challenging and continuing with sweeping generalities.

If, as noted before, there was no dent in the windshield frame at Love Field, and there was one at Parkland, then I guess one of those "full velocity" "silent bullets" that "made no noise whatsoever" must've done it.

Unless there's another solution?

And how do we know there was "no noise whatsoever?" The acoustics analysis, for whatever weight you might give it, did not attempt to analyze where any impulses there may have been had emanated from - whether the TSBD or elsewhere, or anywhere in particular from the TSBD - so to say that a noise that was not analyzed did not come from any particular location is, again, a fallacy. "I heard a noise but don't know where it came from, so that fallen tree over there didn't make it." Hullo?!?

Still haven't heard back on the question of how you know any "full velocity" round was involved since, presumably lacking evidence of that what kind of round it may have been, we don't know what its full velocity was.

You're offering presumptions as proof and derision to create doubt. If this is a crusade, I fear it's failing miserably.

As near as I have been able to determine, there is little physical evidence that would indicate anything but a 6.5mm Carcano was fired that day.

Unless you are thinking it possible someone was plinkin away at the President with a .22 then a less than full velocity strike to the chrome would stand. Im sure Tom would know that as well as I do. I just add this for you, because you may not be aware of the impact energy of some projectile.

I also do agree with you that there was no damage to the chrome at Love Field. It had to have happened during the shooting event.

And the answer is:

Gee Tom, why was it again we were examining a Carcano Bullet??

Gee Tom, why was it again we were examining a Carcano Bullet??

However remote the possibilitly, there may actually be those persons who are attempting to resolve the issues based on a proper examination of the evidence.

As opposed to hunting mythological creatures and beings.

Perhaps if one orients the photo to it's proper flight attitude the it may assist in unraveling some of the confusion/controversy.

Now! For those who are unaware, merely because I "flipped" the photo, it does not mean that this represents the nose of a Carcano bullet, when "properly interpreted"!

[Duke Lane]

Quoting three, four, then five lengthy posts merely to call out one sentence of the last one is a terrible waste of space. Most can remember what was said in the post above what they're reading. My pet peeve having been walked ....

What we're looking at is the tail end of a Carcano bullet sans lead core. It weighs about 21 grains, and was found in the front seat area of the limo by the USSS on Friday night and turned over to the FBI. It's about 1/8th of the bullet.

What seems to be lacking here is any kind of flattening that would suggest that it caused the dent; the forward end isn't "mushroomed," but more "torn." No dispute about it being a Carcano bullet; the question is if it is either proved or inferred to have been what caused the dent, which is fairly substantial. My vote is for inferred unless there's an analysis of the dent that shows the same composition of metal on it.

My recollection is that there is testimony or a report to the effect that the windshield-frame damage had occurred elsewhere, and that therefore it was not tested for this purpose. It is true, though, that both things can't be true: the damage "caused by Q-3" (aka CE569) could not have been there before the shooting.

If there is license to infer that 569 caused the dent, but if those responsible for the vehicle say that the dent was already there, there likewise is license to infer that, if there was no damage at Love Field and there was at Parkland, then either /a/ those responsible are mistaken about it being there already, or /b/ that something other than a Carcano bullet struck the frame.

Clearly, inference is not proof in either case. But disproving an inference cannot be done by making a different inference.

Incidentally, Frazier said that they could not state that any of the fragments were from one or more slugs: "they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of course, they could be parts of separate bullets," he testified. Not even a percentage of likelihood that they were parts of the same bullet came from his lips.

Simple point: there is no proof as to the cause and origin of the dent, whether by a Carcano bullet or something completely different. No proof, therefore, of a "full velocity" round. Try as anyone might to suggest otherwise, it remains ambiguous if only because what "the" or "a" bullet supposedly hit was not tested to find out what hit it.

But at least we agree that it probably occurred during the shooting sequence.

[Mike Williams]

Duke,

If we look at the ballistics of medium velocity and high velocity projectiles, and their impact energies, and relate that directly to the pressures required to penetrate the trim and steel, there are but 2 conclusions.

A) The damage was caused by a full velocity impact from a .22 or/

It was caused by a less than full velocity impact from virtually any other type of rifle.

Even the impact energies created by a .22 magnum would have caused more damage. Its really just that simple.

One does not have to assess every other rifle one just has to eliminate the .22, which would be rather ridiculous for someone to be using in this situation.

I do not believe the damage was existing, but I have not found any photo yet that fully proves this. The picture Robin posted earlier is about as good as it gets, but the area of damage still would not be visible in that photo.

Mike

[Don Bailey]

QUOTE(Thomas H. Purvis @ Aug 20 2008, 10:33 AM)

...Was it one of them "silent bullets" that struck the trim and therefore made no noise whatsoever?

Thomas,

After the shot, JFK stop waving and turned his head to the right. Jackie turned her head to the left. The shot was not silent to witnesses in Dealey Plaza… the man on the fire escape jumped up quickly and others close to the limo heard what sounded like a firecracker in the limo.

Did you know that CE 569 and CE 567 are fragments from the same bullet? CE 569 is the base and CE 567 is the flattened center cone of the bullet. You can see the base was torn from the top portion of the bullet upon impact. The base is flattened more on one side meaning that it hit on an angle. See the pictures below.

What is the comparison in size of a 6.5mm bullet to a .22 bullet?

Don

[Mike Williams]

QUOTE(Thomas H. Purvis @ Aug 20 2008, 10:33 AM)

...Was it one of them "silent bullets" that struck the trim and therefore made no noise whatsoever?

Thomas,

After the shot, JFK stop waving and turned his head to the right. Jackie turned her head to the left. The shot was not silent to witnesses in Dealey Plaza… the man on the fire escape jumped up quickly and others close to the limo heard what sounded like a firecracker in the limo.

Did you know that CE 569 and CE 567 are fragments from the same bullet? CE 569 is the base and CE 567 is the flattened center cone of the bullet. You can see the base was torn from the top portion of the bullet upon impact. The base is flattened more on one side meaning that it hit on an angle. See the pictures below.

What is the comparison in size of a 6.5mm bullet to a .22 bullet?

Don

Don,

First I would have to ask how you come to the conclusion that the two fragments are from the same bullet?

A .22 caliber bullet is about .040 smaller, about 7/8 of an inch shorter and about 130 grains lighter.

What does the man on the fire escape prove exactly?

[Don Bailey]

Mike,

The answer to your question was in my post:

Did you know that CE 569 and CE 567 are fragments from the same bullet? CE 569 is the base and CE 567 is the flattened center cone of the bullet. You can see the base was torn from the top portion of the bullet upon impact. The base is flattened more on one side meaning that it hit on an angle.

Don

[Mike Williams]

Mike,

The answer to your question was in my post:

Did you know that CE 569 and CE 567 are fragments from the same bullet? CE 569 is the base and CE 567 is the flattened center cone of the bullet. You can see the base was torn from the top portion of the bullet upon impact. The base is flattened more on one side meaning that it hit on an angle.

Don

So your basis for this is your own observation? I think that is pretty remarkable considering Frazier could not even come to that conclusion.

One was determined to the base, and one the nose, but I dont recall reading anything, by someone who actually examined the fragments, that determined they were from the same projectile.

[Don Bailey]

What does the man on the fire escape prove exactly?

It proves that something below him startled him and his reaction is to get up out of the way.

So your basis for this is your own observation?

Yep. Who is this Frazier person you speak of? If he were any good he would have noted that the base was ripped from the cone upon impact. These two fragments are from one bullet fired from the 2nd floor of the Dal-Tex building.

IMO, the Carcano bullet that hit the chrome trim is a "Set-Up the Patsy Bullet."

Don

[Mike Williams]

What does the man on the fire escape prove exactly?

It proves that something below him startled him and his reaction is to get up out of the way.

So your basis for this is your own observation?

Yep. Who is this Frazier person you speak of? If he were any good he would have noted that the base was ripped from the cone upon impact. These two fragments are from one bullet fired from the 2nd floor of the Dal-Tex building.

IMO, the Carcano bullet that hit the chrome trim is a "Set-Up the Patsy Bullet."

Don

Don,

I hardly think that the man on the fire escape jumping up could be used as evidence of where the shot came from. I think thats asking to assume a a lot.

Frazier was the FBI analyst who handled much of the ballistic evidence. I am surprised (not really) that you are discussing the ballistic evidence and do not even know who this man is, and apparently you also have no idea what he said. Give him a read, so as to bring yourself up to speed.

So Frazier was unable to determine if these two were from the same projectile, yet you have managed that without ever having handled the evidence. Can you show me your testing that proves these were from a single projectile? If not can you at least be honest and state that this is yet another assumption?

[Karl Kinaski]

Consider these:

An under-loaded round will sound like a pop, firecracker when fired.

The first shot sounded like a firecracker.

A diversion was created with the first shot hitting the chrome trim, this made the SS in the follow-up car look back and soon after the first round of shots came in from different directions.

Don

There is evidence, that the first shot was in fact a firecracker( maybe a signal): WC- Testimony of Mrs Donald Baker

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol7/page508.php

Baker:

Warren Commission Hearings: Vol. VII - Page 508

(Testimony of Mrs. Donald Baker)

Mr. Liebeler.

Other than that, did you form any impression of him at all?

Mrs. Baker.

No, sir.

Mr. Liebeler.

Tell me what happened on the 22d of November in connection with the motorcade, would you please, what you saw and what you did?

Mrs. Baker.

Well, we came out of the building across the street at approximately 12 or 12:15 and we stood out in front, directly in front of the Depository Building and as the motorcade came by the President waved and he got down ----

Mr. Liebeler.

Where were you standing at this point, at the time the motorcade came along?

Mrs. Baker.

Well, there is a divisional line--I don't know exactly what you would call it--the little part of the street that runs in front of the Depository and then there is--I don't know what you would call it--the grassy stuff that comes out to form the plaza along the front.

Mr. Liebeler.

You say there is a little street that runs immediately in front of the School Book Depository Building; is that right?

Mrs. Baker.

Yes.

Mr. Liebeler.

Do you know if that street has a name or not?

Mrs. Baker.

I'm sure it doesn't----I have never seen one.

Mr. Liebeler.

And then after that little street that runs right in front of the Depository Building, there is a little strip of grass with some trees on it; is that correct?

Mrs. Baker.

Yes.

Mr. Liebeler.

And then comes Elm Street; is that right?

Mrs. Baker.

Yes.

Mr. Liebeler.

And on the other side of Elm Street there is a sort of a triangular plot of grass.

Mrs. Baker.

I guess you could say we were standing just at the edge of Elm Street at the side of the Depository because we were out almost in the street--Elm Street.

Mr. Liebeler.

Elm Street is separated from another street that runs down through the triple underpass. Do you know the name of that street that runs right down here--I am showing you Commission Exhibit No. 354, an aerial view of the street that runs by and three streets converge and go under the railroad tracks and that's the triple underpass.

Mrs. Baker.

I think that goes out to Stemmons Expressway or leads into Stemmons Expressway.

Mr. Liebeler.

The street that runs right down through here, the middle, is that Main Street?

Mrs. Baker.

That would be Main Street and this one would be Commerce.

Mr. Liebeler.

Now, can you point to me approximately where you were standing?

Mrs. Baker.

Let me find the building here--it would be right here--we were standing right at the edge, approximately directly in front of the building or at the edge of the building; we were standing right here.

Mr. Liebeler.

So, you were standing directly in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building and on the same side of Elm Street that the Texas School Book Depository is located?

Mrs. Baker.

Yes.

Mr. Liebeler.

Tell me what you saw?

Mrs. Baker.

Well, after he passed us, then we heard a noise and I thought it was firecrackers, because I saw (sic)a shot or something hit the pavement.

Mr. Liebeler.

(...) page 509

Mr. Liebeler.

As you went down Elm Street that you saw this thing hit the street--what did it look like when you saw it?

Mrs. Baker.

Well, as I said, I thought it was a firecracker. It looked just like you could see the sparks from it and I just thought it was a firecracker and I was thinking that there was somebody was fixing to get in a lot of trouble and we thought the kids or whoever threw it were down below or standing near the underpass or back up here by the sign.

(...)

[Mike Williams]

This is "evidence"? It sounded like a firecracker is the oldest analogy in the book.

As for it being a signal. Thats pretty ridiculous. If someone were to have thrown a firecracker, it would not only serve as a signal to the shooters, but a warning to the prey.

"Ok heres what were gonna do guys, when he gets within range I'm gonna toss a firecracker to signal the beginning of the shooting, of course you guys will have to be quick because this firecracker may cause the target to duck and the Limo to evade and head for cover" How dumb would that be?

Karl of course you realize that the very testimony you cite tends to eliminate the firecracker right? Something striking the street would be more related to a bullet as would "sparks".

I have never heard of a firecracker "striking the street" and have yet to see one make "sparks".

[Duke Lane]

... I have never heard of a firecracker "striking the street" and have yet to see one make "sparks".

Clearly not a fan of the Fourth of July, eh?

Just what do you call those bright little yellow-red-white thingies that go off in several directions when the powder inside a firecracker is released hot into the air? And if said firecracker is thrown to the street where it then explodes with those little thingies going in all directions when it hits the ground is called ... striking the ground? And those thingies are ... sparks? Roget and Webster would be so proud of you!

Not that I'm suggesting that any firecrackers were involved, but one must nevertheless wonder what she saw (not "strike" but) "hit" the pavement and cause those little thingies. (Where'd you get that "striking the street" quote anyway?)

Of course, there's no "hard evidence" of such an occurrence, so clearly, it didn't happen and she's mistaken. I remember they dug up the street and tested it for metallic traces, just like they did the curb right away. Oh, and the windshield, too (how could I forget?).

Edited August 23, 2008 by Duke Lane

[Don Bailey]

Mike,

I'm not good with math so I'll spell it out for you... you have two bullet fragments, a cone missing a base and a base missing a cone, that makes one bullet.

Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567; and 569 are portions of the originally same bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?

Mr. FRAZIER - There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated condition to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit together.

However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such as 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section of 569, so that they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of course, they could be parts of separate bullets.

Are you kidding me?? How many bullets fired that day in Dealey Plaza had the base ripped off?

Don