Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 15, 2008 Author Share Posted August 15, 2008 Bullet Weight Accountability! Tom, is there a document indicating William Sullivan removed or had someone remove the bullet segment from the FBI ballistics laboratory? I'm wondering how you came to that conclusion. Not doubting you, just not aware of how the conclusion was reached. Thanks. Roy Bierma Since he was still living at last account: Robert Frazier 1704 Oak Lane McLean, VA 22101 Tel: 703-533-2877 Frazier may or may not discuss the issue. Nevertheless, he "told" us many things, without actually telling us. And, yes! There is a document! Not doubting you, just not aware of how the conclusion was reached. It may not pay much to be "doubtful", but it certainly keeps one from looking completely foolish at times. Thomas H./aka "Doubting" Thomas. Not doubting you, just not aware of how the conclusion was reached. Now! A truly "professional" doubter would have, as well as should have, asked exactly by what means one determined the width of the flat base of the cone-shaped; non-irregular lead fragment which disappeared. Same Answer: Frazier may or may not discuss the issue. Nevertheless, he "told" us many things, without actually telling us. During this time in his testimony Frazier sure choses his words carefully! Mike Unless somewhat like myself by now, he did the same many years ago! He knows much which he has never openly revealed. When one discusses the subject matter correctly, they can not help but walk away knowing this. Kind of like his little "game" played in the Shaw trial testimony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted August 15, 2008 Share Posted August 15, 2008 (edited) Bullet Weight Accountability! Tom, is there a document indicating William Sullivan removed or had someone remove the bullet segment from the FBI ballistics laboratory? I'm wondering how you came to that conclusion. Not doubting you, just not aware of how the conclusion was reached. Thanks. Roy Bierma Since he was still living at last account: Robert Frazier 1704 Oak Lane McLean, VA 22101 Tel: 703-533-2877 Frazier may or may not discuss the issue. Nevertheless, he "told" us many things, without actually telling us. And, yes! There is a document! Not doubting you, just not aware of how the conclusion was reached. It may not pay much to be "doubtful", but it certainly keeps one from looking completely foolish at times. Thomas H./aka "Doubting" Thomas. Not doubting you, just not aware of how the conclusion was reached. Now! A truly "professional" doubter would have, as well as should have, asked exactly by what means one determined the width of the flat base of the cone-shaped; non-irregular lead fragment which disappeared. Same Answer: Frazier may or may not discuss the issue. Nevertheless, he "told" us many things, without actually telling us. During this time in his testimony Frazier sure choses his words carefully! Mike Unless somewhat like myself by now, he did the same many years ago! He knows much which he has never openly revealed. When one discusses the subject matter correctly, they can not help but walk away knowing this. Kind of like his little "game" played in the Shaw trial testimony. Tom, I looked back for the weight accountability, and can not see the docs you posted so I will just ask. Was the .67 grains in your prior calculations the weight of the copper cover for the base of the bullet? 158.6=CE399 .9= the "missing" fragment .67=?? How would this relate to the overall weight if the copper bottom is not accounted for? I do recall that this bullet could have weighted as much as 163 grains per Fraziers +/- 2 grains. Mike Edited August 15, 2008 by Mike Williams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 16, 2008 Author Share Posted August 16, 2008 Bullet Weight Accountability! Tom, is there a document indicating William Sullivan removed or had someone remove the bullet segment from the FBI ballistics laboratory? I'm wondering how you came to that conclusion. Not doubting you, just not aware of how the conclusion was reached. Thanks. Roy Bierma Since he was still living at last account: Robert Frazier 1704 Oak Lane McLean, VA 22101 Tel: 703-533-2877 Frazier may or may not discuss the issue. Nevertheless, he "told" us many things, without actually telling us. And, yes! There is a document! Not doubting you, just not aware of how the conclusion was reached. It may not pay much to be "doubtful", but it certainly keeps one from looking completely foolish at times. Thomas H./aka "Doubting" Thomas. Not doubting you, just not aware of how the conclusion was reached. Now! A truly "professional" doubter would have, as well as should have, asked exactly by what means one determined the width of the flat base of the cone-shaped; non-irregular lead fragment which disappeared. Same Answer: Frazier may or may not discuss the issue. Nevertheless, he "told" us many things, without actually telling us. During this time in his testimony Frazier sure choses his words carefully! Mike Unless somewhat like myself by now, he did the same many years ago! He knows much which he has never openly revealed. When one discusses the subject matter correctly, they can not help but walk away knowing this. Kind of like his little "game" played in the Shaw trial testimony. Tom, I looked back for the weight accountability, and can not see the docs you posted so I will just ask. Was the .67 grains in your prior calculations the weight of the copper cover for the base of the bullet? 158.6=CE399 .9= the "missing" fragment .67=?? How would this relate to the overall weight if the copper bottom is not accounted for? I do recall that this bullet could have weighted as much as 163 grains per Fraziers +/- 2 grains. Mike Was the .67 grains in your prior calculations the weight of the copper cover for the base of the bullet? NO! The .67 grain loss was strictly what the bullet lost in weight as a result of being fired. Remember why we had to clean them barrel's so often? I removed the bullet and weighed it on an extremely accurate scale. Re-loaded, and then fired it into a drum of water for recovery, and then re-weighed it. I did not, and could not take into consideration the weight loss due to the removal of the copper jacket as it was, at those times, completely unknown as to when this alteration to the bullet transpired. Frazier and Gallagher both told me that the bullet base was for all prctical purposes the same as any other intact bullet when they examined it. The photo which I sent to Frazier was in fact from the HSCA photographs, just to check Frazier's comments. It was not until after the JFK Records act released those photo's which demonstrate that the base to CE399 was present when this bullet was turned over to the National Archives, that it could be absolutely confirmed (doubting Thomas syndrone) that what Frazier and Gallagher were telling me was accurate. The portion of the copper jacket which normally covers a portion of the base of the bullet was present when the bullet was turned over to the National Archives. When the HSCA went to get this bullet, it was not! Does not require too much of a genius to recognize that this alteration to the bullet therefore took place while the bullet was in the custody of the National Archives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 Question answered thank you! The 158.6 grains then would have INCLUDED this base portion. Now question number 2. Unless I missed the boat somewhere this is the projectile that your theory would have striking the President in the back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 16, 2008 Author Share Posted August 16, 2008 Recovered weight of CE399:---------------------------------------------158.6 grains Weight of CE840 cone-shaped/flat-based/disappearing fragment:------0.9 grains Weight loss to bullet from merely having been fired:---------------------0.63 grains Total accounted for weight:--------------------------------------------------160.13 grains Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 (edited) Recovered weight of CE399:---------------------------------------------158.6 grainsWeight of CE840 cone-shaped/flat-based/disappearing fragment:------0.9 grains Weight loss to bullet from merely having been fired:---------------------0.63 grains Total accounted for weight:--------------------------------------------------160.13 grains Roger That! Fits the tolerances well. Nice. Now this is the projectile that in your ideas you have striking JFK in the back after clipping a tree limb? Am I correct in this or have I been at the airport awaiting a boat? Edited August 16, 2008 by Mike Williams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 16, 2008 Author Share Posted August 16, 2008 (edited) Recovered weight of CE399:---------------------------------------------158.6 grainsWeight of CE840 cone-shaped/flat-based/disappearing fragment:------0.9 grains Weight loss to bullet from merely having been fired:---------------------0.63 grains Total accounted for weight:--------------------------------------------------160.13 grains Roger That! Fits the tolerances well. Nice. Now this is the projectile that in your ideas you have striking JFK in the back after clipping a tree limb? Am I correct in this or have I been at the airport awaiting a boat? Now this is the projectile that in your ideas you have striking JFK in the back after clipping a tree limb? Am I correct in this or have I been at the airport awaiting a boat? I do believe that you got onto the correct carrier! One might not want to ignore that the Clark Panel as well as the HSCA Medical Panel were relatively certain that some of the opaque indicators at the right transverse process of the C7/T1 vertebrae appeared to be miniscule metallic fragments/residue. And if one will take the neck anterior/posterior X-ray to a qualified radiologist, they just may find that he will inform one that the spinal column is deviated slightly to the left as well. Edited August 16, 2008 by Thomas H. Purvis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 16, 2008 Author Share Posted August 16, 2008 Unfired WCC 6.5mm Carcano bullet base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 Recovered weight of CE399:---------------------------------------------158.6 grainsWeight of CE840 cone-shaped/flat-based/disappearing fragment:------0.9 grains Weight loss to bullet from merely having been fired:---------------------0.63 grains Total accounted for weight:--------------------------------------------------160.13 grains Roger That! Fits the tolerances well. Nice. Now this is the projectile that in your ideas you have striking JFK in the back after clipping a tree limb? Am I correct in this or have I been at the airport awaiting a boat? Now this is the projectile that in your ideas you have striking JFK in the back after clipping a tree limb? Am I correct in this or have I been at the airport awaiting a boat? I do believe that you got onto the correct carrier! One might not want to ignore that the Clark Panel as well as the HSCA Medical Panel were relatively certain that some of the opaque indicators at the right transverse process of the C7/T1 vertebrae appeared to be miniscule metallic fragments/residue. And if one will take the neck anterior/posterior X-ray to a qualified radiologist, they just may find that he will inform one that the spinal column is deviated slightly to the left as well. Ok so we have CE399 leaving the muzzle striking a limb, which diminishes its velocity, and striking JFK "backwards" . At this point it expels CE840 out of the base of the bullet which causes the wound in the Presidents throat. The main body of the projectile penetrates to about 2" consistent with the autopsy reports, and the wound is accounted for, as is the lack of metalic residue. Does that seem to have it summed up for this projectile and this shot? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 16, 2008 Author Share Posted August 16, 2008 WCC 6.5mm Carcano bullet base after having merely been fired. Even the "tightness" of the barrel can cause the 4.5mm width lead core to begin to protrude out the bullet base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 16, 2008 Author Share Posted August 16, 2008 Base of CE399 when the HSCA panel retrieved the bullet and photographed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 WCC 6.5mm Carcano bullet base after having merely been fired.Even the "tightness" of the barrel can cause the 4.5mm width lead core to begin to protrude out the bullet base. Ok now the base in your unfired photo appears intact, and in the single fired photo is appears intact. In looking at the photo of 399 in the archives this "lip" which we see in the other photos appears to be intact as well. Now I know that the MC bullets did not have the complete base covered with jacket, but just a lip portion as portrayed by your unfired photo. Does not this Archives photo show that lip as well? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 16, 2008 Author Share Posted August 16, 2008 Trying to make my old "mechanical drawing" professor look as if he actually taught us something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 16, 2008 Author Share Posted August 16, 2008 Your photo saved me a step in the process. The C1/CE399 FBI/National Archives photo is the one that was not released until as a result of the JFK Records Act. Which, at risk of credibility, I also played a minor role in through US Senator David Boren, Chairman, Senate Intelligence Committee. Here again is the photo, and one may want to pay particular attention to the overall deformed shape of the bullet as well as the impact damage to the edge of the copper jacket. Then, one can compare it with the other photo and actually see where this impact compressed the lead under the point, as demonstrated by that darkened area on the photo with the copper jacket missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 Trying to make my old "mechanical drawing" professor look as if he actually taught us something. Gotcha! Tom this is interesting stuff indeed. The only issue I would have with this whole first shot scenario is the tree deflection allowing the projectile to remain on target, but, since I can not say it would be impossible, I have to conclude this could certainly be a viable answer to the first shot. Thanks for spending the time to run me through this theory. It sure is food for thought. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now