Jump to content
The Education Forum

The "Wound Ballistics Of 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition" Report


Recommended Posts

As I have said before, folks such as Mr. Von Pein will turn down the use of modern technology to examine the evidence of theJFK assassination, as if a magnifying glass is superior to an electron microscope--as long as the Warren Commission used a magnifying glass, that's all the accuracy we will ever need.

And this is why he will dismiss medical evidence such as Robert Prudhomme is providing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 265
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

it does seem so, doesn't it. it's hard for me to comprehend anyone these days referring to the WR for anything other than perhaps some data for which the WR was not designed (like examples of confusion, hypocrisy, etc.). But to actually refer to its findings today is pretty odd, to be sure.

As the New Boy in here, I have to say I was really surprised for a moment when - must have been DVP - not only referred to the HSCA as gospel, but with the assumption that its reliability also is simply a given. He clearly expected no rebuttal on that. I wondered if he was kidding and thought it was kinda funny after a minute.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have said before, folks such as Mr. Von Pein will turn down the use of modern technology to examine the evidence of theJFK assassination, as if a magnifying glass is superior to an electron microscope--as long as the Warren Commission used a magnifying glass, that's all the accuracy we will ever need.

And this is why he will dismiss medical evidence such as Robert Prudhomme is providing.

Hi Mark

The strange thing about all of the medical evidence I am posting is that I obtained 100% of it from the Warren Commission. Their own evidence contradicts the Single Bullet Theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i really get more glee out of "watching" the WC members squirm in the face of this kind of evidence. :)

Just as the Warren Report was going to Press, Gerald Ford changed the wording of the bullet location, moving it several inches upward so that the SBT would work. No evidence was presented or used to justify the move. So you 're not going to see a photo that shows the higher bullet entry.

This is largely a myth, that I have been debunking at conferences for the last several years. Ford changed the description of the wound from a back wound to a neck wound but one time in one section of the chapter discussing Kennedy's wounds.

The problem is that this chapter contained something like 30 other references to the wound as being on the neck. It follows, then, that Ford was merely trying to bring a sentence in which Specter slipped up, and said the wound was on the back, in line with the many other references to the wound, where it was described as being on the back of the neck.

And, yes, we can be fairly certain it was Specter who called it a neck wound, even though he'd seen a photo proving it was really on the back. Throughout his life he would boast/brag that there were very few changes done to his chapter in the report. We also have the testimony of Thomas Kelley, the SS agent who showed Specter the back wound photo. In his testimony Kelley slipped up and said the wound was in the shoulder, only to have Specter correct him and ask if he meant the one in the back of the neck. Kelley of course said yes.

I discuss all this in chapter 10.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2015 at 8:58 PM, Mark Knight said:

As I have said before, folks such as Mr. Von Pein will turn down the use of modern technology to examine the evidence of the JFK assassination.

Boy, Mark, what an incredibly dumb (and hilarious) statement you just uttered there. In reality, of course, it's the conspiracy theorists (for the most part) who refuse to accept "modern technology" when examining the JFK case. The latest example being Luke Haag's ballistics experiments. And before that, it was Dale Myers' detailed computer reconstruction of the shooting. Has there been a CTer on the planet who has ever fairly and objectively examined Mr. Myers' "Secrets Of A Homicide" work? I'm doubting it.

And then there's the SBT test done by the Discovery Channel in Australia in 2004 ("Beyond The Magic Bullet"), utilizing high-tech surrogate models. CTers have never given that experiment anything close to a "fair shake". And even though a perfect re-creation of the SBT is never likely to be achieved, it seems as though ANYTHING less than complete "perfection" will be snubbed by the CT crowd, even though those CTers know full well that the Australian experiment, in large measure, DID replicate the general path of the SBT, with the test bullet sustaining fairly little damage.

And the test bullet's nose in the Australian re-enactment was still intact and rounded after going through two mock-up torsos. And that is something almost all CTers have been saying is totally impossible if a 6.5mm MC bullet were to have gone through two bodies and broken multiple bones in one of those bodies. But the Australian test proved the CTers dead wrong in that regard. But that fact doesn't matter a whit to CTers like Cyril Wecht. They still act like the Australian test was never even performed. (Go figure.)

But thanks for today's daily pot/kettle laugh from the CT Brigade, Mark. I enjoyed it.

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/jfk-beyond-magic-bullet.html

 

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites
And, yes, we can be fairly certain it was Specter who called it a neck wound, even though he'd seen a photo proving it was really on the back.

It makes little difference what WORD was used to describe the point of entry ("back" or "neck" or "base of the back of the neck"), because Commission Exhibit 903 proves that Arlen Specter and Company knew where to place that wound on a human body. And they placed it just where they should have placed it---in the UPPER BACK, just like it shows in the autopsy photo and in the autopsy report. The semantics are secondary next to what the Warren Commission DID when Lyndal Shaneyfelt took this photo in CE903. And the wound is NOT in the "neck". Period.

So maybe it's time for CTers to let go of the 50-year myth labelled "The Warren Commission Lied About The Location Of The Back Wound". Because just one quick glance at Commission Exhibit No. 903 should make every conspiracy theorist who has ever embraced that myth turn six shades of crimson....

Commission-Exhibit-903.jpg

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites

Specter's theory looks a bit silly when you put the throat wound where the surgeon said it was above the tie.

Commission-Exhibit-903_zps1utk8cqn.jpg

Warren report

Mr. Dulles. I see.
Dr. Carrico. The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.
Mr. Dulles. ‘I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is? Dr. Carrico. Yes, sir ; just where the tie---
Mr. Dulles. A little bit to the left.
Dr. Carrico. To the right.
Mr. Dulles. Yes; to the right.

(note how Dulles cut off what Dr Carrico was going to say.)

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're kidding, aren't you Ray? That yellow line you drew in there is STILL very close to meeting the SBT requirements. (Looks mighty close to me anyway.)

But, as I said above, will ANY CTer ever accept anything that isn't 100% spot-on and to-the-millimeter when it comes to any of the attempts to replicate the Single-Bullet Theory?

Do conspiracy believers ever allow for any "margin of error" when evaluating the work of the Warren Commission, or the 2004 Australian team of researchers, or Dale Myers, or Gary Mack, or ANYBODY else when discussing the details of the Single-Bullet Theory? If not, why not? We all know that it's not very likely that anyone could ever duplicate the SBT shot right down to the last little detail (and to the millimeter). Seems to me that CTers expect way too much of the people doing any SBT re-enactments.

And with respect to the Warren Commission's 5/24/64 re-enactment of the SBT in Dallas, CTers are also expecting way too much exactitude and pinpoint accuracy from the WC too. As I explained in this article, a little bit of leeway MUST be granted the WC when evaluating the re-created bullet trajectory we see in CE903. Because that picture actually equates to the bullet hitting President Kennedy at Zapruder Film frame 217.5. And is there a person alive who REALLY thinks the bullet hit at precisely Z217.50? I doubt it. I certainly don't.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're kidding, aren't you Ray? That yellow line you drew in there is STILL very close to meeting the SBT requirements. (Looks mighty close to me anyway.)

"Looks mighty close" Arf! It couldn't have hit Connally in the armpit at that angle and it would have hit him in the heart.

But, as I said above, will ANY CTer ever accept anything that isn't 100% spot-on and to-the-millimeter when it comes to any of the attempts to replicate the Single-Bullet Theory?

Will any LNer ever accept that the single bullet theory is a load of rubbish?

Do conspiracy believers ever allow for any "margin of error" when evaluating the work of the Warren Commission, or the 2004 Australian team of researchers, or Dale Myers, or Gary Mack, or ANYBODY else when discussing the details of the Single-Bullet Theory? If not, why not? We all know that it's not very likely that anyone could ever duplicate the SBT shot right down to the last little detail (and to the millimeter). Seems to me that CTers expect way too much of the people doing any SBT re-enactments.

I'm afraid millimeters count when you are talking about bullet wounds.

I note you have no comment to make about the bullet wound being above the tie.

And with respect to the Warren Commission's 5/24/64 re-enactment of the SBT in Dallas, CTers are also expecting way too much exactitude and pinpoint accuracy from the WC too. As I explained in this article, a little bit of leeway MUST be granted the WC when evaluating the re-created bullet trajectory we see in CE903. Because that picture actually equates to the bullet hitting President Kennedy at Zapruder Film frame 217.5. And is there a person alive who REALLY thinks the bullet hit at precisely Z217.50? I doubt it. I certainly don't.

So you agree that the re-enactment was useless?

Keep pushing, David. I doubt the string will eventually move.

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray,

The bullet didn't exit above the tie. We know that for a fact by the damage to JFK's shirt and tie. It exited right AT the level of the tie knot. Dr. Carrico was obviously off a little bit in his calculations of where the bullet hole was located.

Also....

The Warren Commission's re-enactment shows the general path the bullet took on Nov. 22. It's not 100% exact. It CAN'T be, as I explained, because CE903 represents only an AVERAGE angle between the range of frames the WC used for the SBT (Z210-225). The WC couldn't pinpoint the exact Z-Film frame when the bullet struck. So they used an average angle between Z210 and 225.

That isn't nearly good enouigh for you, though, is it, Ray? You require so much more.

But what I'd like to see is some kind of CTer re-enactment to show the feasibility of TWO bullets going into JFK's body and striking no bones but not exiting the body, and then both bullets getting lost.

It's no wonder we never see any kind of goofy re-creation like that. I'd be embarrassed to present such a bizarre theory at COPA or the NID conference too.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid millimeters count when you are talking about bullet wounds.

You expect too much, Ray. But expecting way too much is always a good way to justify your remaining in the "SBT Is A Load Of Rubbish" camp.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray,

The bullet didn't exit above the tie. We know that for a fact by the damage to JFK's shirt and tie. It exited right AT the level of the tie knot. Dr. Carrico was obviously off a little bit in his calculations of where the bullet hole was located.

Please explain how a bullet can make "slits" in a shirt rather bullet holes, and in places which don't line up. Carrico was quite right. (See below)

Also....

The Warren Commission's re-enactment shows the general path the bullet took on Nov. 22. It's not 100% exact. It CAN'T be, as I explained, because CE903 represents only an AVERAGE angle between the range of frames the WC used for the SBT (Z210-225). The WC couldn't pinpoint the exact Z-Film frame when the bullet struck. So they used an average angle between Z210 and 225.

That isn't nearly good enouigh for you, though, is it, Ray? You require so much more.

I require evidence e- not "what's a few millimetres difference"

But what I'd like to see is some kind of CTer re-enactment to show the feasibility of TWO bullets going into JFK's body, striking no bones, and then both bullets getting lost.

It's no wonder we never see any kind of goofy re-creation like that. I'd be embarrassed to present it at COPA or the NID conference too.

It's the theory which is goofy, David.

jfk%20shirt_lrg2_zps61qryzra.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid millimeters count when you are talking about bullet wounds.

You expect too much, Ray. But expecting way too much is always a good way to justify your remaining in the "SBT Is A Load Of Rubbish" camp.

I'm afraid millimeters count when you are talking about bullet wounds.

You expect too much, Ray. But expecting way too much is always a good way to justify your remaining in the "SBT Is A Load Of Rubbish" camp.

I expect the truth, something of which the Warren report was very shy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray,

You think something OTHER than a bullet caused the damage to JFK's shirt?

What would that have been? The Parkland doctors? Why would they have cut his shirt in those locations?

I don't answer hypothetical questions, David. Maybe you think the right hand side of the President's shirt "bunched up" :ice

p.s Note the position of the slit. If it had have been a bullet passing through the shirt, it would have passed directly through the tie, not clipping it.

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...