Jump to content

A "few" Facts


Recommended Posts

Harold Weisberg in the late 60s went to the Archives and

personally photographed the 6-groove bullet in evidence

as CE399 BEFORE IT WAS SWITCHED FOR THE FOUR-GROOVE

BULLET NOW IN EVIDENCE. Attached is Harold's photo from

his book POST MORTEM. I have numbered six land/groove

markings on one half of the bullet. We may deduce there

are an equal number on the other side. There is no doubt

that the original 399 had six land/groove markings. The late

Sgt. John Ritchson MASTER GUNSMITH looked at this photo

and verified this.

Jack

Jack;

In placing this into proper perspective, I must also consider that NEITHER of the (your) two aforementioned "EXPERTS" appear to have even recognized that the portion of the copper jacket which normally covers most of the base of a 6.5mm bullet, was missing from the photo.

In fact! Last time that I checked, it appears that not unlike most of the other factual evidence, old "know-nothing" Tom is the one who also pointed this out some time ago, as well as now having provided the rationale as to why this portion of the copper jacket had to be discreetely removed from the bullet.

IF and WHEN you ever find certified members from the AFTE (Association of Firearms & Toolmark Examiners) to state that by looking at virtually one single photo, that they can determined that this bullet was fired from a 6-groove rifling weapon, then perhaps I may give it some credence.

Until then, it remains in the "speculation" category, as stated by unqualified personnel.

Lastly, with the release by the National Archives of the various photographs of CE399, I do believe, that for most, the issue of the mythological "6-groove" bullet long ago died.

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Rifle_Bullets/index.html

You, as well as your "EXPERTS" are under some misguided opinion that merely because a "scratch" mark into the outer coating of a bullet runs parallel to the actual rifling markings, that it too constitutes some form of rifling.

Unfortunately, most who have ever observed a round which has been fired through a contaminated rifle barrel are aware that it quite often creates SCRATCH MARKS along the length of the round, which are in direct parallel alignment to the existing marks on the bullet, as created by the rifle landings/lands.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifling

The grooves are the spaces that are cut out, and the resulting ridges are called 'lands'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contamination and/or corrosion within a rifle barrel, found on the lands, is for all practical purposes not-definable, as the land cuts into the outer jacket of the round, thus leaving the true "rifling" markings.

However! Since the outer diameter of the bullet is designed to match the inner diameter of the rifle barrel, as measured from the "grooves" which are cut into the barrel, then under normal firing, there is little if any type rifling marking on this portion of the rifle jacket as it merely passes through the rifle barrel in which the outside diameter of the round, for all practical purposes, matches the inside diameter of the groove cuttings.

Now Jack! When corrosion and/or contamination within the rifle barrel exists within the GROOVE portion of the rifling, the bullet must either force this completely out of the way, or else "carry" it along within the rotational twists of the rifling insided the barrel, until such time as it either spreads the contamination throughout the rifle barrel, or else expends the contamination out the muzzle of the weapon.

And, since the velocity of the bullet is normally of such magnitude that the contamination/corrosion can not be pushed forward fast enought, the round usually, not unlike what the lands do, passes over the contamination/corrosion, and in so doing creates a "marking" on the outer jacket of the bullet, which exactly parallels the markings on the round as created by the actual lands of the rifle barrel.

An extremely simple method to differentiate between rifling markings as created by the lands of the rifle barrel, as opposed to scratch marks found on the round as created by corrosion/contamination found down within the actual grooves, it to look at the beginning point of these indications on the forward/nose vicinity of the round.

Since the round, upon being chambered, makes immediate contact with the lands of the rifle barrel, when fired, these lands begin to leave/cut the groove into the outer jacket of the bullet immediately at the point of contact of the leading nose edge of the round.

HOWEVER! Contamination/corrosion, as found down within the GROOVE of the rifle barrel, does not make immediate contact with the nose of the round due to the contour/shape of the bullet nose in which the diamenter is considerably smaller that the actual inside diameter as measured across the rifle grooves.

SCRATCH MARKS on the rifle jacket, as created by minor corrosion/contamination within the rifling grooves, will virtually ALWAYS begin slightly farther rearward on the bullet jacket, than do the beginning point of the actual rifling markings as created by the lands of the rifle barrel.

This, happens to be one of the first & prime indicators that these parallel lines ARE NOT rifling markings as found on the bullet.

Fortunately, there are other indicators as well!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Harold Weisberg in the late 60s went to the Archives and

personally photographed the 6-groove bullet in evidence

as CE399 BEFORE IT WAS SWITCHED FOR THE FOUR-GROOVE

BULLET NOW IN EVIDENCE. Attached is Harold's photo from

his book POST MORTEM. I have numbered six land/groove

markings on one half of the bullet. We may deduce there

are an equal number on the other side. There is no doubt

that the original 399 had six land/groove markings. The late

Sgt. John Ritchson MASTER GUNSMITH looked at this photo

and verified this.

Jack

Jack;

In placing this into proper perspective, I must also consider that NEITHER of the (your) two aforementioned "EXPERTS" appear to have even recognized that the portion of the copper jacket which normally covers most of the base of a 6.5mm bullet, was missing from the photo.

In fact! Last time that I checked, it appears that not unlike most of the other factual evidence, old "know-nothing" Tom is the one who also pointed this out some time ago, as well as now having provided the rationale as to why this portion of the copper jacket had to be discreetely removed from the bullet.

IF and WHEN you ever find certified members from the AFTE (Association of Firearms & Toolmark Examiners) to state that by looking at virtually one single photo, that they can determined that this bullet was fired from a 6-groove rifling weapon, then perhaps I may give it some credence.

Until then, it remains in the "speculation" category, as stated by unqualified personnel.

Lastly, with the release by the National Archives of the various photographs of CE399, I do believe, that for most, the issue of the mythological "6-groove" bullet long ago died.

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Rifle_Bullets/index.html

You, as well as your "EXPERTS" are under some misguided opinion that merely because a "scratch" mark into the outer coating of a bullet runs parallel to the actual rifling markings, that it too constitutes some form of rifling.

Unfortunately, most who have ever observed a round which has been fired through a contaminated rifle barrel are aware that it quite often creates SCRATCH MARKS along the length of the round, which are in direct parallel alignment to the existing marks on the bullet, as created by the rifle landings/lands.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifling

The grooves are the spaces that are cut out, and the resulting ridges are called 'lands'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contamination and/or corrosion within a rifle barrel, found on the lands, is for all practical purposes not-definable, as the land cuts into the outer jacket of the round, thus leaving the true "rifling" markings.

However! Since the outer diameter of the bullet is designed to match the inner diameter of the rifle barrel, as measured from the "grooves" which are cut into the barrel, then under normal firing, there is little if any type rifling marking on this portion of the rifle jacket as it merely passes through the rifle barrel in which the outside diameter of the round, for all practical purposes, matches the inside diameter of the groove cuttings.

Now Jack! When corrosion and/or contamination within the rifle barrel exists within the GROOVE portion of the rifling, the bullet must either force this completely out of the way, or else "carry" it along within the rotational twists of the rifling insided the barrel, until such time as it either spreads the contamination throughout the rifle barrel, or else expends the contamination out the muzzle of the weapon.

And, since the velocity of the bullet is normally of such magnitude that the contamination/corrosion can not be pushed forward fast enought, the round usually, not unlike what the lands do, passes over the contamination/corrosion, and in so doing creates a "marking" on the outer jacket of the bullet, which exactly parallels the markings on the round as created by the actual lands of the rifle barrel.

An extremely simple method to differentiate between rifling markings as created by the lands of the rifle barrel, as opposed to scratch marks found on the round as created by corrosion/contamination found down within the actual grooves, it to look at the beginning point of these indications on the forward/nose vicinity of the round.

Since the round, upon being chambered, makes immediate contact with the lands of the rifle barrel, when fired, these lands begin to leave/cut the groove into the outer jacket of the bullet immediately at the point of contact of the leading nose edge of the round.

HOWEVER! Contamination/corrosion, as found down within the GROOVE of the rifle barrel, does not make immediate contact with the nose of the round due to the contour/shape of the bullet nose in which the diamenter is considerably smaller that the actual inside diameter as measured across the rifle grooves.

SCRATCH MARKS on the rifle jacket, as created by minor corrosion/contamination within the rifling grooves, will virtually ALWAYS begin slightly farther rearward on the bullet jacket, than do the beginning point of the actual rifling markings as created by the lands of the rifle barrel.

This, happens to be one of the first & prime indicators that these parallel lines ARE NOT rifling markings as found on the bullet.

Fortunately, there are other indicators as well!

http://www.firearmsid.com/A_bulletIDrifling2.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harold Weisberg in the late 60s went to the Archives and

personally photographed the 6-groove bullet in evidence

as CE399 BEFORE IT WAS SWITCHED FOR THE FOUR-GROOVE

BULLET NOW IN EVIDENCE. Attached is Harold's photo from

his book POST MORTEM. I have numbered six land/groove

markings on one half of the bullet. We may deduce there

are an equal number on the other side. There is no doubt

that the original 399 had six land/groove markings. The late

Sgt. John Ritchson MASTER GUNSMITH looked at this photo

and verified this.

Jack

Jack;

In placing this into proper perspective, I must also consider that NEITHER of the (your) two aforementioned "EXPERTS" appear to have even recognized that the portion of the copper jacket which normally covers most of the base of a 6.5mm bullet, was missing from the photo.

In fact! Last time that I checked, it appears that not unlike most of the other factual evidence, old "know-nothing" Tom is the one who also pointed this out some time ago, as well as now having provided the rationale as to why this portion of the copper jacket had to be discreetely removed from the bullet.

IF and WHEN you ever find certified members from the AFTE (Association of Firearms & Toolmark Examiners) to state that by looking at virtually one single photo, that they can determined that this bullet was fired from a 6-groove rifling weapon, then perhaps I may give it some credence.

Until then, it remains in the "speculation" category, as stated by unqualified personnel.

Lastly, with the release by the National Archives of the various photographs of CE399, I do believe, that for most, the issue of the mythological "6-groove" bullet long ago died.

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Rifle_Bullets/index.html

You, as well as your "EXPERTS" are under some misguided opinion that merely because a "scratch" mark into the outer coating of a bullet runs parallel to the actual rifling markings, that it too constitutes some form of rifling.

Unfortunately, most who have ever observed a round which has been fired through a contaminated rifle barrel are aware that it quite often creates SCRATCH MARKS along the length of the round, which are in direct parallel alignment to the existing marks on the bullet, as created by the rifle landings/lands.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifling

The grooves are the spaces that are cut out, and the resulting ridges are called 'lands'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contamination and/or corrosion within a rifle barrel, found on the lands, is for all practical purposes not-definable, as the land cuts into the outer jacket of the round, thus leaving the true "rifling" markings.

However! Since the outer diameter of the bullet is designed to match the inner diameter of the rifle barrel, as measured from the "grooves" which are cut into the barrel, then under normal firing, there is little if any type rifling marking on this portion of the rifle jacket as it merely passes through the rifle barrel in which the outside diameter of the round, for all practical purposes, matches the inside diameter of the groove cuttings.

Now Jack! When corrosion and/or contamination within the rifle barrel exists within the GROOVE portion of the rifling, the bullet must either force this completely out of the way, or else "carry" it along within the rotational twists of the rifling insided the barrel, until such time as it either spreads the contamination throughout the rifle barrel, or else expends the contamination out the muzzle of the weapon.

And, since the velocity of the bullet is normally of such magnitude that the contamination/corrosion can not be pushed forward fast enought, the round usually, not unlike what the lands do, passes over the contamination/corrosion, and in so doing creates a "marking" on the outer jacket of the bullet, which exactly parallels the markings on the round as created by the actual lands of the rifle barrel.

An extremely simple method to differentiate between rifling markings as created by the lands of the rifle barrel, as opposed to scratch marks found on the round as created by corrosion/contamination found down within the actual grooves, it to look at the beginning point of these indications on the forward/nose vicinity of the round.

Since the round, upon being chambered, makes immediate contact with the lands of the rifle barrel, when fired, these lands begin to leave/cut the groove into the outer jacket of the bullet immediately at the point of contact of the leading nose edge of the round.

HOWEVER! Contamination/corrosion, as found down within the GROOVE of the rifle barrel, does not make immediate contact with the nose of the round due to the contour/shape of the bullet nose in which the diamenter is considerably smaller that the actual inside diameter as measured across the rifle grooves.

SCRATCH MARKS on the rifle jacket, as created by minor corrosion/contamination within the rifling grooves, will virtually ALWAYS begin slightly farther rearward on the bullet jacket, than do the beginning point of the actual rifling markings as created by the lands of the rifle barrel.

This, happens to be one of the first & prime indicators that these parallel lines ARE NOT rifling markings as found on the bullet.

Fortunately, there are other indicators as well!

http://www.firearmsid.com/A_bulletIDrifling2.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harold Weisberg in the late 60s went to the Archives and

personally photographed the 6-groove bullet in evidence

as CE399 BEFORE IT WAS SWITCHED FOR THE FOUR-GROOVE

BULLET NOW IN EVIDENCE. Attached is Harold's photo from

his book POST MORTEM. I have numbered six land/groove

markings on one half of the bullet. We may deduce there

are an equal number on the other side. There is no doubt

that the original 399 had six land/groove markings. The late

Sgt. John Ritchson MASTER GUNSMITH looked at this photo

and verified this.

Jack

Jack;

In placing this into proper perspective, I must also consider that NEITHER of the (your) two aforementioned "EXPERTS" appear to have even recognized that the portion of the copper jacket which normally covers most of the base of a 6.5mm bullet, was missing from the photo.

In fact! Last time that I checked, it appears that not unlike most of the other factual evidence, old "know-nothing" Tom is the one who also pointed this out some time ago, as well as now having provided the rationale as to why this portion of the copper jacket had to be discreetely removed from the bullet.

IF and WHEN you ever find certified members from the AFTE (Association of Firearms & Toolmark Examiners) to state that by looking at virtually one single photo, that they can determined that this bullet was fired from a 6-groove rifling weapon, then perhaps I may give it some credence.

Until then, it remains in the "speculation" category, as stated by unqualified personnel.

Lastly, with the release by the National Archives of the various photographs of CE399, I do believe, that for most, the issue of the mythological "6-groove" bullet long ago died.

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Rifle_Bullets/index.html

You, as well as your "EXPERTS" are under some misguided opinion that merely because a "scratch" mark into the outer coating of a bullet runs parallel to the actual rifling markings, that it too constitutes some form of rifling.

Unfortunately, most who have ever observed a round which has been fired through a contaminated rifle barrel are aware that it quite often creates SCRATCH MARKS along the length of the round, which are in direct parallel alignment to the existing marks on the bullet, as created by the rifle landings/lands.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifling

The grooves are the spaces that are cut out, and the resulting ridges are called 'lands'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contamination and/or corrosion within a rifle barrel, found on the lands, is for all practical purposes not-definable, as the land cuts into the outer jacket of the round, thus leaving the true "rifling" markings.

However! Since the outer diameter of the bullet is designed to match the inner diameter of the rifle barrel, as measured from the "grooves" which are cut into the barrel, then under normal firing, there is little if any type rifling marking on this portion of the rifle jacket as it merely passes through the rifle barrel in which the outside diameter of the round, for all practical purposes, matches the inside diameter of the groove cuttings.

Now Jack! When corrosion and/or contamination within the rifle barrel exists within the GROOVE portion of the rifling, the bullet must either force this completely out of the way, or else "carry" it along within the rotational twists of the rifling insided the barrel, until such time as it either spreads the contamination throughout the rifle barrel, or else expends the contamination out the muzzle of the weapon.

And, since the velocity of the bullet is normally of such magnitude that the contamination/corrosion can not be pushed forward fast enought, the round usually, not unlike what the lands do, passes over the contamination/corrosion, and in so doing creates a "marking" on the outer jacket of the bullet, which exactly parallels the markings on the round as created by the actual lands of the rifle barrel.

An extremely simple method to differentiate between rifling markings as created by the lands of the rifle barrel, as opposed to scratch marks found on the round as created by corrosion/contamination found down within the actual grooves, it to look at the beginning point of these indications on the forward/nose vicinity of the round.

Since the round, upon being chambered, makes immediate contact with the lands of the rifle barrel, when fired, these lands begin to leave/cut the groove into the outer jacket of the bullet immediately at the point of contact of the leading nose edge of the round.

HOWEVER! Contamination/corrosion, as found down within the GROOVE of the rifle barrel, does not make immediate contact with the nose of the round due to the contour/shape of the bullet nose in which the diamenter is considerably smaller that the actual inside diameter as measured across the rifle grooves.

SCRATCH MARKS on the rifle jacket, as created by minor corrosion/contamination within the rifling grooves, will virtually ALWAYS begin slightly farther rearward on the bullet jacket, than do the beginning point of the actual rifling markings as created by the lands of the rifle barrel.

This, happens to be one of the first & prime indicators that these parallel lines ARE NOT rifling markings as found on the bullet.

Fortunately, there are other indicators as well!

http://www.firearmsid.com/A_bulletIDrifling2.htm

Jack!

As a final note on the subject of "6-grooves", in event you continue to utilize the work/research and/or opinions of others, might I recommend that you first check out whether or not they even have the basic qualifications, education, and training necessary to expound on the subject matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those few of us who are not afraid to have their findings fully examined by those professionals/persons who carry the full qualifications to do so, by virtue of training and experience, do not have to rely on some "Master Gunsmith", the local yocal at the pawnshop, or anyone else who does not even bear the knowledge as to what the base of a Carcano bullet is supposed to look like.

http://www.afte.org/AssociationInfo/a_committees.htm

Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners

AFTE Committees

Member of the Year

Mike Hall, Chair

James R. Looney

Garry Lawrence

"I could do what you have already done, but the results would be the same"

James R. Looney

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those few of us who are not afraid to have their findings fully examined by those professionals/persons who carry the full qualifications to do so, by virtue of training and experience, do not have to rely on some "Master Gunsmith", the local yocal at the pawnshop, or anyone else who does not even bear the knowledge as to what the base of a Carcano bullet is supposed to look like.

http://www.afte.org/AssociationInfo/a_committees.htm

Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners

AFTE Committees

Member of the Year

Mike Hall, Chair

James R. Looney

Garry Lawrence

"I could do what you have already done, but the results would be the same"

James R. Looney

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/Deli...asp?CiteID=5993

Footnotes:

1 An expert firearm and tool mark examiner, Mr. James R. Looney, testified his tests revealed the weapon used in the shooting left powder marks on a target at a maximum distance of three and one-half feet. The medical examiner, Dr. Robert Hemphill, testified he found unburned powder particles on the victim's body surrounding the entry wound of the bullet. It may thus be fairly inferred from the evidence that the victim was within three and one-half feet of the appellant at the time of the shooting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, I wonder if you know when that business card was printed.

Did you know/meet J.R. Looney?

When did he analyse the bullet?

It's a curious coincidence that one of the Lawyers in the office of lawyers working for Gen Walker was a Looney in Oklahoma. I understand they sent a team to investigate the Walker shooting.

(sorry for the diversion, if there is any relevance I'll pusue it in other topic.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those few of us who are not afraid to have their findings fully examined by those professionals/persons who carry the full qualifications to do so, by virtue of training and experience, do not have to rely on some "Master Gunsmith", the local yocal at the pawnshop, or anyone else who does not even bear the knowledge as to what the base of a Carcano bullet is supposed to look like.

http://www.afte.org/AssociationInfo/a_committees.htm

Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners

AFTE Committees

Member of the Year

Mike Hall, Chair

James R. Looney

Garry Lawrence

"I could do what you have already done, but the results would be the same"

James R. Looney

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/Deli...asp?CiteID=5993

Footnotes:

1 An expert firearm and tool mark examiner, Mr. James R. Looney, testified his tests revealed the weapon used in the shooting left powder marks on a target at a maximum distance of three and one-half feet. The medical examiner, Dr. Robert Hemphill, testified he found unburned powder particles on the victim's body surrounding the entry wound of the bullet. It may thus be fairly inferred from the evidence that the victim was within three and one-half feet of the appellant at the time of the shooting.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...6092&st=120

Post #124

"I am sorry because I cannot argue with those who have no idea what they are talking about. Anyone can keep searching websites and find favorable on persons who have become legends in their own minds and made a tremendous amount of money off those who are looking for an "expert". "

Al Carrier

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...6092&st=120

Post #131

"I am tired of dealing with the likes of Purvis who I compare to the Jimmie Files followers who reach out and find their so-called experts to prove their points"

"I am preaching to persons who cannot understand what is realistic expert background and what is bullxxxx. Therefore, I am wasting my breath."

Al Carrier

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually!

Some of us fully recognize EXACTLY who are "experts" and who are not.

And although perhaps only graduates of the "Jethro Bodine" school of forensic sciences, down here in the Pascagoula River Swamp, at least we are familiar with the proper methods of conducting factual research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, I wonder if you know when that business card was printed.

Did you know/meet J.R. Looney?

When did he analyse the bullet?

It's a curious coincidence that one of the Lawyers in the office of lawyers working for Gen Walker was a Looney in Oklahoma. I understand they sent a team to investigate the Walker shooting.

(sorry for the diversion, if there is any relevance I'll pusue it in other topic.)

In this regards, I would have to rely on memory. Which is of course quite dangerous.

Mr. Looney personally gave me the card when I first visited his office in Oklahoma City, OK.

This was in the 1990 to 1992 time period.

The information relative to CE399's anamolies; various photographs of CE399; as well as all information relative to PE#399 were provided to Mr. Looney for his review at that time.

The "quote" is a direct quote from Mr. Looney, as made to me, in his office.

And, being the "doubting Thomas", the information was also provided to a retired FBI Agent who managed the City Desk for the Oklahoma City Newspaper.

His comments after review being: "This is fact"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Abrasion Collar"

As previously discussed, the HSCA Medical Panel determined that they could observe an abrasion collar located at the bottom/lower edges of the entrance wound in the back of JFK.

Which, not unlike the autopsy surgeons reported 43-degrees to 60-degrees downward angle of entry into the back, has drawn much criticism and often snide comments.

In order for the "abrasion collar" to be located at the bottom/lower edge of the back wound, one would normally assume that the bullet would have had to be travelling on an upward angle of entry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Abrasion Collar"

As previously discussed, the HSCA Medical Panel determined that they could observe an abrasion collar located at the bottom/lower edges of the entrance wound in the back of JFK.

Which, not unlike the autopsy surgeons reported 43-degrees to 60-degrees downward angle of entry into the back, has drawn much criticism and often snide comments.

In order for the "abrasion collar" to be located at the bottom/lower edge of the back wound, one would normally assume that the bullet would have had to be travelling on an upward angle of entry.

As to the validity of the HSCA Medical Panel's determination of the abrasion collar location at the bottom/lower edge of the entry wound into the back/upper neck of JFK, only they know with certainty as to how fully convinced they are of this purported fact.

I am however aware that those who continue to "scoff" at the potential for validity in evaluation of the JFK evidence, have often done little research into the potential for many of these determinations to have a basis in fact.

And, a bullet fired on a downward angle, can most assuredly strike and penetrate as if it were fired on an upward angle, thus leaving what would apparantly be an abrasion collar at the lower edge of the wound of entry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Abrasion Collar"

As previously discussed, the HSCA Medical Panel determined that they could observe an abrasion collar located at the bottom/lower edges of the entrance wound in the back of JFK.

Which, not unlike the autopsy surgeons reported 43-degrees to 60-degrees downward angle of entry into the back, has drawn much criticism and often snide comments.

In order for the "abrasion collar" to be located at the bottom/lower edge of the back wound, one would normally assume that the bullet would have had to be travelling on an upward angle of entry.

As to the validity of the HSCA Medical Panel's determination of the abrasion collar location at the bottom/lower edge of the entry wound into the back/upper neck of JFK, only they know with certainty as to how fully convinced they are of this purported fact.

I am however aware that those who continue to "scoff" at the potential for validity in evaluation of the JFK evidence, have often done little research into the potential for many of these determinations to have a basis in fact.

And, a bullet fired on a downward angle, can most assuredly strike and penetrate as if it were fired on an upward angle, thus leaving what would apparantly be an abrasion collar at the lower edge of the wound of entry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Single-bullet advocate Purvis should have his eyes examined.

Jack

I am surprised that NOBODY...Purvis, Miller, Lamson et al...has

responded to this obvious photo of two DIFFERENT 399s. Come

on fellows! Lamson will opine it is just bad lighting, and Miller

will say I faked it, and Purvis will say Magic Bullet...one gunman.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Single-bullet advocate Purvis should have his eyes examined.

Jack

I am surprised that NOBODY...Purvis, Miller, Lamson et al...has

responded to this obvious photo of two DIFFERENT 399s. Come

on fellows! Lamson will opine it is just bad lighting, and Miller

will say I faked it, and Purvis will say Magic Bullet...one gunman.

Jack

Jack!

Turn your hat around and make an attempt to read something, as opposed to merely looking at the pictures.

The National Archives photo is CE399 "as received" and photographed by the National Archives when they first received the bullet.

The other photo is of the base of the bullet at the time that the HSCA re-opened the investigation and photographed it.

Same Bullet!

Just that that portion of the copper jacket which normally covers a portion of the base of the bullet and which had been "stretched" backwards to create a cupped effect with sharp edges, and also had some impact damage, had now been removed.

In event you would like to see a similar example, then do what I long ago did.

Get you a bullet, then get you a small file, and it is quite simple to make that portion of the copper jacket at the base of the bullet, completely disappear.

In fact, if you will look at the outer rim of the lead core in the HSCA photo, one can see the circular impression, which was forced into the lead core by the now missing portion of the copper jacket which was present when FBI Agent Frazier examined the bullet, and when it was first turned over to the National Archives.

I do believe that a copy of my letter to Agent Frazier, in regards to our discussion regarding this now missing portion of the bullet was provided.

Single-bullet advocate Purvis should have his eyes examined.

Jack

I am surprised that NOBODY...Purvis, Miller, Lamson et al...has

responded to this obvious photo of two DIFFERENT 399s. Come

on fellows! Lamson will opine it is just bad lighting, and Miller

will say I faked it, and Purvis will say Magic Bullet...one gunman.

Jack

and Purvis will say Magic Bullet...one gunman.

P.S. CE399 IS NOT "Magic"

"Magic" things disappear! Now you see it, now you don't!

Kind of like the third/last/final shot.

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...