Jump to content
The Education Forum

First Shot(CE399)---Last Time


Recommended Posts

Please note that the two small slices of the copper jacket which have been removed from the bullet nose are not mentioned in this listing.

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

-Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; except for the marking of my initials and the other examiners. There is a discoloration at the nose caused apparently by mounting this bullet in some material which stained it, which was not present when received, and one more thing on the nose is a small dent or scraped area. At this area the spectographic examiner removed a small quantity of metal for analysis.

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

Which statement is:

A. Also hearsay!

B. According to each and every FBI Agent assigned to the spectrographic analysis lab, NOT TRUE!

There was, according to the FBI Laboratory personnel, no removal of any of the copper jacket for any spectrographic analysis.

This subject matter was entirely discussed during the times in which my discussions with them included the removal of that portion of the copper jacket at the base of the bullet which was also absent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Since the issue of the clothing worn by JFk has been about talked to death, I see little to be gained in a repeat of this subject matter.

To the Back Wound:

Although previously posted, here again are some comparison photo's.

1. JFK's "punch-type" back wound entry which had relatively clean-cut edges and was classified as "atypical" by Dr. Boswell, and of which the dimensions matched exactly the dimensions of the deformed base to CE 399.

2. What a normal entrance wound (straight on) of a 6.5mm Carcano bullet looks like.

3. A wound created with a wadcutter/flatnosed Carcano bullet.

I would state that the first time that I ever observed a photo of the back wound of JFK that I also immediately knew that this was not a typical wound of entry as created by a small to medium caliber bullet.

And, having experience with wadcutter bullets in target practice of course helps one in recognition of what bullet types create similar wounds.

One frequently hears the term "Peer Review" when referencing items of discussion related to evaluation of evidence and information in the JFK assassination.

Well, there has been no "peer review" of the previously presented forensic and ballistic information related to the back entry wound suffered by JFK.

As in many cases, peer review would merely mean getting one idiot to look at another idiot's work.

HOWEVER,

I would suppose that it would be remiss on my part, were I not to point out that this evidence has been reviewed by a considerable number of extremely qualified medical personnel which includes a Medical Examiner, an MD Coroner, an MD LTC Army Surgeon (who has extensive hunting and "gun" experience"; as well as a few other MD personnel (and several FBI Agents who were graduates of the FBI Forensics and Ballistics Course.

ALL have accepted that these are the facts of the case which demonsrate exactly how the back wound was created in JFK.

So, in event one has questions regarding the validity, first I would recommend that one research the claimed/stated facts for themselves.

Thereafter, it usually helps to seek the advice of truly qualified personnel in the specific field.

Getting the opinion of "Leroy Jones" or some other podunk individual seldom qualifies as "peer review".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless incorrect, it would appear that this was, and remains, the first detailed study of CE 399, as well as the first time that the general public was ever made aware of the missing portion of the copper jacket which normally covers a portion of the base of the bullet.

"Toon Time" again for those who prefer the visual aid over the written word.

Hopefully, the "amateurish" nature of my drawings will not offend.

Recognizing the negative art talent of the one responsible, they will have to suffice.

Toon-1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless incorrect, it would appear that this was, and remains, the first detailed study of CE 399, as well as the first time that the general public was ever made aware of the missing portion of the copper jacket which normally covers a portion of the base of the bullet.

"Toon Time" again for those who prefer the visual aid over the written word.

Hopefully, the "amateurish" nature of my drawings will not offend.

Recognizing the negative art talent of the one responsible, they will have to suffice.

Toon-1

Toon-2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless incorrect, it would appear that this was, and remains, the first detailed study of CE 399, as well as the first time that the general public was ever made aware of the missing portion of the copper jacket which normally covers a portion of the base of the bullet.

"Toon Time" again for those who prefer the visual aid over the written word.

Hopefully, the "amateurish" nature of my drawings will not offend.

Recognizing the negative art talent of the one responsible, they will have to suffice.

Toon-1

Toon-2

Toon-3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the anim below, the photo of the back of JFK's shirt was overlaid on the autopsy photo of the back wound, and a good faith effort was made to get the shirt situated in a reasonable approximation of correct size relative to the body, with attention to JFK's right shoulder and the neck line. The effort was hampered, of course, by the somewhat twisted position of JFK's body and the angle of his neck, but it is believed that the experiment is completely within acceptable tolerances for what is being demonstrated:

BackAutopsy-Shirt3-sm.gif

Ashton Gray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the anim below, the photo of the back of JFK's shirt was overlaid on the autopsy photo of the back wound, and a good faith effort was made to get the shirt situated in a reasonable approximation of correct size relative to the body, with attention to JFK's right shoulder and the neck line. The effort was hampered, of course, by the somewhat twisted position of JFK's body and the angle of his neck, but it is believed that the experiment is completely within acceptable tolerances for what is being demonstrated:

BackAutopsy-Shirt3-sm.gif

Ashton Gray

For whatever it would be worth, my opinion would be that this exercise is only marginally better than that utilized by others in determination that the rifle held by LHO had the sling swivel mounted on the bottom of the rifle.

In event that such distracive garbage continues here, then I suppose that everyone can have at it and it would be time to pack away my marbles.

The post was quite sufficient over under that which dealt with the clothing, and as opposed to providing it and then seeking input, it has been provided as if it has some basis in fact.

Which, other than a hole in JFK's back and a hole in the shirt, it does not.

John has briefly shown/informed of the photographic and sizing problems.

Exactly who was it that you subject this garbage to for "peer review" prior to posting it here and continueing to "muddy" the waters.

Are you and Mr. White of the same school??????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the anim below, the photo of the back of JFK's shirt was overlaid on the autopsy photo of the back wound, and a good faith effort was made to get the shirt situated in a reasonable approximation of correct size relative to the body, with attention to JFK's right shoulder and the neck line. The effort was hampered, of course, by the somewhat twisted position of JFK's body and the angle of his neck, but it is believed that the experiment is completely within acceptable tolerances for what is being demonstrated:

BackAutopsy-Shirt3-sm.gif

Ashton Gray

For whatever it would be worth, my opinion would be that this exercise is only marginally better than that utilized by others in determination that the rifle held by LHO had the sling swivel mounted on the bottom of the rifle.

In fact, the relationship is about as close to a practical zero as can be approached. If it makes you feel better to say there's some similarity where there is none, though, I wouldn't want to deny you the comfort.

The post was quite sufficient over under that which dealt with the clothing, and as opposed to providing it and then seeking input, it has been provided as if it has some basis in fact.
I felt it was germane in this thread, too. If the Posting Police give me a citation, I'll pay it.
Which, other than a hole in JFK's back and a hole in the shirt, it does not.

Well, yes, I think you've identified its basis in fact rather precisely.

John has briefly shown/informed of the photographic and sizing problems.
I read John's opinion. Having spent some considerable time sizing the shirt in relation to the body, and having seen with my own eyes what the relationship is even with +/- 10%, I consider it within wholly acceptable tolerances, as I stated when I posted it. In both cases, + and -, the shirt had to be moved well up his head and off to the right a pretty ridiculous amount to get the shirt hole to align with the higher dark spot. I didn't make it be that way. That's the way it turned out to be.

As the whole thing developed, all I did was overlay the shirt, size and position it as well as I could, then turned that layer off and found that the shirt hole was right in alignment with the hole in the back you see it aligned with. It came as something of a surprise to me, actually. I tried increasing and reducing the size in varying degrees. Very little changed at all about where the shirt hole fell on the back when positioned in alignment with the neck and right shoulder.

Exactly who was it that you subject this garbage to for "peer review" prior to posting it here and continueing to "muddy" the waters.

I consider posting it here for all the world to see the best "peer review" possible. I consider that others have a right to see the results of the work, no matter who might find it objectionable for any reason.

I hope others will find it helpful toward dispassionate factual understanding of the elements at issue. I did, which was why I posted it at all.

Ashton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE Tom Purvis:

Which, other than a hole in JFK's back and a hole in the shirt, it does not.

Ashton Gray:

Well, yes, I think you've identified its basis in fact rather precisely.

You're killing me Ashton!

:clapping

In event that we are through playing "Paste some clothes on Barbie", then perhaps a continuation of a few facts would be in order.

If not, I think Barbie also had a Lincoln Continental Convertable Car which may also be of some service to those who like to play these type games.

As well as the admirers and followers of such highly reliable sources of information.

Certainly demonstrates (for me at least) an extremely high degree of research ability.

Lastly, make no assumptions that a completely scientific approach to an evaluation of the shirt worn by JFK in correlation with the back entry wound, is not a worthwhile endeavor.

And, it should be fully undertaken.

However, there is considerable more evidence to gather and evaluate then one single "pin the tail on the donkey" photograph, and then claiming some resolution.

This rates up there more like something from the minds and capabilities of kindergarden kids who get to color clothing, cut them out, and thereafter paste them on whomever they will fit in their coloring book.

It is as bad as the "Crock" in regards to the "Sling Swivel" issue and the "Six Groove Bullet" issues which have lead many gullible persons deeper into the labyrinth.

It is understandable that unknowledgeable persons would initially "think" this.

However to merely continue to repeat it as fact due to personal lack of knowledge and experience, is absolutely no reason or excuse for failure to research ALL OF THE FACTS, prior to repeating the rumor.

And, with ALL of the great and supposedly knowledgeable persons who have told the world about the Carcano, one would have thought that at least one of these persons would have extracted his head from his rectum long enough to explain scratches on a bullet and reversible sling swivels.

Nevertheless, 1-year from now, there will still be those who have not taken the time to research the information, nor heard that the sling swivel on the 91/38 Carcano is reversible, and they will continue to believe that the rifle held by LHO in the backyard photo's has a bottom mount sling swivel on it.

So goes much of this, and starting another unsubstantiated and un-researched BS conjecture based on a single "cut & paste" episode of research which is more reminiscence of something from kindergarden work, is hardly conducive to either good research techniques or a furtherance of the understanding of the assassination.

It does however, continue to cast the seeds of doubt, which of course have sprouted and lead the way to the entrance to the rabbit holes which so many have so willingly and unknowingly jumped off into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so I'd like to have Tom state clearly where the shot was taken from

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9035

Post #57

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

Although grammer and spelling are frequently not my best attribute, the following was provided.

Also, since I am neither more qualified than, nor do I have access to more information than did FBI Agent Frazier, I have also re-posted his thoughts on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Line-of-site (sight) IS NOT line-of-flight.

Centerline of the Scope rides approximately two inches higher than centerline of the rifle barrell.

The Carcano fixed sights are sighted for 200 yards, therefore, even with utilization of the fixed sights, the bullet flight does not intersect the fixed sight "picture" until this distance downrange.

With this, one can relatively and accurately state that the projectile leaves the rifle at an elevation which was approximately 2-inches lower/below what is seen/observed through the scope.

A common error on the part of inexperienced "scope shooters", and a "teaching point" that is made in virtually every sniper course that I am aware of.

For those who have always questioned why:

1. LHO/the shooter missed Walker and the bullet struck the metal framing of the window, the answer is most probably the same.

2. LHO/the shooter missed the head of JFK with what was the closest shot, the answer is provided, especially since this shot was taken shortly after the Limousine came out of the curve and had not regained an appreciable amount of speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As regards the tree limbs!

First off, might I recommend that one read up on, to the point of fully understanding, the "Adjusted Position" and what it actually means.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr3.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm

Mr. SPECTER. After passing out from under the oak tree.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. What frame did that turn out to be?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was frame 207.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an exhibit depicting the same photographic sequence on frame 207?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I do.

Mr. SPECTER. What Commission Exhibit number has been affixed to that frame?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit No. 892.

Mr. SPECTER. Is the car in the same position on "photograph through rifle scope" and "photograph from reenactment" on that exhibit?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Was an adjustment made on that position for the heights of the automobiles?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. What was the adjusted frame for the first view that the marksman had of the President's stand-in coming out from under the tree?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is frame 210 and has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 893 and represents the 10-inch adjustment for the difference in the height of the car as compared with frame 207.

Mr. SPECTER. Is the layout of frame 210 exactly the same as that for frames 207 and 185 that you have already testified about?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

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

Well! I certainly am not qualified to discuss the "layout".

However, even with my slightly old and often failing vision, it certainly would appear that the "photograph through rifle scope" would appear to be "the same" for 210 as it is for 207.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol18_0051b.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol18_0052a.htm

Personally, I would think that it is time for another "adjustment" or two!

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...