Jump to content
The Education Forum

CE399/The Lead Protrusion


Recommended Posts

Mr. FRAZIER - There did not necessarily have to be any weight loss to the bullet. There may be a slight amount of lead missing from the base of the bullet, since it is exposed at the base, and the bullet is slightly flattened; there could be a slight weight loss from the end of the bullet, but it would not amount to more than 4 grains, because 158.6 is only a grain and a half less than the normal weight, and at least a 2 grain variation would be allowed. So it would be approximately 3 or 4 grains.

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

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0019a.htm

"gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea"

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mr. FRAZIER - I examined the car to determine whether or not there were any bullet fragments present in it, embedded in the upholstery of the back of the front seat, or whether there were any impact areas which indicated that bullets or bullet fragments struck the inside of the car.

Mr. SPECTER - With respect to the fragments first, what did your examination disclose?

Mr. FRAZIER - We found three small lead particles lying on the rug in the rear seat area. These particles were located underneath or in the area which would be underneath the left jump seat.

Mr. SPECTER - Have those particles been identified during the course of your prior testimony?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; they have not?

Mr. SPECTER - Will you produce them at this time then, please? May we assign to this group of particles Commission Exhibit No. 840?

Mr. DULLES - These have not been discussed before, have they?

Mr. SPECTER - They have not.

Mr. DULLES - It shall be admitted as Commission Exhibit No. 840.

(Commission Exhibit No. 840 was marked for identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe the three pieces of metal which are contained within this vial, please?

Mr. FRAZIER - The three pieces of metal are lead. They were weighed immediately upon recovery and were found to weigh nine-tenths of a grain, seven-tenths of a grain, and seven-tenths of a grain, respectively. Since that time small portions have been removed for spectrographic analysis and comparison with other bullets and bullet fragments.

Mr. SPECTER - Has that comparison been made with a whole bullet heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 399 which in of her proceedings has been identified as the bullet from the Connally stretcher?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; the comparison was made by comparing Exhibit 399 with a bullet fragment found in the front seat of the Presidential limousine and then comparing that fragment with these fragments from the rear seat of the automobile.

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

Certainly glad that everyone was not, again, watching!

Assume:

1. CE399 is item "A".

2. Bullet fragment found in front seat of automobile is item "B".

3. Three separate fragments found in left rear floor/under jumpseat is item "C".

Now, "A" was compared to "B", and "B" was thereafter compared to "C" (which actually had three components).

The comparing of "A" which was a virtually intact bullet, with almost half of another bullet which was found in the front seat was certainly an item which would tell us something.

Of course, all that one has to do is look at the two items and apply the old common sense to know that little is served by comparison of "A" to "B", since they quite obviously have no bearing one each other.

Lastly, although comparing "B" (large fragment from front seat) with "C" (3 fragments from left rear floor/under jump seat) is admirable, one would think that comparing "B" to "C1" and then comparing "B" to "C2" and then comparing "B" to "C3" would have a proper means of evaluation of the evidence.

And, when one considers ALL of the evidence, which includes:

Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Frazier, is it possible for the fragments identified in Commission Exhibit 840 to have come from the whole bullet heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 399?

Mr. FRAZIER - I would say that based on weight it would be highly improbable that that much weight could have come from the base of that bullet since its present weight is--its weight when I first received it was 158.6 grains.

Mr. FRAZIER - Exhibit 399, and its original normal weight would be 160 to 161 grains, and those three metal fragments had a total of 2.1 grains as I recall--2.3 grains. So it is possible but not likely since there is only a very small part of the core of the bullet 399 missing.

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

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe the three pieces of metal which are contained within this vial, please?

Mr. FRAZIER - The three pieces of metal are lead. They were weighed immediately upon recovery and were found to weigh nine-tenths of a grain, seven-tenths of a grain, and seven-tenths of a grain, respectively. Since that time small portions have been removed for spectrographic analysis and comparison with other bullets and bullet fragments

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

OK! So a logical person would assume that as an "entity", CE 840 COULD NOT have come from CE399.

However, CE840 is not a SINGLE ENTITY!

It WAS in fact three separate fragments of lead which weighed respectively, "nine-tenths of a grain, seven-tenths of a grain, and seven-tenths of a grain, respectively".

In that, one should also notice that Specter & Company did not bother to ask the seemingly and logical question, were it possible or likely that ANY ONE of the three fragments contained in CE840 may have come from CE399?

And if so, what testing if any was done in which a direct comparison of CE399 to EACH and every fragment contained within CE840 was done?

A most pertinent question when ALL circumstances are taken into consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. FRAZIER - I examined the car to determine whether or not there were any bullet fragments present in it, embedded in the upholstery of the back of the front seat, or whether there were any impact areas which indicated that bullets or bullet fragments struck the inside of the car.

Mr. SPECTER - With respect to the fragments first, what did your examination disclose?

Mr. FRAZIER - We found three small lead particles lying on the rug in the rear seat area. These particles were located underneath or in the area which would be underneath the left jump seat.

Mr. SPECTER - Have those particles been identified during the course of your prior testimony?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; they have not?

Mr. SPECTER - Will you produce them at this time then, please? May we assign to this group of

particles Commission Exhibit No. 840?

Mr. DULLES - These have not been discussed before, have they?

Mr. SPECTER - They have not.

Mr. DULLES - It shall be admitted as Commission Exhibit No. 840.

(Commission Exhibit No. 840 was marked for identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe the three pieces of metal which are contained within this vial, please?

Mr. FRAZIER - The three pieces of metal are lead. They were weighed immediately upon recovery and were found to weigh nine-tentahs of a grain, seven-tenths of a grain, and seven-tenths of a grain, respectively. Since that time small portions have been removed for spectrographic analysis and comparison with other bullets and bullet fragments.

Mr. SPECTER - Has that comparison been made with a whole bullet heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 399 which in of her proceedings has been identified as the bullet from the Connally stretcher?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; the comparison was made by comparing Exhibit 399 with a bullet fragment found in the front seat of the Presidential limousine and then comparing that fragment with these fragments from the rear seat of the automobile.

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

Certainly glad that everyone was not, again, watching!

Assume:

1. CE399 is item "A".

2. Bullet fragment found in front seat of automobile is item "B".

3. Three separate fragments found in left rear floor/under jumpseat is item "C".

Now, "A" was compared to "B", and "B" was thereafter compared to "C" (which actually had three components).

The comparing of "A" which was a virtually intact bullet, with almost half of another bullet which was found in the front seat was certainly an item which would tell us something.

Of course, all that one has to do is look at the two items and apply the old common sense to know that little is served by comparison of "A" to "B", since they quite obviously have no bearing one each other.

Lastly, although comparing "B" (large fragment from front seat) with "C" (3 fragments from left rear floor/under jump seat) is admirable, one would think that comparing "B" to "C1" and then comparing "B" to "C2" and then comparing "B" to "C3" would have a proper means of evaluation of the evidence.

And, when one considers ALL of the evidence, which includes:

Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Frazier, is it possible for the fragments identified in Commission Exhibit 840 to have come from the whole bullet heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 399?

Mr. FRAZIER - I would say that based on weight it would be highly improbable that that much weight could have come from the base of that bullet since its present weight is--its weight when I first received it was 158.6 grains.

Mr. FRAZIER - Exhibit 399, and its original normal weight would be 160 to 161 grains, and those three metal fragments had a total of 2.1 grains as I recall--2.3 grains. So it is possible but not likely since there is only a very small part of the core of the bullet 399 missing.

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

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe the three pieces of metal which are contained within this vial, please?

Mr. FRAZIER - The three pieces of metal are lead. They were weighed immediately upon recovery and were found to weigh nine-tenths of a grain, seven-tenths of a grain, and seven-tenths of a grain, respectively. Since that time small portions have been removed for spectrographic analysis and comparison with other bullets and bullet fragments

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

OK! So a logical person would assume that as an "entity", CE 840 COULD NOT have come from CE399.

However, CE840 is not a SINGLE ENTITY!

It WAS in fact three separate fragments of lead which weighed respectively, "nine-tenths of a grain, seven-tenths of a grain, and seven-tenths of a grain, respectively".

In that, one should also notice that Specter & Company did not bother to ask the seemingly and logical question, were it possible or likely that ANY ONE of the three fragments contained in CE840 may have come from CE399?

And if so, what testing if any was done in which a direct comparison of CE399 to EACH and every fragment contained within CE840 was done?

A most pertinent question when ALL circumstances are taken into consideration.

**********************************************************

"Mr. FRAZIER - I would say that based on weight it would be highly improbable that that much weight could have come from the base of that bullet since its present weight is--its weight when I first received it was 158.6 grains."

"Mr. FRAZIER - Exhibit 399, and its original normal weight would be 160 to 161 grains, and those three metal fragments had a total of 2.1 grains as I recall--2.3 grains. So it is possible but not likely since there is only a very small part of the core of the bullet 399 missing."

But, you can bet your sweet bippy that Dulles and Specter would add that 158.6 grains to the 2.3 grains and conclude that it all added up to 160.9 grains, rounded it off to 161 grains and Voila! It came from the "magic bullet. No?

"And if so, what testing if any was done in which a direct comparison of CE399 to EACH and every fragment contained within CE840 was done?"

Exactomundo! Like, show me what chemical analysis was made, at what time, and on what date, between the copper-cladded lead contained in CE399, with respect to the lead in EACH AND EVERY FRAGMENT of CE840. Even if it came down to Carbon 14 dating of the samples of CE399 and CE 840. Prove that those fragments were made from the exact same batch and control number. What kind of an oversight was that, to assume and document without having gone through the steps involved in the performance of basic forensic protocol? Even if they were to prove a match.? At least quantify it, qualify it, and document it. Was that ever done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. FRAZIER - I examined the car to determine whether or not there were any bullet fragments present in it, embedded in the upholstery of the back of the front seat, or whether there were any impact areas which indicated that bullets or bullet fragments struck the inside of the car.

Mr. SPECTER - With respect to the fragments first, what did your examination disclose?

Mr. FRAZIER - We found three small lead particles lying on the rug in the rear seat area. These particles were located underneath or in the area which would be underneath the left jump seat.

Mr. SPECTER - Have those particles been identified during the course of your prior testimony?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; they have not?

Mr. SPECTER - Will you produce them at this time then, please? May we assign to this group of

particles Commission Exhibit No. 840?

Mr. DULLES - These have not been discussed before, have they?

Mr. SPECTER - They have not.

Mr. DULLES - It shall be admitted as Commission Exhibit No. 840.

(Commission Exhibit No. 840 was marked for identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe the three pieces of metal which are contained within this vial, please?

Mr. FRAZIER - The three pieces of metal are lead. They were weighed immediately upon recovery and were found to weigh nine-tentahs of a grain, seven-tenths of a grain, and seven-tenths of a grain, respectively. Since that time small portions have been removed for spectrographic analysis and comparison with other bullets and bullet fragments.

Mr. SPECTER - Has that comparison been made with a whole bullet heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 399 which in of her proceedings has been identified as the bullet from the Connally stretcher?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; the comparison was made by comparing Exhibit 399 with a bullet fragment found in the front seat of the Presidential limousine and then comparing that fragment with these fragments from the rear seat of the automobile.

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

Certainly glad that everyone was not, again, watching!

Assume:

1. CE399 is item "A".

2. Bullet fragment found in front seat of automobile is item "B".

3. Three separate fragments found in left rear floor/under jumpseat is item "C".

Now, "A" was compared to "B", and "B" was thereafter compared to "C" (which actually had three components).

The comparing of "A" which was a virtually intact bullet, with almost half of another bullet which was found in the front seat was certainly an item which would tell us something.

Of course, all that one has to do is look at the two items and apply the old common sense to know that little is served by comparison of "A" to "B", since they quite obviously have no bearing one each other.

Lastly, although comparing "B" (large fragment from front seat) with "C" (3 fragments from left rear floor/under jump seat) is admirable, one would think that comparing "B" to "C1" and then comparing "B" to "C2" and then comparing "B" to "C3" would have a proper means of evaluation of the evidence.

And, when one considers ALL of the evidence, which includes:

Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Frazier, is it possible for the fragments identified in Commission Exhibit 840 to have come from the whole bullet heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 399?

Mr. FRAZIER - I would say that based on weight it would be highly improbable that that much weight could have come from the base of that bullet since its present weight is--its weight when I first received it was 158.6 grains.

Mr. FRAZIER - Exhibit 399, and its original normal weight would be 160 to 161 grains, and those three metal fragments had a total of 2.1 grains as I recall--2.3 grains. So it is possible but not likely since there is only a very small part of the core of the bullet 399 missing.

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

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe the three pieces of metal which are contained within this vial, please?

Mr. FRAZIER - The three pieces of metal are lead. They were weighed immediately upon recovery and were found to weigh nine-tenths of a grain, seven-tenths of a grain, and seven-tenths of a grain, respectively. Since that time small portions have been removed for spectrographic analysis and comparison with other bullets and bullet fragments

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

OK! So a logical person would assume that as an "entity", CE 840 COULD NOT have come from CE399.

However, CE840 is not a SINGLE ENTITY!

It WAS in fact three separate fragments of lead which weighed respectively, "nine-tenths of a grain, seven-tenths of a grain, and seven-tenths of a grain, respectively".

In that, one should also notice that Specter & Company did not bother to ask the seemingly and logical question, were it possible or likely that ANY ONE of the three fragments contained in CE840 may have come from CE399?

And if so, what testing if any was done in which a direct comparison of CE399 to EACH and every fragment contained within CE840 was done?

A most pertinent question when ALL circumstances are taken into consideration.

**********************************************************

"Mr. FRAZIER - I would say that based on weight it would be highly improbable that that much weight could have come from the base of that bullet since its present weight is--its weight when I first received it was 158.6 grains."

"Mr. FRAZIER - Exhibit 399, and its original normal weight would be 160 to 161 grains, and those three metal fragments had a total of 2.1 grains as I recall--2.3 grains. So it is possible but not likely since there is only a very small part of the core of the bullet 399 missing."

But, you can bet your sweet bippy that Dulles and Specter would add that 158.6 grains to the 2.3 grains and conclude that it all added up to 160.9 grains, rounded it off to 161 grains and Voila! It came from the "magic bullet. No?

"And if so, what testing if any was done in which a direct comparison of CE399 to EACH and every fragment contained within CE840 was done?"

Exactomundo! Like, show me what chemical analysis was made, at what time, and on what date, between the copper-cladded lead contained in CE399, with respect to the lead in EACH AND EVERY FRAGMENT of CE840. Even if it came down to Carbon 14 dating of the samples of CE399 and CE 840. Prove that those fragments were made from the exact same batch and control number. What kind of an oversight was that, to assume and document without having gone through the steps involved in the performance of basic forensic protocol? Even if they were to prove a match.? At least quantify it, qualify it, and document it. Was that ever done?

Was that ever done

Actually, it was!

I am still digging for some of the information necessary to continue with this topic, however.

In my multiple discussions with FBI Agent John Gallagher, we discussed his NAA work quite extensively.

* It is unknown as to whether Agent Gallagher is or is not still living. His home was in Beltsville, MD and his telephone number was 301-937-2167.

Just in case anyone wants to actually attempt to get "first-hand" information.

Agent Gallagher and I had, one might say, a little "extra" in common.

This was a result of my having once toured the facilities at Oak Ridge, my Nuclear Weapons backgound, supervision of a lab which conducted destructive flame spectrographic analysis; and the old "Purvis" name and Melvin Purvis kinship.

Therefore, I honestly believe everything which John Gallagher told me.

(but them too, I am obviously gullible enough to believe in a "Lone Assassin" also.)

Gallagher, (according to him) ran NAA comparison data on everything which was provided.

The problem here being two items.

1. Due to the number of comparisons run, he could not honestly recall exactly how many fragments were tested and compared with either CE399 or with the lead fragments found in the front seat of the Presidential Limousine.

He knew that he had run NAA on multiple fragments which reportedly included fragments removed from JBC's wrist; fragments removed from JFK's head; and fragments found inside the vehicle.

But, he had no way of recalling exactly how many of what was tested and compared.

Nevertheless, the data was all insufficient in which to draw a conclusion anyway.

Back in 1963, there were none of the wonderful hand-held computers which we now take for granted. And, those of us who are old enough, recognize that "Slide Rule" was a pre-requisite course for all engineering majors.

And, any one who has ever taken "Slide Rule" is fully aware that it's "interpolation" is frequently a BEST GUESS!

According to Gallagher, the NAA numbers were of such small decimal equivelants that the only way to effectively work with them was through the usage of logarithm functions and the slide rule.

Both of which (& I fully recognized and understood) induced a margin of error for which one could not account for.

With this information, Agent Gallagher explained that even though there were some differences in the lead samples which he had subjected to NAA, that the differences were in fact so small, and with the induced errors as a result of utilization of slide rules, etc;, that none of the lead fragments could absolutely be tied directly to any other lead fragments.

This appears to be basically where Frazier gets his statement:

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

Mr. FRAZIER - That examination was performed by a spectrographer, John F. Gallagher, and I do not have the results of his examinations here, although I did ascertain that it was determined that the lead fragments were similar in composition.

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

So, after some goodly long distance telephone bills, it was found that even had the true NAA data been given and presented, it is unlikely that at the time in the science/math world, that we would have been able to state anything definitely in regards to comparison.

And, without Gallagher's full test reports, one can not even state exactly what fragments were tested, and as all who have sudied this matter are aware, there is considerable discrepancies in the weight accountability for all of these fragments as received by the HSCA and later when accurate NAA was conducted on the "REMAINING" fragments.

Tom

P.S. I was "cut" out of slide rule class due to skipping/cutting class to attend Mardi Gras in NO, which I made it a point to never miss.

One most definitely must have his priorities in life well defined as to what is and what is not important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. FRAZIER - I examined the car to determine whether or not there were any bullet fragments present in it, embedded in the upholstery of the back of the front seat, or whether there were any impact areas which indicated that bullets or bullet fragments struck the inside of the car.

Mr. SPECTER - With respect to the fragments first, what did your examination disclose?

Mr. FRAZIER - We found three small lead particles lying on the rug in the rear seat area. These particles were located underneath or in the area which would be underneath the left jump seat.

Mr. SPECTER - Have those particles been identified during the course of your prior testimony?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; they have not?

Mr. SPECTER - Will you produce them at this time then, please? May we assign to this group of

particles Commission Exhibit No. 840?

Mr. DULLES - These have not been discussed before, have they?

Mr. SPECTER - They have not.

Mr. DULLES - It shall be admitted as Commission Exhibit No. 840.

(Commission Exhibit No. 840 was marked for identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe the three pieces of metal which are contained within this vial, please?

Mr. FRAZIER - The three pieces of metal are lead. They were weighed immediately upon recovery and were found to weigh nine-tentahs of a grain, seven-tenths of a grain, and seven-tenths of a grain, respectively. Since that time small portions have been removed for spectrographic analysis and comparison with other bullets and bullet fragments.

Mr. SPECTER - Has that comparison been made with a whole bullet heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 399 which in of her proceedings has been identified as the bullet from the Connally stretcher?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; the comparison was made by comparing Exhibit 399 with a bullet fragment found in the front seat of the Presidential limousine and then comparing that fragment with these fragments from the rear seat of the automobile.

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

Certainly glad that everyone was not, again, watching!

Assume:

1. CE399 is item "A".

2. Bullet fragment found in front seat of automobile is item "B".

3. Three separate fragments found in left rear floor/under jumpseat is item "C".

Now, "A" was compared to "B", and "B" was thereafter compared to "C" (which actually had three components).

The comparing of "A" which was a virtually intact bullet, with almost half of another bullet which was found in the front seat was certainly an item which would tell us something.

Of course, all that one has to do is look at the two items and apply the old common sense to know that little is served by comparison of "A" to "B", since they quite obviously have no bearing one each other.

Lastly, although comparing "B" (large fragment from front seat) with "C" (3 fragments from left rear floor/under jump seat) is admirable, one would think that comparing "B" to "C1" and then comparing "B" to "C2" and then comparing "B" to "C3" would have a proper means of evaluation of the evidence.

And, when one considers ALL of the evidence, which includes:

Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Frazier, is it possible for the fragments identified in Commission Exhibit 840 to have come from the whole bullet heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 399?

Mr. FRAZIER - I would say that based on weight it would be highly improbable that that much weight could have come from the base of that bullet since its present weight is--its weight when I first received it was 158.6 grains.

Mr. FRAZIER - Exhibit 399, and its original normal weight would be 160 to 161 grains, and those three metal fragments had a total of 2.1 grains as I recall--2.3 grains. So it is possible but not likely since there is only a very small part of the core of the bullet 399 missing.

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

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe the three pieces of metal which are contained within this vial, please?

Mr. FRAZIER - The three pieces of metal are lead. They were weighed immediately upon recovery and were found to weigh nine-tenths of a grain, seven-tenths of a grain, and seven-tenths of a grain, respectively. Since that time small portions have been removed for spectrographic analysis and comparison with other bullets and bullet fragments

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

OK! So a logical person would assume that as an "entity", CE 840 COULD NOT have come from CE399.

However, CE840 is not a SINGLE ENTITY!

It WAS in fact three separate fragments of lead which weighed respectively, "nine-tenths of a grain, seven-tenths of a grain, and seven-tenths of a grain, respectively".

In that, one should also notice that Specter & Company did not bother to ask the seemingly and logical question, were it possible or likely that ANY ONE of the three fragments contained in CE840 may have come from CE399?

And if so, what testing if any was done in which a direct comparison of CE399 to EACH and every fragment contained within CE840 was done?

A most pertinent question when ALL circumstances are taken into consideration.

**********************************************************

"Mr. FRAZIER - I would say that based on weight it would be highly improbable that that much weight could have come from the base of that bullet since its present weight is--its weight when I first received it was 158.6 grains."

"Mr. FRAZIER - Exhibit 399, and its original normal weight would be 160 to 161 grains, and those three metal fragments had a total of 2.1 grains as I recall--2.3 grains. So it is possible but not likely since there is only a very small part of the core of the bullet 399 missing."

But, you can bet your sweet bippy that Dulles and Specter would add that 158.6 grains to the 2.3 grains and conclude that it all added up to 160.9 grains, rounded it off to 161 grains and Voila! It came from the "magic bullet. No?

"And if so, what testing if any was done in which a direct comparison of CE399 to EACH and every fragment contained within CE840 was done?"

Exactomundo! Like, show me what chemical analysis was made, at what time, and on what date, between the copper-cladded lead contained in CE399, with respect to the lead in EACH AND EVERY FRAGMENT of CE840. Even if it came down to Carbon 14 dating of the samples of CE399 and CE 840. Prove that those fragments were made from the exact same batch and control number. What kind of an oversight was that, to assume and document without having gone through the steps involved in the performance of basic forensic protocol? Even if they were to prove a match.? At least quantify it, qualify it, and document it. Was that ever done?

Was that ever done

Actually, it was!

I am still digging for some of the information necessary to continue with this topic, however.

In my multiple discussions with FBI Agent John Gallagher, we discussed his NAA work quite extensively.

* It is unknown as to whether Agent Gallagher is or is not still living. His home was in Beltsville, MD and his telephone number was 301-937-2167.

Just in case anyone wants to actually attempt to get "first-hand" information.

Agent Gallagher and I had, one might say, a little "extra" in common.

This was a result of my having once toured the facilities at Oak Ridge, my Nuclear Weapons backgound, supervision of a lab which conducted destructive flame spectrographic analysis; and the old "Purvis" name and Melvin Purvis kinship.

Therefore, I honestly believe everything which John Gallagher told me.

(but them too, I am obviously gullible enough to believe in a "Lone Assassin" also.)

Gallagher, (according to him) ran NAA comparison data on everything which was provided.

The problem here being two items.

1. Due to the number of comparisons run, he could not honestly recall exactly how many fragments were tested and compared with either CE399 or with the lead fragments found in the front seat of the Presidential Limousine.

He knew that he had run NAA on multiple fragments which reportedly included fragments removed from JBC's wrist; fragments removed from JFK's head; and fragments found inside the vehicle.

But, he had no way of recalling exactly how many of what was tested and compared.

Nevertheless, the data was all insufficient in which to draw a conclusion anyway.

Back in 1963, there were none of the wonderful hand-held computers which we now take for granted. And, those of us who are old enough, recognize that "Slide Rule" was a pre-requisite course for all engineering majors.

And, any one who has ever taken "Slide Rule" is fully aware that it's "interpolation" is frequently a BEST GUESS!

According to Gallagher, the NAA numbers were of such small decimal equivelants that the only way to effectively work with them was through the usage of logarithm functions and the slide rule.

Both of which (& I fully recognized and understood) induced a margin of error for which one could not account for.

With this information, Agent Gallagher explained that even though there were some differences in the lead samples which he had subjected to NAA, that the differences were in fact so small, and with the induced errors as a result of utilization of slide rules, etc;, that none of the lead fragments could absolutely be tied directly to any other lead fragments.

This appears to be basically where Frazier gets his statement:

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

Mr. FRAZIER - That examination was performed by a spectrographer, John F. Gallagher, and I do not have the results of his examinations here, although I did ascertain that it was determined that the lead fragments were similar in composition.

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

So, after some goodly long distance telephone bills, it was found that even had the true NAA data been given and presented, it is unlikely that at the time in the science/math world, that we would have been able to state anything definitely in regards to comparison.

And, without Gallagher's full test reports, one can not even state exactly what fragments were tested, and as all who have sudied this matter are aware, there is considerable discrepancies in the weight accountability for all of these fragments as received by the HSCA and later when accurate NAA was conducted on the "REMAINING" fragments.

Tom

P.S. I was "cut" out of slide rule class due to skipping/cutting class to attend Mardi Gras in NO, which I made it a point to never miss.

One most definitely must have his priorities in life well defined as to what is and what is not important.

***********************************************************

"P.S. I was "cut" out of slide rule class due to skipping/cutting class to attend Mardi Gras in NO, which I made it a point to never miss."

I still have my old slide rule from my SUNY Trig class in 1962. It was almost a foot long. Then, when I started in Nuclear in 1976 there was a smaller model out that was half the size of my 1962 model. Luckily, Texas Instruments came out with their first handheld calculator, with its forerunner of the red LCD, just in time for us to sit for the ARRT (N) boards, otherwise I'd have been xxxx outta luck, as that saying goes.

Yep, miss one class in any college math program and you'll end up playing "catch-up" for the rest of the term. Miss two or three and you might as well sign up and audit the class for the rest of the semester. Then re-enroll for it before the next class fills up. I did that once for a class in statistics I was enrolled in, saved my notes and started over the next semester. Was finally able to understand the principles of permutations and managed to get somewhat of a fair grasp of the null hypothesis. But, what is statistics, really? An educated guess to the random nature of things? The ability to eyeball millions of small events occurring along a certain parameter and estimate a ballpark figure as to how many may have, in fact, occurred, or are expected to occur if certain conditions are met, or not met? And, 3.179 will help you figure out the answer to the "nth" degree, which is the only certainty that remains the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. FRAZIER - I examined the car to determine whether or not there were any bullet fragments present in it, embedded in the upholstery of the back of the front seat, or whether there were any impact areas which indicated that bullets or bullet fragments struck the inside of the car.

Mr. SPECTER - With respect to the fragments first, what did your examination disclose?

Mr. FRAZIER - We found three small lead particles lying on the rug in the rear seat area. These particles were located underneath or in the area which would be underneath the left jump seat.

Mr. SPECTER - Have those particles been identified during the course of your prior testimony?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; they have not?

Mr. SPECTER - Will you produce them at this time then, please? May we assign to this group of

particles Commission Exhibit No. 840?

Mr. DULLES - These have not been discussed before, have they?

Mr. SPECTER - They have not.

Mr. DULLES - It shall be admitted as Commission Exhibit No. 840.

(Commission Exhibit No. 840 was marked for identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe the three pieces of metal which are contained within this vial, please?

Mr. FRAZIER - The three pieces of metal are lead. They were weighed immediately upon recovery and were found to weigh nine-tentahs of a grain, seven-tenths of a grain, and seven-tenths of a grain, respectively. Since that time small portions have been removed for spectrographic analysis and comparison with other bullets and bullet fragments.

Mr. SPECTER - Has that comparison been made with a whole bullet heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 399 which in of her proceedings has been identified as the bullet from the Connally stretcher?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; the comparison was made by comparing Exhibit 399 with a bullet fragment found in the front seat of the Presidential limousine and then comparing that fragment with these fragments from the rear seat of the automobile.

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

Certainly glad that everyone was not, again, watching!

Assume:

1. CE399 is item "A".

2. Bullet fragment found in front seat of automobile is item "B".

3. Three separate fragments found in left rear floor/under jumpseat is item "C".

Now, "A" was compared to "B", and "B" was thereafter compared to "C" (which actually had three components).

The comparing of "A" which was a virtually intact bullet, with almost half of another bullet which was found in the front seat was certainly an item which would tell us something.

Of course, all that one has to do is look at the two items and apply the old common sense to know that little is served by comparison of "A" to "B", since they quite obviously have no bearing one each other.

Lastly, although comparing "B" (large fragment from front seat) with "C" (3 fragments from left rear floor/under jump seat) is admirable, one would think that comparing "B" to "C1" and then comparing "B" to "C2" and then comparing "B" to "C3" would have a proper means of evaluation of the evidence.

And, when one considers ALL of the evidence, which includes:

Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Frazier, is it possible for the fragments identified in Commission Exhibit 840 to have come from the whole bullet heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 399?

Mr. FRAZIER - I would say that based on weight it would be highly improbable that that much weight could have come from the base of that bullet since its present weight is--its weight when I first received it was 158.6 grains.

Mr. FRAZIER - Exhibit 399, and its original normal weight would be 160 to 161 grains, and those three metal fragments had a total of 2.1 grains as I recall--2.3 grains. So it is possible but not likely since there is only a very small part of the core of the bullet 399 missing.

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

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe the three pieces of metal which are contained within this vial, please?

Mr. FRAZIER - The three pieces of metal are lead. They were weighed immediately upon recovery and were found to weigh nine-tenths of a grain, seven-tenths of a grain, and seven-tenths of a grain, respectively. Since that time small portions have been removed for spectrographic analysis and comparison with other bullets and bullet fragments

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

OK! So a logical person would assume that as an "entity", CE 840 COULD NOT have come from CE399.

However, CE840 is not a SINGLE ENTITY!

It WAS in fact three separate fragments of lead which weighed respectively, "nine-tenths of a grain, seven-tenths of a grain, and seven-tenths of a grain, respectively".

In that, one should also notice that Specter & Company did not bother to ask the seemingly and logical question, were it possible or likely that ANY ONE of the three fragments contained in CE840 may have come from CE399?

And if so, what testing if any was done in which a direct comparison of CE399 to EACH and every fragment contained within CE840 was done?

A most pertinent question when ALL circumstances are taken into consideration.

**********************************************************

"Mr. FRAZIER - I would say that based on weight it would be highly improbable that that much weight could have come from the base of that bullet since its present weight is--its weight when I first received it was 158.6 grains."

"Mr. FRAZIER - Exhibit 399, and its original normal weight would be 160 to 161 grains, and those three metal fragments had a total of 2.1 grains as I recall--2.3 grains. So it is possible but not likely since there is only a very small part of the core of the bullet 399 missing."

But, you can bet your sweet bippy that Dulles and Specter would add that 158.6 grains to the 2.3 grains and conclude that it all added up to 160.9 grains, rounded it off to 161 grains and Voila! It came from the "magic bullet. No?

"And if so, what testing if any was done in which a direct comparison of CE399 to EACH and every fragment contained within CE840 was done?"

Exactomundo! Like, show me what chemical analysis was made, at what time, and on what date, between the copper-cladded lead contained in CE399, with respect to the lead in EACH AND EVERY FRAGMENT of CE840. Even if it came down to Carbon 14 dating of the samples of CE399 and CE 840. Prove that those fragments were made from the exact same batch and control number. What kind of an oversight was that, to assume and document without having gone through the steps involved in the performance of basic forensic protocol? Even if they were to prove a match.? At least quantify it, qualify it, and document it. Was that ever done?

Was that ever done

Actually, it was!

I am still digging for some of the information necessary to continue with this topic, however.

In my multiple discussions with FBI Agent John Gallagher, we discussed his NAA work quite extensively.

* It is unknown as to whether Agent Gallagher is or is not still living. His home was in Beltsville, MD and his telephone number was 301-937-2167.

Just in case anyone wants to actually attempt to get "first-hand" information.

Agent Gallagher and I had, one might say, a little "extra" in common.

This was a result of my having once toured the facilities at Oak Ridge, my Nuclear Weapons backgound, supervision of a lab which conducted destructive flame spectrographic analysis; and the old "Purvis" name and Melvin Purvis kinship.

Therefore, I honestly believe everything which John Gallagher told me.

(but them too, I am obviously gullible enough to believe in a "Lone Assassin" also.)

Gallagher, (according to him) ran NAA comparison data on everything which was provided.

The problem here being two items.

1. Due to the number of comparisons run, he could not honestly recall exactly how many fragments were tested and compared with either CE399 or with the lead fragments found in the front seat of the Presidential Limousine.

He knew that he had run NAA on multiple fragments which reportedly included fragments removed from JBC's wrist; fragments removed from JFK's head; and fragments found inside the vehicle.

But, he had no way of recalling exactly how many of what was tested and compared.

Nevertheless, the data was all insufficient in which to draw a conclusion anyway.

Back in 1963, there were none of the wonderful hand-held computers which we now take for granted. And, those of us who are old enough, recognize that "Slide Rule" was a pre-requisite course for all engineering majors.

And, any one who has ever taken "Slide Rule" is fully aware that it's "interpolation" is frequently a BEST GUESS!

According to Gallagher, the NAA numbers were of such small decimal equivelants that the only way to effectively work with them was through the usage of logarithm functions and the slide rule.

Both of which (& I fully recognized and understood) induced a margin of error for which one could not account for.

With this information, Agent Gallagher explained that even though there were some differences in the lead samples which he had subjected to NAA, that the differences were in fact so small, and with the induced errors as a result of utilization of slide rules, etc;, that none of the lead fragments could absolutely be tied directly to any other lead fragments.

This appears to be basically where Frazier gets his statement:

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

Mr. FRAZIER - That examination was performed by a spectrographer, John F. Gallagher, and I do not have the results of his examinations here, although I did ascertain that it was determined that the lead fragments were similar in composition.

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

So, after some goodly long distance telephone bills, it was found that even had the true NAA data been given and presented, it is unlikely that at the time in the science/math world, that we would have been able to state anything definitely in regards to comparison.

And, without Gallagher's full test reports, one can not even state exactly what fragments were tested, and as all who have sudied this matter are aware, there is considerable discrepancies in the weight accountability for all of these fragments as received by the HSCA and later when accurate NAA was conducted on the "REMAINING" fragments.

Tom

P.S. I was "cut" out of slide rule class due to skipping/cutting class to attend Mardi Gras in NO, which I made it a point to never miss.

One most definitely must have his priorities in life well defined as to what is and what is not important.

***********************************************************

"P.S. I was "cut" out of slide rule class due to skipping/cutting class to attend Mardi Gras in NO, which I made it a point to never miss."

I still have my old slide rule from my SUNY Trig class in 1962. It was almost a foot long. Then, when I started in Nuclear in 1976 there was a smaller model out that was half the size of my 1962 model. Luckily, Texas Instruments came out with their first handheld calculator, with its forerunner of the red LCD, just in time for us to sit for the ARRT (N) boards, otherwise I'd have been xxxx outta luck, as that saying goes.

Yep, miss one class in any college math program and you'll end up playing "catch-up" for the rest of the term. Miss two or three and you might as well sign up and audit the class for the rest of the semester. Then re-enroll for it before the next class fills up. I did that once for a class in statistics I was enrolled in, saved my notes and started over the next semester. Was finally able to understand the principles of permutations and managed to get somewhat of a fair grasp of the null hypothesis. But, what is statistics, really? An educated guess to the random nature of things? The ability to eyeball millions of small events occurring along a certain parameter and estimate a ballpark figure as to how many may have, in fact, occurred, or are expected to occur if certain conditions are met, or not met? And, 3.179 will help you figure out the answer to the "nth" degree, which is the only certainty that remains the same.

My old K & E is around somewhere. Well used since I had to re-take the course.

The slide rule course was only a 1-hour course, so the cuts were extremely limited! The college stated that anyone who cut during Mardi Gras would get "double cuts".

Slide rule was the only course I had on that Wednesday, I had no cuts, and just did not believe that they could give us "double cuts" just because they wanted to.

I was wrong!----------They could do whatever they wanted to do.

After all these years, I recall little about that particular Mardi Gras. Just rember being cut out of slide rule class. SO! I must have had a good time if I do not remember any of it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As with many items, those who will recall, should recognize that among the other listings, I was the first to inform that a bullet also has weight loss merely as a result of having been fired.

This weight loss is basically due to the scraping off on the inside of the rifle barrel of metallic residue of the bullet as it passes through the barrel, and primarily is due to the rifle landings (lands) which create the primary rifling marks on the bullet.

Of course, one of the resident "experts" thereafter began to inform that everyone knew this.

To which the response was:

No! Everyone did not know this, and since he was/or claimed to be such an expert on the subject matter, why had he not informed as well as demonstrated just how much weight loss a WCC 6.5mm Carcano bullet may have lost merely from being fired.

As with many, chalk this up as another first which can be attributed to the "Lone Nutter'.

CE#399 weighed in at 158.6 grains when found.

A test bullet lost a total of 0.67 grains, merely as a result of having been fired.

Total accounted for weight: 159.27 grains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It often requires a little extra effort to provide the facts necessary to ultimately dispute the Warren Commission.

However, if one is to do so, it will not be done with imaginary items.

It will ultimately be done with the:

1. Forensic facts

2. Ballistic facts

3. Pathological facts

4. Physical facts.

Most of which appears to have had a considerable lacking to date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A continuation for those who have interest in how factual research should be approached and conducted.

For those who may be following along, please note that the .51 grains of missing weight is in fact a mute issue as to the initial examination of CE399*

*It is not a mute point as regards later examination as it is responsible for some of the confusion regarding the weight of the bullet when the HSCA went to examine the bullet for their NAA work.

(Hope you caught that------Stu.)

The posted pages of the long ago written manuscript were done long prior to the release by the National Archives of that photograph which clearly demonstrates that FBI Agent Frazier informed me correctly as to the condition of the bullet when he examined and weighed the bullet.

Therefore, the entire copper jacket which normally covers a portion of the base of the bullet was, as demonstrated in the National Archives photo, clearly present when Frazier weighed the bullet; Gallagher did the NAA on the bullet; and the bullet was turned over to the National Archives.

So, other than future aid in resolving some of the conflicting weight issues as regards CE399 when they (the HSCA) examined the bullet, the approximate .51 grain weight of the bullet which has been removed, has no bearing on the accountability for the weight of the bullet at the time that it was received by the FBI.

Therefore, the ultimate accountability for weight to CE399 remains at:

Recovered weight:-------------------------------------------------------------------------158.6 grains

Approximate weight loss as a result of having been fired:---------------------------+ 0.67 grains

______________

Total:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 159.27 grains

To this, we can add the 0.9 grain weight of the small fragment of lead which was extruded out the base of CE399 and which was sheared from the base of the bullet as a result of the base-first impact with the right transverse process of the C7 vertebrae.

This fragment being what continued forward and exited the throat of JFK and creating the small anterior throat wound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A WCC 6.5mm Carcano bullet, not unlike a tube of toothpaste with the cap removed, when "squeezed", forces it's internal content out the path of least resistance.

In the toothpaste, it is obviously where the cap is removed.

In the case of a WCC 6.5mm Carcano bullet, it is at the base of the bullet at that point where the copper jacket does not fully encompass the lead core, thus leaving a 4.5mm diameter circle of the lead core exposed.

In event the deformation to the bullet is limited to the forward portion of the bullet only, then the lead protrusion which exudes out the base of the bullet has a uniform column shape which is exactly 4.5mm in diameter, as the opening through which the lead is forced remains at a constant and uniform dimension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you don't!

See it that is!

Although CE840 originally consisted of three small lead fragments which were recovered from the left floorboard (Jackie's feet area) of the Presidential Limousine, as well as from underneath the jump seat on which Nellie Connally sat, by the time that the HSCA got around to examination of the evidence, CE840 now consisted of only two small lead fragments.

Mr. FRAZIER - I examined the car to determine whether or not there were any bullet fragments present in it, embedded in the upholstery of the back of the front seat, or whether there were any impact areas which indicated that bullets or bullet fragments struck the inside of the car.

Mr. SPECTER - With respect to the fragments first, what did your examination disclose?

Mr. FRAZIER - We found three small lead particles lying on the rug in the rear seat area. These particles were located underneath or in the area which would be underneath the left jump seat.

Mr. SPECTER - Have those particles been identified during the course of your prior testimony?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; they have not?

Mr. SPECTER - Will you produce them at this time then, please? May we assign to this group of particles Commission Exhibit No. 840?

Mr. DULLES - These have not been discussed before, have they?

Mr. SPECTER - They have not.

Mr. DULLES - It shall be admitted as Commission Exhibit No. 840.

(Commission Exhibit No. 840 was marked for identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. SPECTER - I move formally for their admission, then, into evidence at this time.

Mr. DULLES - They shall be admitted.

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe the three pieces of metal which are contained within this vial, please?

Mr. FRAZIER - The three pieces of metal are lead. They were weighed immediately upon recovery and were found to weigh nine-tenths of a grain, seven-tenths of a grain, and seven-tenths of a grain, respectively. Since that time small portions have been removed for spectrographic analysis and comparison with other bullets and bullet fragments.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Frazier, is it possible for the fragments identified in Commission Exhibit 840 to have come from the whole bullet heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 399?

Mr. FRAZIER - I would say that based on weight it would be highly improbable that that much weight could have come from the base of that bullet since its present weight is--its weight when I first received it was 158.6 grains.

Mr. SPECTER - Referring now to 399.

Mr. FRAZIER - Exhibit 399, and its original normal weight would be 160 to 161 grains, and those three metal fragments had a total of 2.1 grains as I recall--2.3 grains. So it is possible but not likely since there is only a very small part of the core of the bullet 399 missing.

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

The "operative wording" of the question was: "the fragments identified in Commission Exhibit 840"

However:

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

Mr. FRAZIER - We found three small lead particles lying on the rug in the rear seat area. These particles were located underneath or in the area which would be underneath the left jump seat.

Mr. SPECTER - Have those particles been identified during the course of your prior testimony?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; they have not?

Mr. SPECTER - Will you produce them at this time then, please? May we assign to this group of particles Commission Exhibit No. 840?

Mr. FRAZIER - The three pieces of metal are lead. They were weighed immediately upon recovery and were found to weigh nine-tenths of a grain, seven-tenths of a grain, and seven-tenths of a grain, respectively. Since that time small portions have been removed for spectrographic analysis and comparison with other bullets and bullet fragments.

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

The imperative element of this being that there were THREE SEPARATE lead fragments recovered, and singularly, any one of these fragments could have been a portion of the unaccounted for weight to CE399.

And, just perhaps Robert Frazier knew and understood much more than came forth during the "selective" questioning methods to which he was subjected to by Slicky Boy---Arlen Specter.

Cumulative:--------------No!

Singularly:---------------Absolutely!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gary Loughran

Hi Tom,

Frazier says on at least two occasions there were 3 fragments of lead and at least once cites their relative weights in grains. So in spite of the selective questioning Frazier still gets the pertinent facts into testimony...or am I reading this wrong.

How did you work out that the fragment extruded from CE399 was .9 grains. This does match the weight testified to by Frazier of one of the fragments. But how, in your calculation, did you arrive at this precise fragment/weight?

I may have missed something in your posts, so apologies in advance.

Thanks

Gary

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...