The Head Shot....And Bullet Fragments
David Von Pein
A LITTLE BIT ABOUT.......
PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S HEAD MOVEMENT,
THE BULLET FRAGMENTS,
AND NEUTRON ACTIVATION ANALYSIS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A conspiracy theorist asked.....
>>> "How can the laws of physics {re. JFK's head movement} be completely meaningless?" <<<
My response.....
Because, in the JFK case in particular, it's not important WHICH WAY
THE HEAD MOVED -- because the only verifiable, official, factual
medical evidence in the case tells us that Kennedy was shot just ONE
time in the head, and it came FROM BEHIND (regardless of head movement
AFTER the bullet struck).
The rearward head motion of JFK's cranium might seem "weird" or
"funny"
or "impossible" to a lot of people -- but the physical and medical
evidence in the case makes ANY head movement a completely moot point.
===============
Re.: The bullet fragments recovered in the JFK murder case.....
A bullet fragment from Warren Commission Exhibit #843 very likely came
from a WCC/MC bullet, and very likely (per NAA analysis) came from the
same bullet which also deposited fragments under Nellie Connally's
seat
and which deposited the two large fragments in the front seat of the
limo.
CE843:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0434a.jpg
And the ONLY possible source of such extensive fragmentation of a
bullet within that limousine was President Kennedy's head.
It's my firm opinion that the NAA analysis of the JFK head fragment(s)
is not even needed to arrive at the obvious conclusion of: Lee Harvey
Oswald's own gun caused JFK's head injuries.
Because, as mentioned, there's NOTHING else that could have caused
Oswald's bullet to break apart in the manner that it did except John
F.
Kennedy's head, with the two largest (and heaviest) of the mangled
bullet fragments ending up to the FRONT of the victim.
Governor John Connally's injuries are positively ruled out as a source
of the front-seat fragments. This is because of the existence of
bullet
CE399 (found in the hospital where Connally was taken) and the fact
that Connally was struck by just ONE single bullet (per his doctors'
comments on this matter, plus the fact that if he were hit by multiple
bullets that were fragmenting badly within him....then WHERE in the
world are those fragments inside JBC's body? They aren't there.
Only a microscopic amount of lead (less than the weight of a "postage
stamp", per Dr. Gregory) was deposited in John Connally's body during
the shooting. It's silly to think that TWO or more bullets left only
this minuscule amount of lead and trace evidence behind in wake of the
shooting.
This fact also tends to buttress the Single-Bullet Theory and the
notion that Bullet #CE399 was certainly the bullet that left only very
minimal lead deposits behind in JBC's whole body (with a mere 2 grains
{approx.} missing from CE399's total mass).
Of course, all CTers enjoy trashing Dr. Guinn's analysis and his HSCA
testimony, as the conspiracists consider Guinn's 1978 analysis to be
completely outdated. But what I'd like to know is this.....
Just exactly how likely (odds-wise) is it that Dr. Vincent P. Guinn
would testify to the effect that TWO specific bullets (that both very
likely came from the barrel of Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, via
Guinn's NAA results) were the only two bullets that can be linked to
any of the ballistics samples in the John Kennedy murder case....and
yet still NOT have Oswald's Carcano doing all of the damage to the
victims on November 22nd, 1963?
Even via 1970s-era NAA technology, what are the odds that Guinn's data
would end up revealing the likelihood that ONLY BULLETS FROM OSWALD'S
RIFLE STRUCK ANY VICTIMS ON 11/22/63?
My guess is this -- The odds of that type of scientific evidence
favoring the likelihood that only Oswald's gun was involved in the
assassination, and somehow having that data being totally FALSE, must
be fairly low indeed.
~~~~~~~~~
A sampling of Dr. Guinn's HSCA testimony.....
MR. WOLF -- "Dr. Guinn, based on these results, do you have an opinion
as to what type of bullets these fragments were from?"
DR. GUINN -- "Once again, every one of these samples is in the same
range, which is an unusual range, as the background WCC
Mannlicher-Carcano samples that we have looked at from all four
production lots. These five {CE399, CE567, CE840, CE842, and CE843}
fall right in the midrange, in fact. They are not the highest; they
are
not the lowest of the antimony range, and the same is true of the
silver."
MR. WOLF -- "It is your opinion then that these all are fragments from
WCC Mannlicher-Carcano bullets?"
DR. GUINN -- "I think that is their most likely origin, yes."
MR. WOLF -- "Can you, just from looking at the results, state what is
the number of bullets that these evidence specimens came from?"
DR. GUINN -- "Yes sir, I can."
MR. WOLF -- "What is the number of bullets, in your opinion?"
DR. GUINN -- "These numbers correspond to two bullets. Two of the
samples have indistinguishable compositions, indicating that they came
from the same bullet, and the other three particles are evidently
samples from another bullet."
MR. WOLF -- "So it is your opinion that the evidence specimens
represent only evidence of two bullets, is that correct?"
DR. GUINN -- "Yes, sir, there is no evidence for three bullets, four
bullets, or anything more than two, but there is clear evidence that
there are two."
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/hscaguin.htm
~~~~~~~~~
David Von Pein
December 2006
robcap...@netscape.com
> A LITTLE BIT ABOUT.......
>
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S HEAD MOVEMENT,
> THE BULLET FRAGMENTS,
> AND NEUTRON ACTIVATION ANALYSIS
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> A conspiracy theorist asked.....
>
> >>> "How can the laws of physics {re. JFK's head movement} be completely meaningless?" <<<
>
> My response.....
>
> Because, in the JFK case in particular, it's not important WHICH WAY
> THE HEAD MOVED -- because the only verifiable, official, factual
> medical evidence in the case tells us that Kennedy was shot just ONE
> time in the head, and it came FROM BEHIND (regardless of head movement
> AFTER the bullet struck).
>
> The rearward head motion of JFK's cranium might seem "weird" or
> "funny"
> or "impossible" to a lot of people -- but the physical and medical
> evidence in the case makes ANY head movement a completely moot point.
And this evidence is? WHERE is the brain again?
> ===============
>
> Re.: The bullet fragments recovered in the JFK murder case.....
>
> A bullet fragment from Warren Commission Exhibit #843 very likely came
> from a WCC/MC bullet, and very likely (per NAA analysis) came from the
> same bullet which also deposited fragments under Nellie Connally's
> seat
> and which deposited the two large fragments in the front seat of the
> limo.
As I said before, very likely doesn't cut it Dave, it either matches
or not, there is no third option. Also, your experts couldn't say the
fragments came from the same bullet so which bullet left them if the
head shot didn't leave both?
>
> CE843:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_...
>
> And the ONLY possible source of such extensive fragmentation of a
> bullet within that limousine was President Kennedy's head.
Really? Prove it, I dare you. Why would a military full metal jacketed
bullet fragment like this anyway? Where are the fragments found in
the head?
>
> It's my firm opinion that the NAA analysis of the JFK head fragment(s)
> is not even needed to arrive at the obvious conclusion of: Lee Harvey
> Oswald's own gun caused JFK's head injuries.
You obviously missed the recent "60 Minutes" show on this inaccurate
source of metallic testing. Your opinion means nothing, just like
usual.
>
> Because, as mentioned, there's NOTHING else that could have caused
> Oswald's bullet to break apart in the manner that it did except John
> F.
> Kennedy's head, with the two largest (and heaviest) of the mangled
> bullet fragments ending up to the FRONT of the victim.
Yet rib bones and heavy wrist bones (and spinal bone as it is
impossible for a bullet to traverse the neck area and not at least
nick the spinal column) do no damage to the other bullet. It's a
miracle! Wrong, there was no testing of any fragments from JFK's head
in the WCR, only the two larger fragments and the nearly whole
bullets.
>
> Governor John Connally's injuries are positively ruled out as a source
> of the front-seat fragments. This is because of the existence of
> bullet
> CE399 (found in the hospital where Connally was taken) and the fact
> that Connally was struck by just ONE single bullet (per his doctors'
> comments on this matter, plus the fact that if he were hit by multiple
> bullets that were fragmenting badly within him....then WHERE in the
> world are those fragments inside JBC's body? They aren't there.
Right and the first bullet completely missed so all you have is the
head shot, but your problem is Fraziers comment that they couldn't
firmly say the two fragments came from the same bullet. IF not, what
other bullet do you have?
>
> Only a microscopic amount of lead (less than the weight of a "postage
> stamp", per Dr. Gregory) was deposited in John Connally's body during
> the shooting. It's silly to think that TWO or more bullets left only
> this minuscule amount of lead and trace evidence behind in wake of the
> shooting.
According to Dr. Finck it was 3.0 to 3.2 grains and this is more than
what the magic bullet was missing - 2.4 grains. SO this bullet is out
of contention.
>
> This fact also tends to buttress the Single-Bullet Theory and the
> notion that Bullet #CE399 was certainly the bullet that left only very
> minimal lead deposits behind in JBC's whole body (with a mere 2 grains
> {approx.} missing from CE399's total mass).
Your "fact" is wrong as usual. More than 2.4 grains were in JBC's
wrist, who knows how much more was in his body.
>
> Of course, all CTers enjoy trashing Dr. Guinn's analysis and his HSCA
> testimony, as the conspiracists consider Guinn's 1978 analysis to be
> completely outdated. But what I'd like to know is this.....
It is completely inaccurate as it was based on something that did not
work and several newer studies have shown this.
>
> Just exactly how likely (odds-wise) is it that Dr. Vincent P. Guinn
> would testify to the effect that TWO specific bullets (that both very
> likely came from the barrel of Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, via
> Guinn's NAA results) were the only two bullets that can be linked to
> any of the ballistics samples in the John Kennedy murder case....and
> yet still NOT have Oswald's Carcano doing all of the damage to the
> victims on November 22nd, 1963?
First of all, what is the second bullet? They only found one bullet
along with two larger fragments and three tiny particles. What is the
second bullet you are talking about? You also miss the big picture as
well, **EVEN IF** all of that was linked to the C2766 Carcano, where
is your proof linking LHO to using the rifle on that day?
>
> Even via 1970s-era NAA technology, what are the odds that Guinn's data
> would end up revealing the likelihood that ONLY BULLETS FROM OSWALD'S
> RIFLE STRUCK ANY VICTIMS ON 11/22/63?
He was full of it as only one near full bullet was found and it had
none of JFK's or JBC's blood, tissue or any other bodily material on
it. You'd have to be able to jump the Grand Caynon to make a leap to
the conclusion you are arriving at.
>
> My guess is this -- The odds of that type of scientific evidence
> favoring the likelihood that only Oswald's gun was involved in the
> assassination, and somehow having that data being totally FALSE, must
> be fairly low indeed.
Well the WC's experts disagreed with you. Also, their proof showing
LHO fired the gun is very weak and the idea of other guns being
involved is not excluded simply because their "evidence" wasn't
tested. That's like See No Evil, Hear No Evil mentality.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~
>
> A sampling of Dr. Guinn's HSCA testimony.....
>
> MR. WOLF -- "Dr. Guinn, based on these results, do you have an opinion
> as to what type of bullets these fragments were from?"
>
> DR. GUINN -- "Once again, every one of these samples is in the same
> range, which is an unusual range, as the background WCC
> Mannlicher-Carcano samples that we have looked at from all four
> production lots. These five {CE399, CE567, CE840, CE842, and CE843}
> fall right in the midrange, in fact. They are not the highest; they
> are
> not the lowest of the antimony range, and the same is true of the
> silver."
>
> MR. WOLF -- "It is your opinion then that these all are fragments from
> WCC Mannlicher-Carcano bullets?"
There is no such thing as Mannlicher Carcano bullets, only 6.5mm
bullets.
>
> DR. GUINN -- "I think that is their most likely origin, yes."
What does this mean since there are no Mannlicher-Carcano bullets to
start with? If he says yes to them being from a 6.5mm bullet this
opens up the window a lot more doesn't it.There are many guns that use
a 6.5mm round.
>
> MR. WOLF -- "Can you, just from looking at the results, state what is
> the number of bullets that these evidence specimens came from?"
>
> DR. GUINN -- "Yes sir, I can."
>
> MR. WOLF -- "What is the number of bullets, in your opinion?"
>
> DR. GUINN -- "These numbers correspond to two bullets. Two of the
> samples have indistinguishable compositions, indicating that they came
> from the same bullet, and the other three particles are evidently
> samples from another bullet."
This goes against what Frazier testified to as he said the two
fragments couldn't be claimed to have come from the same bullet to the
exclusion of all others. I believe they used NAA as well back then as
it was created for this case.
>
> MR. WOLF -- "So it is your opinion that the evidence specimens
> represent only evidence of two bullets, is that correct?"
>
> DR. GUINN -- "Yes, sir, there is no evidence for three bullets, four
> bullets, or anything more than two, but there is clear evidence that
> there are two."
Shocker!
YoHarvey
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
NAA is absolutely not needed in this case. Whatsoever. Of course,
CT's will pick all anomolies, eliminating EVERY other single piece of
evidence.......because they have NO evidence at all to show
conspiracy. I've said it several times: CT's use the reverse
scientific method. They determine what ahppened, throw out all the
data that doesn't fit their conclusion and then hail their findings as
the only possible solution. This is how CT's rationalize.
The majority of forensic pathologists, would ballistic experts, the
American Academy of Science and the American Medical Association all
agree. JFK was shot twice ONLY, both times from behind.
The premier wound ballistic expert in the world, Duncan MacPherson,
who in reality had NO interest in the assassination whatsoever said
many things however in an interview. Who is Duncan MacPherson? Let's
take a look:
This review, written by Martin L. Fackler, MD, appeared in the January
1995 issue of Fighting Firearms and is reproduced with the kind
permission of the International Wound Ballistics Association.
This remarkable book by Duncan MacPherson advances wound ballistics to
the status of a mature predictive science. One must consider the
normally slow growth evidenced in the history of scientific methods
and ideas to appreciate the significance of this achievement. We have
had a valid tissue simulant with which to do bullet testing that is
applicable quantitatively to the human body for only a dozen years:
for only half that time has this tissue simulant been used widely in a
way that gives comparable results ("BB" penetration calibration of
each block).
Bullet Penetration unveils MacPherson's unique mathematical predictive
bullet penetration model which he derived from the general equations
of motion. He used the methodology described above for experimental
shots with various projectiles into calibrated 10% gelatin to validate
his model and determine its empirical constants.
Several years ago, when Duncan MacPherson tried to explain to me the
necessity for a mathematical bullet penetration model, I didn't
understand why it was needed or how it might be applied. If I had any
question about the effectiveness of a new bullet I would just shoot it
into 10% gelatin and measure the results. I didn't even have to do
gelatin shots to answer most of the questions I was asked about bullet
performance. I could usually make a pretty accurate estimate by
mentally comparing the bullet in question with the results of the
several thousand bullets I had already tested. Finally, after
MacPherson's experimental verification of his model was nearly
finished, it dawned upon me that his predictive penetration model does
essentially the same thing as my experience based estimates did -only
his model does it more accurately and it can be applied to a far wider
variety of questions. It puts the equivalent of more than a decade of
systematic bullet testing experience at the fingertips of any
intelligent reader who is willing to think the model through.
MacPherson derived his model using the rigorous mathematics and
physics required for scientific accuracy: this derivation is included
in a 35 page chapter that will satisfy the most critical
mathematically oriented reader. MacPherson's writing style and
vocabulary, however, make the basic principles and results
understandable to the layman.
MacPherson has included an outline of the contents of his book's
chapters in the introduction, as well as providing an excellent
summary at the end of each chapter. He exposes and corrects common
fallacies -- such as the presumption that kinetic energy determines
bullet effect. In that section we find:
Newton's laws of motion describe forces and momentum transfer, not
energy relationships
Damage is done by stress (force), not energy.
Stresses cause damage only if they strain body tissues above their
elastic limits. Most expanding handgun bullets simply waste the
kinetic energy used in producing the small temporary cavities they
cause.
Included is an excellent clarification of statistics for the layman.
It explains how the seemingly plausible collection of data from
shootings is immensely compounded by the large number of variables;
that any claim that incapacitation from bullet hits can be assessed
within a few percent based on shooting data "is based on ignorance, or
fraud, or both." This easy to understand primer on statistics should
enable the layman to avoid being misled by data that is "too good to
be true."
Although MacPherson derives his penetration model with the rigor
necessary to satisfy the most critical professional scientist. he also
provides graphs derived from the model to enable the interested layman
to apply the information easily. For example, his model permits the
interested reader to obtain the maximum in accuracy from bullet
testing in ordnance gelatin. Calibrating each gelatin block with a
"BB" shot (at 590 ft/s) gives a quality control check, but within the
calibration standards (+/- 1 centimeter of the 8.5 cm standard
penetration depth) there can be a variation of +/- 12% (and many
laboratories are reporting shots in which the BB penetration does not
meet these standards). From MacPherson's graphs the reader can obtain
the adjustments to normalize results to the standard 8.5 cm even if
the calibration shot was several cm from the 8.5 cm standard. This
normalization of experimental results cuts out a large source of
potential error, that has heretofore been overlooked, and allows more
accurate bullet performance comparisons.
MacPherson includes graphs that allow the reader to obtain a realistic
approximation of bullet penetration in gelatin from bullets recovered
from shots into water. The expanded bullet's diameter, weight,
caliber, and velocity, plotted on the appropriate graph, allows the
reader to read off the equivalent penetration depth in 10% standard
gelatin (calibrated to a "BB penetration depth of 8.5 cm.)
The photographs relating striking velocity to deformation and
expansion for various cast lead projectiles and jacketed expanding
handgun bullets should prove exceptionally useful to those who
experiment with, or are interested in, bullet
design -- or are just interested in understanding better what they
have seen in their own experimental work or that of others.
MacPherson's credentials are impressive to say the least -- he is, in
fact (no joke), a rocket scientist -- whose accomplishments include
developing a new guidance technique and the equations that were used
to guide the Mercury astronauts into orbit. He is now a busy
consultant in space flight with an impressive clientele. Duncan has
had a lifelong interest in firearms as a shooter and experimenter and
has read widely in the field. He demonstrated the depth of his
insights into bullet effects when, in 1976, he published "Relative
Incapacitation BULListics." That article analyzed and pointed out the
fatal flaws in the now infamous Relative Incapacitation Index (RII).
The National Institute of Justice NIJ, originator of this ill-fated
bullet rating scheme, disregarded MacPherson's well-founded
criticisms. in 1986, two FBI agents had to die, unnecessarily, (in the
Miami shootout) to prove to the world that MacPherson was entirely
correct when he pointed out, ten years previously, that the RII was
seriously flawed.
The strongest focus of MacPherson's work is on getting the maximum
efficiency out of the inherently limited handgun. He discusses
accuracy, recoil, calibers. bullet types, bullet velocities and bullet
weights; relating all of these to his wound trauma incapacitation
model (which is his penetration model with human anatomy, physiology
and psychology and other considerations added).
This superb book can provide those responsible for weapon and bullet
selection with the reliable information they need to make informed
choices -- to balance intelligently the inevitable pros and cons that
accompany these compromises. It further provides data and insights
that are of crucial importance to Wound Ballistics Researchers,
Forensic Pathologists. Firearms Examiners, Trauma Surgeons, Ordnance
Engineers, Law Enforcement Personnel and others critically dependent
on firearm performance.
MacPherson's book is a scholarly scientific work. It is not for those
who prefer their facts predigested and spoon fed -- it is for mature
minds that are willing and able to think for themselves. Rather than
just doling out answers, MacPherson gives his readers the tools they
need to figure out the best answers to their own particular bullet-
effect-related problems for themselves.
Martin L. Fackler, MD
MacPherson, author of "Bullet Penetration" had the following to say:
G: It is common knowledge that, as captured by Abraham Zapruder,
President Kennedy's head and upper torso lurch energetically
immediately following the explosion of his head. Could this movement
have been caused by the directly transferred momentum of a bullet?
That is, can a bullet "push" somebody like that?
MacP: No, and no. The movement of a body due to bullet momentum cannot
be greater than the movement of the same body if it was holding the
gun that fired the bullet. This is a result of elementary physics and
is not disputed by anyone who understands physics. The major
frustrating feature of the Kennedy assassination phenomenon is the
willingness of people to pretend to talk authoritatively on subjects
they know absolutely nothing about, especially things related to
firearms. This body recoil is one favorite.
G: If the effects observed on the Zapruder film are not the result of
a direct "push" by a bullet, what could account for JFK's movements?
MacP: In general, body movement in response to nervous system trauma
is a result of contractions in body muscles. This is related to
movements of your leg when a doctor raps you on the knee with his
little mallet; your leg moves because a nerve induces a muscle
contraction, not because it was driven into motion by the force of the
tiny rap with the mallet. The slightly peculiar location of Kennedy's
arms after the 399 bullet impact is known as Thorburn's position,
after a description by Dr. William Thorburn in an 1889 paper on
injuries to the area of the spinal chord damaged by bullet 399. In
addition to this effect, simulations have shown that bullet strikes to
the skull that result in blowing out a significant hole upon exit
result in skull recoil towards the bullet entry direction. The
dynamics of this are a little complicated, but are more related to the
pressure inside the skull cavity created by the bullet passage than to
effects directly related to the bullet movement. The dynamics of this
kind of impact were demonstrated independently in testing by Dr. Luis
Alvarez and by Dr. John K. Lattimer et al.
G: Have you had a chance to review the JFK-related wound ballistics
work of Drs. John Lattimer and Martin Fackler? If so, can you provide
a brief critique?
MacP: I have read this work and have referred to it to look up
Thorburn's name in the previous answer. The main aspect of the Kennedy
assassination that would surprise most people is how uncontroversial
the wound ballistics aspects are among the physicians in the country
who are most experienced in gunshot trauma (I am not one of these, but
have talked to several). It is a sad truth that most autopsy reports
are full of errors and inconsistencies which are obvious to any
careful review; it shouldn't be like this, but it is. The problems
with the Kennedy autopsy do not require a conspiracy to explain, they
are more or less business as usual exposed to the glare of careful
examination. Likewise, the work of Lattimer and Fackler is simply a
very sound, complete, and careful examination and reconstruction of
that facts that should be the standard in all cases, but isn't.
Some argument can be made in the typical investigation that the talent
and resources just are not available to meet a first class standard,
but one can hardly argue that this situation is applicable to the
Warren report. The Warren commission should have used all of the best
talent available to make the most complete analysis possible, but they
didn't. In fairness, it is always easier to criticize than to
perform.
G: Is it possible to deform a bullet the way CE399 is deformed by
firing the bullet into water?
MacP: Probably not. Bullet 399 really isn't deformed much; a point
often made by those who dispute the "single bullet" conclusion. The
bullets used in this assassination are much more resistant to
deformation than most rifle bullets. The major effect in bullet 399 is
"toothpasting", i.e., a small amount of the lead core has been
squeezed out of the jacket base like toothpaste from a tube. This
probably occurred when the bullet hit Connally's ribs at a high yaw
angle after it had been considerably slowed by travel through soft
tissue (a bullet in a reconstructed firing showed deformation similar
to and slightly larger than bullet 399). The bullet would yaw in
water, but probably would not "toothpaste" without contact with a hard
object.
G: Is the deformation of CE399 inconsistent with its having caused all
of JFK's and JBC's non-fatal wounds?
MacP: No. Reconstructions prove that bullet 399 is consistent with
having caused all these wounds.
G: Are you aware of the claim that CE399 was "switched" from a six-
groove bullet to a four-groove bullet? If so, will you give us your
professional opinion?
MacP: No knowledge about this claim. For about 30 years, I have paid
almost no attention to any aspect of the Kennedy assassination not
directly related to wound ballistics.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f860f4d0b40e8773
>>> "As I said before, very likely doesn't cut it Dave, it {bullet lead} either matches or not; there is no third option." <<<
And I should take the word of Dr. Robert Caprio over the word of a
qualified Professor of Chemistry (Dr. Vincent Guinn) and the various
other experts in the field of bullet-lead analysis and identification,
right?
(Somebody break out those LOL icons once more.)
>>> "Also, your experts couldn't say the {front-seat} fragments came from the same bullet, so which bullet left them, if the head shot didn't leave both?" <<<
You were talking about the "front-seat" fragments above, weren't you?
(Sometimes it's hard to read Kook Talk, but I think you were referring
to CE567/569 here.)
Anyway, only a total fool/idiot/moron who has looked at the SUM TOTAL
of the bullet evidence that was recovered in this murder case could
possibly think the CE567 and CE569 had come from TWO separate bullets
fired from MC Rifle C2766.
Both fragments in question were positively linked to Oswald's C2766
rifle, and there was no "overlapping" sections on the fragments that
would indicate they were from two different missiles.
Plus: One was a "base" of a bullet; while the other was just the
opposite--the "nose" portion of a bullet fired from rifle C2766.
And, when that TOTALITY of evidence is assessed and evaluated
(including the high likelihood that John Connally was struck by just
ONE single bullet, with that one bullet positively being CE399, due to
the location where that missile was found within Parkland Hospital),
then it becomes obvious that THE ONLY THING that could have possibly
caused the fragmentation of the C2766 bullet which deposited CE567 and
CE569 in the front seat of the limousine was JOHN F. KENNEDY'S HEAD.
Plus: We also know with 100% certainty that JFK was hit in the head by
ONLY ONE BULLET, and that bullet was fired from BEHIND the President's
car. That fact also perfectly corresponds with the bullet evidence
found in the front seat (CE567/569)...with those fragments ending up
to the FRONT of Kennedy's position, perfectly consistent with the head-
shot bullet travelling in a REAR-to-FRONT manner.
Plus: There are the TWO damaged areas to the limo itself -- the chrome
dent and the windshield crack....which is a perfect MATCH for the TWO
bullet fragments that ended up in the front part of the car.
Every single thing fits perfectly in an "LN/C2766" fashion.
But, naturally, the Kook Brigade must ignore the above common-sense
observations regarding the sum total of the bullet evidence, in order
to posit their make-believe theories about JFK being hit in the head
from the front.
BTW, any idea why that bullet from your make-believe Grassy Knoll
gunman didn't do any damage whatsoever to the LEFT hemisphere of
President Kennedy's cranium? Doesn't that little snafu seem the
SLIGHTEST bit odd to the "Badge Man Shot JFK From The Knoll" kooks? If
not....why not?
[Remainder of Rob-Kook's post is 100% untrue garbage, as per that
idiot's norm. It's almost beyond belief that someone could spout off
so much about something of which he knows so little. But, that's our
Robby.]
robcap...@netscape.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f860f4d0b40e8773
>
> >>> "As I said before, very likely doesn't cut it Dave, it {bullet lead} either matches or not; there is no third option." <<<
>
> And I should take the word of Dr. Robert Caprio over the word of a
> qualified Professor of Chemistry (Dr. Vincent Guinn) and the various
> other experts in the field of bullet-lead analysis and identification,
> right?
Of course you should! I'm not disputing his credentials, but the
analysis system he used - NAA - has been shown to be unreliable. They
may have to retry hundreds of cases that were won due to this
"technology". The key report is the WC as it was closer to the time
of the crime, since the HSCA basically endorsed the same evidence
(with some exceptions) I'll stick with that. They did admit to a
conspiracy at the 11th hour, but they blamed the mob for it. Also,
there are a couple of new reports that dispute his findings. In
addition to the two below there is the Texas A&M one from April of
this year.
http://www.officer.com/web/online/Investigation/Bullet-Lead-Analysis-Revisited/18$36235
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060821/ai_n16674519
> (Somebody break out those LOL icons once more.)
Guilty people tend to laugh a lot don't they?
>
> >>> "Also, your experts couldn't say the {front-seat} fragments came from the same bullet, so which bullet left them, if the head shot didn't leave both?" <<<
>
> You were talking about the "front-seat" fragments above, weren't you?
> (Sometimes it's hard to read Kook Talk, but I think you were referring
> to CE567/569 here.)
Quit stalling!
>
> Anyway, only a total fool/idiot/moron who has looked at the SUM TOTAL
> of the bullet evidence that was recovered in this murder case could
> possibly think the CE567 and CE569 had come from TWO separate bullets
> fired from MC Rifle C2766.
So you are saying Frazier & Nicol are fools/idiots/morons?
>
> Both fragments in question were positively linked to Oswald's C2766
> rifle, and there was no "overlapping" sections on the fragments that
> would indicate they were from two different missiles.
You keep saying linked to the rifle (this is in doubt, but let's skip
it for now), so what? My question was if they came from two seperate
bullets, which ones did they come from? Answer the question.
>
> Plus: One was a "base" of a bullet; while the other was just the
> opposite--the "nose" portion of a bullet fired from rifle C2766.
Correct and your point is?
>
> And, when that TOTALITY of evidence is assessed and evaluated
> (including the high likelihood that John Connally was struck by just
> ONE single bullet, with that one bullet positively being CE399, due to
> the location where that missile was found within Parkland Hospital),
> then it becomes obvious that THE ONLY THING that could have possibly
> caused the fragmentation of the C2766 bullet which deposited CE567 and
> CE569 in the front seat of the limousine was JOHN F. KENNEDY'S HEAD.
It wasn't obvious to Frazier and Nicol (and most definitely the other
two "experts" left out of the report in name), so why is so obvious to
you? Do you have experience in ballistic matching?
>
> Plus: We also know with 100% certainty that JFK was hit in the head by
> ONLY ONE BULLET, and that bullet was fired from BEHIND the President's
> car. That fact also perfectly corresponds with the bullet evidence
> found in the front seat (CE567/569)...with those fragments ending up
> to the FRONT of Kennedy's position, perfectly consistent with the head-
> shot bullet travelling in a REAR-to-FRONT manner.
We do? How do we know this (one bullet hitting JFK's head)? Again,
how do you know this for sure? But the bullet supposedly used was a
full-metal jacketed bullet that is designed not to fragment, just like
the miracle bullet. Why did it here?
>
> Plus: There are the TWO damaged areas to the limo itself -- the chrome
> dent and the windshield crack....which is a perfect MATCH for the TWO
> bullet fragments that ended up in the front part of the car.
Really? These small fragements could cause a major dent and crack a
windshield? WHAT do you smoke for pleasure again? What about other
experts saying the jagged edges on the fragments matched patterns seen
when a bullet strikes concrete or asphalt? We know a bullet hit the
street near the car, could the fragments be from that bullet?
>
> Every single thing fits perfectly in an "LN/C2766" fashion.
Only in your nutjob planet. The rest of normal people see things very
differently.
>
> But, naturally, the Kook Brigade must ignore the above common-sense
> observations regarding the sum total of the bullet evidence, in order
> to posit their make-believe theories about JFK being hit in the head
> from the front.
Common sense? What do you smoke for pleasure again? That was all
made up crap.
>
> BTW, any idea why that bullet from your make-believe Grassy Knoll
> gunman didn't do any damage whatsoever to the LEFT hemisphere of
> President Kennedy's cranium? Doesn't that little snafu seem the
> SLIGHTEST bit odd to the "Badge Man Shot JFK From The Knoll" kooks? If
> not....why not?
You are presuming the gunman would have been shooting on a hard angle,
but if he was situated in a way along the fence and fired early enough
(prior to JFK being even with him) it would have been more of a
straight shot. Thus in the right temple and out the back of the right
side of the head.
>
> [Remainder of Rob-Kook's post is 100% untrue garbage, as per that
> idiot's norm. It's almost beyond belief that someone could spout off
> so much about something of which he knows so little. But, that's our
> Robby.]
That's it, you can't answer so he snips it out. Good job wacko.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
The very "expert" you just got finished utilizing to make your "case" said
exactly this. Try reading what Frazier said his opinion was about what caused
the damage to the chrome.
Impeaching your own witness?
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <e5821663-a26b-4548-9e60-7cb07b907...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 27, 12:35 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f860f4d0b40e8773
>
> >>>>> "As I said before, very likely doesn't cut it Dave, it {bullet lead} either
> >>matches or not; there is no third option." <<<
>
> >> And I should take the word of Dr. Robert Caprio over the word of a
> >> qualified Professor of Chemistry (Dr. Vincent Guinn) and the various
> >> other experts in the field of bullet-lead analysis and identification,
> >> right?
>
> >Of course you should! I'm not disputing his credentials, but the
> >analysis system he used - NAA - has been shown to be unreliable. They
> >may have to retry hundreds of cases that were won due to this
> >"technology". The key report is the WC as it was closer to the time
> >of the crime, since the HSCA basically endorsed the same evidence
> >(with some exceptions) I'll stick with that. They did admit to a
> >conspiracy at the 11th hour, but they blamed the mob for it. Also,
> >there are a couple of new reports that dispute his findings. In
> >addition to the two below there is the Texas A&M one from April of
> >this year.
>
You are off base as usual, I was using Frazier because he wasn't.
Whenever an official theory believer won't use someone from the WC
there is a reason. He want's to use Guinn, because he lied and said
the two fragments can be from the same bullet. It makes it easier for
him. You need to get up to speed here as this is old news.
> >That's it, you can't answer so he snips it out. Good job wacko.- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
This isn't in their testimony, of course...
>> >> Plus: We also know with 100% certainty that JFK was hit in the head by
>> >> ONLY ONE BULLET, and that bullet was fired from BEHIND the President's
>> >> car. That fact also perfectly corresponds with the bullet evidence
>> >> found in the front seat (CE567/569)...with those fragments ending up
>> >> to the FRONT of Kennedy's position, perfectly consistent with the head-
>> >> shot bullet travelling in a REAR-to-FRONT manner.
>>
>> >We do? How do we know this (one bullet hitting JFK's head)? Again,
>> >how do you know this for sure? But the bullet supposedly used was a
>> >full-metal jacketed bullet that is designed not to fragment, just like
>> >the miracle bullet. Why did it here?
>>
>> >> Plus: There are the TWO damaged areas to the limo itself -- the chrome
>> >> dent and the windshield crack....which is a perfect MATCH for the TWO
>> >> bullet fragments that ended up in the front part of the car.
>>
>> >Really? These small fragements could cause a major dent and crack a
>> >windshield?
>>
>> The very "expert" you just got finished utilizing to make your "case" said
>>exactly this. Try reading what Frazier said his opinion was about what caused
>> the damage to the chrome.
>>
>> Impeaching your own witness?
>
>You are off base as usual, I was using Frazier because he wasn't.
The "expert" you cited in support of your position that CE567 and CE569 are
separate bullets said no such thing. To be exact, he stated:
Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567; and 569 are
portions of the originally same bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
Mr. FRAZIER - There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated condition
to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit together.
However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such as 567,
which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section of 569, so that
they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of course, they could be parts of
separate bullets.
But, regardless of the point that you misrepresent what Frazier said, *NOW* you
try to argue *AGAINST* what Frazier said on the point concerning the chrome
damage.
So I'm hardly "off base". You tried to use him favorably, then you try to
impeach him.
By the way, you should read what Frazier had to say about a whole bullet and
what it would do to the windshield. If you can't find it, I'll be happy to
quote it.
>Whenever an official theory believer won't use someone from the WC
>there is a reason. He want's to use Guinn, because he lied and said
>the two fragments can be from the same bullet.
If that's a "lie", then Frazier and Nicol said it as well. Where's your
citation that they cannot be from the same bullet???
Either present your citation, Rob - or admit that you can't cite *ANY*
authoritative source for your assertion that the two large fragments found in
the limo can't be from the same bullet.
>It makes it easier for
>him. You need to get up to speed here as this is old news.
Sad to say, Rob - this *IS* old news to me. And, as I've just finished citing,
Frazier does *NOT* assert what you evidently believe he said.
Once again, it's *you* that's spreading disinfo.
aeffects
> In article <2ea4591b-af02-4b7a-8b3c-ca854e739...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com>,
appears Nutter's are getting a bit more sophisticated.... :)
David Von Pein
>>> "You keep saying 'linked to the rifle' (this is in doubt...)." <<<
It's not in "doubt" in any way at all. Even most CTers will readily
admit that CE567/569 were linked to Rifle #C2766 "to the exclusion".
Same with the 3 bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest.
Why you keep saying this evidence is in doubt is anybody's guess. But
my guess is: it's because you're an evidence-ignoring moron.
(Did I come close?)
>>> "My question was if they came from two seperate [sic] bullets, which ones did they come from? Answer the question." <<<
Bullet fragments CE567 and CE569 didn't come from two separate
bullets, you idiot. They came from the one bullet that hit JFK in the
head, which is a bullet that came out of Lee Harvey Oswald's
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
>>> "It wasn't obvious to Frazier and Nicol (and most definitely the other two "experts" left out of the report in name {i.e., Cunningham & Killion}, so why is so obvious to you?" <<<
Of course it was obvious to Frazier, Nicol, Cunningham, and Killion.
But, quite obviously, since the bullet was split into TWO SEPARATE
PARTS, the FBI and Nicol couldn't come right out and say with 100%
finality that CE567 & 569 were positively from the very same bullet.
But Frazier, et al, like anyone else with an ounce of common sense,
knew that those fragments were almost certainly from the same bullet.
The crazy notion that a matching portion of EACH of the two fragments
went AWOL, with no overlapping parts on either 567 or 569, is just
plain fairy-tale time. But, being a kook, you feel you have to go with
the fairy tale evidently.
"There is not enough of the two fragments {CE567 & CE569} in
unmutilated condition to determine whether or not the fragments
actually fit together. However, it was determined that there is no
area on one fragment, such as 567, which would overlap a corresponding
area on the base section of 569, so that they could be parts of one
bullet, and then, of course, they could be parts of separate bullets."
-- ROBERT A. FRAZIER; FBI; TO W.C.; 1964
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/killion.htm
>>> "How do we know this (one bullet hitting JFK's head)? Again, how do you know this for sure? But the bullet supposedly used was a full-metal jacketed bullet that is designed not to fragment, just like the miracle bullet. Why did it here?" <<<
Playing the resident idiot again, I see.
Read Lattimer.
Read the WC.
Read Olivier.
Or: just look at this image below (and the accompanying text), which
vividly shows what happens to a Mannlicher-Carcano, 6.5-millimeter,
FMJ, Western Cartridge Company bullet after it hits a human skull
travelling at full velocity. (This is just something else for the CT-
Kooks to totally ignore, I would imagine.).....
http://i1.tinypic.com/44t3b0n.jpg
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/89e05bd7c2d37fa5
muc...@gmail.com
Healy? Keep up the good work (your check is in the mail).
robcap...@netscape.com
wrote:
> >You are off base as usual, I was using Frazier because he wasn't.
>
> The "expert" you cited in support of your position that CE567 and CE569 are
> separate bullets said no such thing. To be exact, he stated:
You are confusing two seperate issues. I hope others can read and
discern this better than you. The two issues are:
1) Two fragments found in the lmo - one is 44.6 grains and the other
is 21.0 grains. Frazier (with Nicol's agreement I would guess) said
these two fragments **could not be said to be from the same bullet
beyond all doubt**.
2) The other issue was the dent in the chrome. Frazier surmised that
one of the above fragments exited JFK's head and caused this.
>
> Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567; and 569 are portions of the originally same bullet?
> Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Point 1 above. "this" should be these to be proper English.
> Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
> Mr. FRAZIER - There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated condition
> to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit together.
> However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such as 567,
> which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section of 569, so that
> they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of course, they could be parts of
> separate bullets.
Point 1 above.
>
> But, regardless of the point that you misrepresent what Frazier said, *NOW* you
> try to argue *AGAINST* what Frazier said on the point concerning the chrome
> damage.
I haven't done anything, you have shown you have reading issues.
>
> So I'm hardly "off base". You tried to use him favorably, then you try to
> impeach him.
You're in another ballpark you are so outta here!
>
> By the way, you should read what Frazier had to say about a whole bullet and
> what it would do to the windshield. If you can't find it, I'll be happy to
> quote it.
Who cares? What whole bullet could do this damage? That was my point,
they used their two already.
>
> >Whenever an official theory believer won't use someone from the WC
> >there is a reason. He want's to use Guinn, because he lied and said
> >the two fragments can be from the same bullet.
>
> If that's a "lie", then Frazier and Nicol said it as well. Where's your
> citation that they cannot be from the same bullet???
You just pasted it up top, here it is again.
> Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this **bullet fragment, 567; and 569 are portions of the originally same bullet?**
> Mr. FRAZIER - **No, sir.**
> Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
> Mr. FRAZIER - **There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated condition to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit together.**
> However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such as 567,
> which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section of 569, so that
> they could be *parts of one bullet, and then, of course, they could be parts of
> separate bullets.*
On one hand they could be from bullet, but then again they may be from
two bullets. Sound firm to you? Not me.
> Either present your citation, Rob - or admit that you can't cite *ANY*
> authoritative source for your assertion that the two large fragments found in
> the limo can't be from the same bullet.
Boy you are so full of attack, you can't see what is right in front of
you. Sad.
>
> >It makes it easier for
> >him. You need to get up to speed here as this is old news.
>
> Sad to say, Rob - this *IS* old news to me. And, as I've just finished citing,
> Frazier does *NOT* assert what you evidently believe he said.
Really? Sure could fool me.
>
> Once again, it's *you* that's spreading disinfo.
No, you are spreading your ignorance and hate.
aeffects
wrote:
> On Nov 28, 12:43 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com>
> wrote:
>
> > >You are off base as usual, I was using Frazier because he wasn't.
>
> > The "expert" you cited in support of your position that CE567 and CE569 are
> > separate bullets said no such thing. To be exact, he stated:
>
> You are confusing two seperate issues. I hope others can read and
> discern this better than you. The two issues are:
sigh... c'mon Bud-the-Dudster [aka SirSlick] put your tinfoil beanie
back on, your scam isn't working, AGAIN!
<sniperoo>
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 28, 12:43 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com>
>wrote:
>
>> >You are off base as usual, I was using Frazier because he wasn't.
>>
>> The "expert" you cited in support of your position that CE567 and CE569 are
>> separate bullets said no such thing. To be exact, he stated:
>
>You are confusing two seperate issues. I hope others can read and
>discern this better than you. The two issues are:
>
>1) Two fragments found in the lmo - one is 44.6 grains and the other
>is 21.0 grains. Frazier (with Nicol's agreement I would guess) said
>these two fragments **could not be said to be from the same bullet
>beyond all doubt**.
However, *BOTH* of them also stated that they could be.
You don't seem to understand just what is happening here... let's imagine a
bullet ... lengthen it out to a pencil.
The 'pencil' is now the object that struck JFK's head.
All that's left is the sharpened end of the pencil - one inch worth... and the
eraser connected to one inch of the wood pencil.
So all we have is two one inch pieces of the original 8 inch pencil...
It is now IMPOSSIBLE to state authoritatively, that the two pieces once formed
the same pencil.
If, on the other hand, the pencil was broken along it's axis, such that a sliver
of wood from the eraser side can be matched to a vacant spot on the sharpened
end of the pencil - THERE WOULD BE THE INDISPUTABLE PROOF THAT THE TWO PIECES
INDEED WERE ORIGINALLY FROM THE SAME PENCIL.
Both Frazier and Nicols were making this point. You seem to believe that this
means that there *MUST HAVE BEEN* two bullets.
That's simply not true. Being unable to prove that the two pieces of pencil
were originally *one* pencil DOES NOT PROVE THAT THERE MUST HAVE BEEN TWO
PENCILS.
Just how difficult is this to understand?
>2) The other issue was the dent in the chrome. Frazier surmised that
>one of the above fragments exited JFK's head and caused this.
Yep... *NOT* a whole bullet. Thus, your argument that another bullet was needed
to damage the chrome has been demolished.
Care to admit this?
>>Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567; and 569 are
>>portions of the originally same bullet?
>> Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
>
>Point 1 above. "this" should be these to be proper English.
>
>> Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
>> Mr. FRAZIER - There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated
>> condition to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit together.
>> However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such
>> as 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section of
>> 569, so that they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of course, they
>> could be parts of separate bullets.
>
>Point 1 above.
Sadly, you haven't made your point. THIS IS NOT PROOF THAT DEMANDS ANOTHER
BULLET.
>> But, regardless of the point that you misrepresent what Frazier said,
>> *NOW* you try to argue *AGAINST* what Frazier said on the point concerning
>> the chrome damage.
>
>I haven't done anything, you have shown you have reading issues.
You both used Frazier as an expert, then *DENIED WHAT FRAZIER STATED*
No "reading issues" needed. You believe that neither of the fragments could
have caused the chrome damage, Frazier *SPECIFICALLY* stated that either one of
them could have.
Nor do you demonstrate your basic math skills - you just keep running from that.
So since *YOU* won't answer - I'll lay it out here. 161-(44+21)=96
A fragment as large as 96 grains - or more than TWICE the size of the two
remaining fragments - could have hit the chrome and bounced out of the limo.
(obviously, I'm not accounting for the smaller fragments - but this would not
make a huge difference to the 96 grain size)
So not only did Frazier SPECIFICALLY state that either of the two larger
fragments, 44 & 21 grain fragments, could have caused the chrome damage, you
can't handle the basic math to realize that if you needed something bigger - IT
WAS THERE.
>> So I'm hardly "off base". You tried to use him favorably, then you try to
>> impeach him.
>
>You're in another ballpark you are so outta here!
You've tried to impeach Frazier's testimony. Tis that simple.
Or would you like to try for another lie and state for the record that you've
accepted what Frazier said about what might have caused the chrome damage?
>> By the way, you should read what Frazier had to say about a whole bullet and
>> what it would do to the windshield. If you can't find it, I'll be happy to
>> quote it.
>
>Who cares?
You should... you tried to argue that another bullet was needed for that task.
>What whole bullet could do this damage? That was my point,
>they used their two already.
A whole bullet COULD NOT HAVE DONE THAT DAMAGE! PERIOD!
Just how silly do you want to be? The windshield damage, accepting *ONLY* what
the WCR said about it, could *NOT* have been caused by a whole bullet. So
nothing about the windshield can be used to support your argument that there
were more bullets.
>> >Whenever an official theory believer won't use someone from the WC
>> >there is a reason. He want's to use Guinn, because he lied and said
>> >the two fragments can be from the same bullet.
>>
>> If that's a "lie", then Frazier and Nicol said it as well. Where's your
>> citation that they cannot be from the same bullet???
>
>You just pasted it up top, here it is again.
>
>> Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this **bullet fragment, 567;
>> and 569 are portions of the originally same bullet?**
>> Mr. FRAZIER - **No, sir.**
>> Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
>> Mr. FRAZIER - **There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated
>> condition to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit together.**
>> However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such as
>> 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section of 569,
>> so that they could be *parts of one bullet, and then, of course, they
>> could be parts of separate bullets.*
>
>On one hand they could be from bullet, but then again they may be from
>two bullets. Sound firm to you? Not me.
How stupid are you, Rob? IT'S NOT A LIE TO SAY THAT THE TWO FRAGMENTS CAN BE
FROM THE SAME BULLET.
I don't know how Guinn phrased it, but you have the quote in front of you from
Frazier saying that these two fragments could indeed have been part of one
bullet.
So when you claim that that assertion is a lie, it's *YOU* that's the liar.
>> Either present your citation, Rob - or admit that you can't cite *ANY*
>> authoritative source for your assertion that the two large fragments
>> found in the limo can't be from the same bullet.
>
>Boy you are so full of attack, you can't see what is right in front of
>you. Sad.
Feel free, anytime, to provide a citation that the two larger fragments found in
the limo CANNOT be part of the same bullet.
You've not done so up until this point - and I strongly suspect that sooner or
later you'll wake up, and read more carefully what the testimony actually says.
Because if you don't - I'll just keep labeling you a liar for asserting that
"[Guinn, Frazier, Nicol] lied and said the two fragments can be from the same
bullet."
They did not lie, and they did *INDEED* state that the two fragments could have
come from the same bullet.
>> >It makes it easier for
>> >him. You need to get up to speed here as this is old news.
>>
>> Sad to say, Rob - this *IS* old news to me. And, as I've just finished
>> citing, Frazier does *NOT* assert what you evidently believe he said.
>
>Really? Sure could fool me.
No, you can't fool an honest man. You're a liar, Rob. I strongly recommend
that you stop, and read this post a number of times until it sinks in that
you've been misrepresenting the testimony.
>> Once again, it's *you* that's spreading disinfo.
>
>No, you are spreading your ignorance and hate.
It's hardly "ignorance and hate" to tell the truth, Rob.
Frazier, Nicol, (and I presume Guinn, although I've not looked it up) have
stated that those two larger fragments *COULD HAVE* been parts of a single
bullet. That's simply a fact. Like it or not - but call it a lie, and it's YOU
that's the liar.
David Von Pein
Robby can't even get other CT Mega-Kooks to agree with him. And that
certainly can't be a good sign for any member of the Anybody-But-
Oswald Club.
robcap...@netscape.com
That is all you are left with. If you can't state beyond doubt they
came from one pencil the only other conclusion is they came from two
pencils. This helps the CT case, by showing more bullets had to be
fired. I'm not supporting the WCR at all.
>
> Just how difficult is this to understand?
Not at all, you are saying you can't prove the two pieces came from
one pencil, but you are also saying you can't say they are from two
pencils. So what are you saying? You have to reach a concluson.
Either both fragments come from the same source or they don't. Period.
>
> >2) The other issue was the dent in the chrome. Frazier surmised that
> >one of the above fragments exited JFK's head and caused this.
>
> Yep... *NOT* a whole bullet. Thus, your argument that another bullet was needed
> to damage the chrome has been demolished.
No it hasn't. I don't buy for a second a fragment caused that kind of
damage to hardened chrome. You sound like you are agreeing with
Frazier and I'm not. I think he was full of shit.
>
> Care to admit this?
Frazier is full of shit.
>
> >>Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567; and 569 are
> >>portions of the originally same bullet?
> >> Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
>
> >Point 1 above. "this" should be these to be proper English.
>
> >> Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
> >> Mr. FRAZIER - There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated
> >> condition to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit together.
> >> However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such
> >> as 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section of
> >> 569, so that they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of course, they
> >> could be parts of separate bullets.
>
> >Point 1 above.
>
> Sadly, you haven't made your point. THIS IS NOT PROOF THAT DEMANDS ANOTHER
> BULLET.
I give up. If the two fragments cannot be said to come from the same
bullet then it has to be another bullet involved. The magical one is
not an option, and the first one is not an option because it missed
the car. Frazier is blaming one bullet, the head shot, for the damage
to the head, the dent in the chrome and I guess the windshield. That
is impossible. Period.
>
> >> But, regardless of the point that you misrepresent what Frazier said,
> >> *NOW* you try to argue *AGAINST* what Frazier said on the point concerning
> >> the chrome damage.
I was never in agreement with Frazier, I thought he was a horse's ass
from the beginning. You thought I was defending the WCR for some
reason. I don't buy anything the man said.
>
> >I haven't done anything, you have shown you have reading issues.
>
> You both used Frazier as an expert, then *DENIED WHAT FRAZIER STATED*
I never used him as an expert, I simply wouldn't let DVP wiggle off
the hook by using Guinn when he is the defender of the WCR. If he
believes LHO did it then he has to deal with Frazier.
>
> No "reading issues" needed. You believe that neither of the fragments could
> have caused the chrome damage, Frazier *SPECIFICALLY* stated that either one of
> them could have.
Yes, but based on their size this is malarky.
>
> Nor do you demonstrate your basic math skills - you just keep running from that.
>
> So since *YOU* won't answer - I'll lay it out here. 161-(44+21)=96
>
> A fragment as large as 96 grains - or more than TWICE the size of the two
> remaining fragments - could have hit the chrome and bounced out of the limo.
> (obviously, I'm not accounting for the smaller fragments - but this would not
> make a huge difference to the 96 grain size)
SO you are defending Frazier and the WCR? I think two other bullets
hit the limo at a minimum, probably three as there is more and more
proof JFK may have been hit in the head twice. I think 8-9 shots were
fired. I don't buy for a second fragments dented chrome. You still
have the windshield to deal with.
>
> So not only did Frazier SPECIFICALLY state that either of the two larger
> fragments, 44 & 21 grain fragments, could have caused the chrome damage, you
> can't handle the basic math to realize that if you needed something bigger - IT
> WAS THERE.
Doubt it. If you want to buy fragments dented chrome instead of
another bullet in all liklihood, go ahead. I won't pass judgement like
you have.
>
> >> So I'm hardly "off base". You tried to use him favorably, then you try to
> >> impeach him.
I never used him favorably, just held DVP to what he said when he ran
to Guinn. Whenever a LNer cites a HSCA expert over a WCR there is a
reason.
>
> >You're in another ballpark you are so outta here!
>
> You've tried to impeach Frazier's testimony. Tis that simple.
Of course because two bullets can't cause 8 wounds, dent hardened
chrome and crack a windshield. If you want to believe in fairy tales
go for it.
>
> Or would you like to try for another lie and state for the record that you've
> accepted what Frazier said about what might have caused the chrome damage?
I never accepted it, my whole post was to show what a joke the WCR
is. I'm amazed you can't grasp this, but maybe it is you who supports
the WCR, sure sounds like it.
>
> >> By the way, you should read what Frazier had to say about a whole bullet and
> >> what it would do to the windshield. If you can't find it, I'll be happy to
> >> quote it.
So now you are using him as an expert witness? I don't really care
what he said as it is all junk. I will never believe two bullets did
all that damage.
>
> >Who cares?
>
> You should... you tried to argue that another bullet was needed for that task.
Most CTers have argued this for 44 years. Most CTers don't believe
only 3 shots were fired. LNers believe this so you are in their camp
on this issue.
>
> >What whole bullet could do this damage? That was my point,
> >they used their two already.
>
> A whole bullet COULD NOT HAVE DONE THAT DAMAGE! PERIOD!
>
> Just how silly do you want to be? The windshield damage, accepting *ONLY* what
> the WCR said about it, could *NOT* have been caused by a whole bullet. So
> nothing about the windshield can be used to support your argument that there
> were more bullets.
So what cracked it? How about the witnesses that said there was a
pencil sized hole in the glass? Boy, you really do believe the
official story don't you?
> >> >Whenever an official theory believer won't use someone from the WC
> >> >there is a reason. He want's to use Guinn, because he lied and said
> >> >the two fragments can be from the same bullet.
>
> >> If that's a "lie", then Frazier and Nicol said it as well. Where's your
> >> citation that they cannot be from the same bullet???
I give up. You have called me a liar and it has been in the post from
the beginning. Frazier is the one who said the two fragments couldn't
be determined be from the same bullet beyond a reasonable doubt. Did
you read nothing in my original post?
>
> >You just pasted it up top, here it is again.
>
> >> Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this **bullet fragment, 567;
> >> and 569 are portions of the originally same bullet?**
> >> Mr. FRAZIER - **No, sir.**
> >> Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
> >> Mr. FRAZIER - **There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated
> >> condition to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit together.**
> >> However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such as
> >> 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section of 569,
> >> so that they could be *parts of one bullet, and then, of course, they
> >> could be parts of separate bullets.*
>
> >On one hand they could be from bullet, but then again they may be from
> >two bullets. Sound firm to you? Not me.
>
> How stupid are you, Rob? IT'S NOT A LIE TO SAY THAT THE TWO FRAGMENTS CAN BE
> FROM THE SAME BULLET.
I never said it was Ben. You are the one fond of the words liar and
lying. I said if the two fragments can't be said to be from the same
bullet, and the only bullet we have to use is the head one, where
would the other fragment come from? That is my point. I love when
people are to slow to catch on but they call others stupid. You sound
like the LNers on this board.
>
> I don't know how Guinn phrased it, but you have the quote in front of you from
> Frazier saying that these two fragments could indeed have been part of one
> bullet.
You calling that tap dancing firm? The WCR is more firm in saying
they couldn't be said to be from the same bullet. Period.
>
> So when you claim that that assertion is a lie, it's *YOU* that's the liar.
No you are the liar, but now I'll just chalk it up to you being to
slow to figure all of this out. I'll do something you won't do for
me, I'll cut you a break.
>
> >> Either present your citation, Rob - or admit that you can't cite *ANY*
> >> authoritative source for your assertion that the two large fragments
> >> found in the limo can't be from the same bullet.
I presented my cite in the original post and if you had read it you
would know that. Let's end this as you are boring everyone on here.
Go back and read my original post.
>
> >Boy you are so full of attack, you can't see what is right in front of
> >you. Sad.
>
> Feel free, anytime, to provide a citation that the two larger fragments found in
> the limo CANNOT be part of the same bullet.
I did in my first post. You obviously have reading issues.
>
> You've not done so up until this point - and I strongly suspect that sooner or
> later you'll wake up, and read more carefully what the testimony actually says.
No, I hope you wake up and read my original post.
>
> Because if you don't - I'll just keep labeling you a liar for asserting that
> "[Guinn, Frazier, Nicol] lied and said the two fragments can be from the same
> bullet."
Guinn was the only one that said that, using NAA. Frazier said he
could not assert this. You can't even get this right. Let's end this
as it is embarrasing for the LNers to see this.
>
> They did not lie, and they did *INDEED* state that the two fragments could have
> come from the same bullet.
Pathetic.
>
> >> >It makes it easier for
> >> >him. You need to get up to speed here as this is old news.
>
> >> Sad to say, Rob - this *IS* old news to me. And, as I've just finished
> >> citing, Frazier does *NOT* assert what you evidently believe he said.
No, what you have asserted is you can't read.
>
> >Really? Sure could fool me.
>
> No, you can't fool an honest man. You're a liar, Rob. I strongly recommend
> that you stop, and read this post a number of times until it sinks in that
> you've been misrepresenting the testimony.
My dad taught me a long time ago, people accuse you of what they are
or do. Since you throw the word liar around so fast I'll assume you
are the liar. I'm not misrepresenting anything, you can't comprehend
it. Big difference.
>
> >> Once again, it's *you* that's spreading disinfo.
>
> >No, you are spreading your ignorance and hate.
>
> It's hardly "ignorance and hate" to tell the truth, Rob.
Once again, you belief that you and you only always speak the truth is
denial. I've read other posts saying you have been caught lying.
>
> Frazier, Nicol, (and I presume Guinn, although I've not looked it up) have
> stated that those two larger fragments *COULD HAVE* been parts of a single
> bullet. That's simply a fact. Like it or not - but call it a lie, and it's YOU
> that's the liar.- Hide quoted text -
justm...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is the third time you've given up....how about some duct tape for
that mouth of yours once and for all.
8-9 bullets? ROFLMAO No wonder people don't bother responding to your
idiocy. I bet right now you're stamping your feet and crying....poor
baby, no one agrees with his foolishness once again. Go scarf more
videos off the net, it keeps you from typing any more retarded
theories.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
I'm always happy to be "left with" the truth.
>If you can't state beyond doubt they
>came from one pencil the only other conclusion is they came from two
>pencils.
No, untrue. The inability to prove that the two fragments came from the same
bullet IS NOT 'PROOF' THAT THEY DID.
Your inability to admit this demonstrates your serious inability to follow
simple logic.
>This helps the CT case, by showing more bullets had to be
>fired. I'm not supporting the WCR at all.
Using only the WCR, it's not possible to prove that there were more than three
shots.
As you have so well demonstrated.
>> Just how difficult is this to understand?
>
>Not at all, you are saying you can't prove the two pieces came from
>one pencil, but you are also saying you can't say they are from two
>pencils. So what are you saying? You have to reach a concluson.
>Either both fragments come from the same source or they don't. Period.
The "conclusion", Rob - is that there is no proof either way.
You seem to believe that this *DOES* demonstrate that there must have been two
different bullets involved.
So tell us... what did that bullet strike that would have created a fragment?
It couldn't have been the chrome - Frazier testified to that, even though you
lied about it.
It couldn't have been the head shot - that provided the *OTHER* fragment.
It couldn't have been the 'SBT' shot - that was 'CE399'.
It couldn't have been the one that hit the window - again, although you
misrepresented Frazier's testimony - he makes it crystal clear that it could
*NOT* have been a whole bullet.
So tell us... what did that bullet strike?
For according to the WCR - there wasn't *ANYTHING* it could have struck to
create this fragment.
>> >2) The other issue was the dent in the chrome. Frazier surmised that
>> >one of the above fragments exited JFK's head and caused this.
>>
>> Yep... *NOT* a whole bullet. Thus, your argument that another bullet
>> was needed to damage the chrome has been demolished.
>
>No it hasn't. I don't buy for a second a fragment caused that kind of
>damage to hardened chrome. You sound like you are agreeing with
>Frazier and I'm not. I think he was full of shit.
So you *aren't* basing your argument on the evidence contained in the WCR.
You've destroyed your own theory... you *CANNOT* impugn the WCR without access
to evidence contained outside of it.
I've been saying this over and over, and you keep disagreeing with it.
Yet here, YOU PROVE ME CORRECT!
Although, you aren't using evidence, you're using your speculation. Have you
taken shots at hardened chrome and seen what would happen?
>> Care to admit this?
>
>Frazier is full of shit.
That means, of course, that *YOU* are.
You keep trying to prove that based entirely on the WCR - you can prove
additional shots.
You have *STILL* failed to do so.
>> >>Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567;
>> >>and 569 are portions of the originally same bullet?
>> >> Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
>>
>> >Point 1 above. "this" should be these to be proper English.
>>
>> >> Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
>> >> Mr. FRAZIER - There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated
>> >> condition to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit together.
>> >> However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such
>> >> as 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section of
>> >> 569, so that they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of course, they
>> >> could be parts of separate bullets.
>>
>> >Point 1 above.
>>
>> Sadly, you haven't made your point. THIS IS NOT PROOF THAT DEMANDS ANOTHER
>> BULLET.
>
>I give up. If the two fragments cannot be said to come from the same
>bullet then it has to be another bullet involved.
No, Rob - this is simply not true.
You can prove it to yourself by merely taking a pencil, snapping it into three
sections, and throwing away the middle section.
By *YOUR* logic, you must have originally had two pencils. Yet you *KNOW* that
you only had one.
This really isn't difficult to understand at all - which leads me to the
inevitable conclusion that you're another disinfo troll.
>The magical one is
>not an option, and the first one is not an option because it missed
>the car. Frazier is blaming one bullet, the head shot, for the damage
>to the head, the dent in the chrome and I guess the windshield. That
>is impossible. Period.
No, it's entirely 'possible'. And until you take the chrome, and an MC; and do
some experiments - you have *NOTHING* to base your opinions on.
Calling Frazier a liar without *ANYTHING* to back it up is beyond stupid.
Nor can it even be done using only the WCR.
>> >> But, regardless of the point that you misrepresent what Frazier
>> >> said, *NOW* you try to argue *AGAINST* what Frazier said on the
>> >> point concerning the chrome damage.
>
>I was never in agreement with Frazier, I thought he was a horse's ass
>from the beginning. You thought I was defending the WCR for some
>reason. I don't buy anything the man said.
At no point have I ever stated that you were "defending the WCR". So why not
provide the quote, or retract that statement?
And unless you can provide evidence contained WITHIN the WCR to demonstrate that
Frazier was wrong - you've proven *MY* thesis - that you cannot impugn the WCR
based only on the WCR. You *MUST* use evidence contained outside of it. You've
denied that each time I've said it, yet here you are, still stuck, and unable to
prove ANYTHING contrary to what the WCR said with reference only to the WCR.
Your opinion is not evidence.
>> >I haven't done anything, you have shown you have reading issues.
>>
>> You both used Frazier as an expert, then *DENIED WHAT FRAZIER STATED*
>
>I never used him as an expert, I simply wouldn't let DVP wiggle off
>the hook by using Guinn when he is the defender of the WCR. If he
>believes LHO did it then he has to deal with Frazier.
If you proclaim Frazier as an expert to contradict Guinn (and, of course, he
*doesn't* contradict Guinn on the two fragments possibly being from a single
bullet) then yes you did use Frazier as an expert.
You can't use him to "prove" what you believe, then deny his testimony on points
you don't like.
>> No "reading issues" needed. You believe that neither of the fragments could
>>have caused the chrome damage, Frazier *SPECIFICALLY* stated that either one of
>> them could have.
>
>Yes, but based on their size this is malarky.
No, you've presented no evidence that the size in anomolous.
Once again, you deny Frazier's clear testimony based *ONLY* on your opinion.
Yet you rely on his analysis that the two fragments could not be matched to a
single bullet.
>> Nor do you demonstrate your basic math skills - you just keep running
>> from that.
>>
>> So since *YOU* won't answer - I'll lay it out here. 161-(44+21)=96
>>
>> A fragment as large as 96 grains - or more than TWICE the size of the two
>> remaining fragments - could have hit the chrome and bounced out of the limo.
>> (obviously, I'm not accounting for the smaller fragments - but this would
>> not make a huge difference to the 96 grain size)
>
>SO you are defending Frazier and the WCR?
I'm proving that my thesis is correct, that the WCR cannot be impugned without
access to outside evidence. So far, you've presented Finck's testimony at the
Shaw trial, and your own opinion.
No-one who's ever read my series on the "Provable Lies of the Warren Commission"
would buy for an instant your silly assertion that I'm defending the WCR.
And if you don't like what Frazier said, then perhaps you shouldn't use it to
try to prove your thesis.
>I think two other bullets
>hit the limo at a minimum, probably three as there is more and more
>proof JFK may have been hit in the head twice. I think 8-9 shots were
>fired. I don't buy for a second fragments dented chrome. You still
>have the windshield to deal with.
None of which can be proven, or even *implied* by reading the WCR.
I'll just keep saying it until it sinks in, Rob - you cannot impugn the WCR
without using the same evidence that *THEY* used. Using -only- the WCR will
*NOT* give you anything to contradict it.
>> So not only did Frazier SPECIFICALLY state that either of the two larger
>> fragments, 44 & 21 grain fragments, could have caused the chrome damage, you
>> can't handle the basic math to realize that if you needed something bigger
>> - IT WAS THERE.
>
>Doubt it.
Yeah... just what I thought. You can't do basic math...
>If you want to buy fragments dented chrome instead of
>another bullet in all liklihood, go ahead. I won't pass judgement like
>you have.
You've called Frazier a liar, yet defended him in the statements that you like.
With *NO* supporting evidence.
That's how you defend a faith.
>> >> So I'm hardly "off base". You tried to use him favorably, then you
>> >> try to impeach him.
>
>I never used him favorably,
You're a liar, Rob.
Your thesis that the two fragments can't come from the same bullet DEPENDS
ENTIRELY ON HIS TESTIMONY.
>just held DVP to what he said when he ran
>to Guinn. Whenever a LNer cites a HSCA expert over a WCR there is a
>reason.
Guinn evidently said the same thing Frazier and Nicol said...
>> >You're in another ballpark you are so outta here!
>>
>> You've tried to impeach Frazier's testimony. Tis that simple.
>
>Of course because two bullets can't cause 8 wounds, dent hardened
>chrome and crack a windshield.
Sad to say, you've presented *NO* evidence otherwise.
>If you want to believe in fairy tales go for it.
You're the one trying to prove this based only on the WCR. Can't be done.
>> Or would you like to try for another lie and state for the record
>> that you've accepted what Frazier said about what might have caused
>> the chrome damage?
>
>I never accepted it, my whole post was to show what a joke the WCR
>is. I'm amazed you can't grasp this, but maybe it is you who supports
>the WCR, sure sounds like it.
Yet you believe Frazier regarding the two fragments. Sounds like you select
what you want to believe based on your faith. LNT'ers do this all the time.
>> >> By the way, you should read what Frazier had to say about a whole
>> >> bullet and what it would do to the windshield. If you can't find it,
>> >> I'll be happy to quote it.
>
>So now you are using him as an expert witness?
That *is* how the WCR used him.
You still don't seem to understand that you can't impugn the WCR by using only
the WCR.
>I don't really care what he said as it is all junk.
So you're on record as believing that a 6.5mm traveling at around 2,000 fps will
be unable to do anything more than crack a limo's windshield.
You are *really* demonstrating your stupidity now, Rob.
>I will never believe two bullets did all that damage.
Nothing wrong with that... the problem is that you CANNOT PROVE SUCH A THESIS
USING ONLY THE WCR.
You haven't so far, and it's clear that you never will.
>> >Who cares?
>>
>> You should... you tried to argue that another bullet was needed for
>> that task.
>
>Most CTers have argued this for 44 years.
Not based on the WCR.
>Most CTers don't believe
>only 3 shots were fired.
Not based on the WCR. Based on the *PRIMARY* evidence...
>LNers believe this so you are in their camp on this issue.
And you're a gutless cowardly liar, Rob.
>> >What whole bullet could do this damage? That was my point,
>> >they used their two already.
>>
>> A whole bullet COULD NOT HAVE DONE THAT DAMAGE! PERIOD!
>>
>> Just how silly do you want to be? The windshield damage, accepting
>> *ONLY* what the WCR said about it, could *NOT* have been caused by a
>> whole bullet. So nothing about the windshield can be used to support
>> your argument that there were more bullets.
>
>So what cracked it?
A fragment, according to the WCR. Why is that hard for you to accept? That
*IS* the evidence that the WCR presented.
Your thesis, that you can prove that wrong by using the WCR - has *STILL* not
been proven.
>How about the witnesses that said there was a
>pencil sized hole in the glass?
Wasn't in the WCR. Again, you're now proving *ME* right.
>Boy, you really do believe the
>official story don't you?
Your stupidity is really showing, Rob.
>> >> >Whenever an official theory believer won't use someone from the WC
>> >> >there is a reason. He want's to use Guinn, because he lied and said
>> >> >the two fragments can be from the same bullet.
>>
>> >> If that's a "lie", then Frazier and Nicol said it as well. Where's your
>> >> citation that they cannot be from the same bullet???
>
>I give up.
What an honest person would do is ADMIT THE TRUTH, not "give up".
>You have called me a liar and it has been in the post from
>the beginning.
You *DID* lie, Rob... you tried to tell everyone that Frazier referred to a
bullet, rather than a fragment. You tried to imply a velocity that Frazier
never asserted.
>Frazier is the one who said the two fragments couldn't
>be determined be from the same bullet beyond a reasonable doubt.
He did *NOT* say that they were from separate bullets, did he?
>Did you read nothing in my original post?
Read everything, and refuted it.
>> >You just pasted it up top, here it is again.
>>
>> >> Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this **bullet fragment, 567;
>> >> and 569 are portions of the originally same bullet?**
>> >> Mr. FRAZIER - **No, sir.**
>> >> Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
>> >> Mr. FRAZIER - **There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated
>>>> condition to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit together.**
>> >> However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such as
>> >> 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section of 569,
>> >> so that they could be *parts of one bullet, and then, of course, they
>> >> could be parts of separate bullets.*
>>
>> >On one hand they could be from bullet, but then again they may be from
>> >two bullets. Sound firm to you? Not me.
>>
>> How stupid are you, Rob? IT'S NOT A LIE TO SAY THAT THE TWO FRAGMENTS
>> CAN BE FROM THE SAME BULLET.
>
>I never said it was Ben. You are the one fond of the words liar and
>lying. I said if the two fragments can't be said to be from the same
>bullet, and the only bullet we have to use is the head one, where
>would the other fragment come from?
The other fragment came from the same place as the first fragment.
>That is my point. I love when
>people are to slow to catch on but they call others stupid. You sound
>like the LNers on this board.
You're a raving lunatic, Rob. But that's okay... I'll just keep pointing out
the truth.
You'd break the pencil into three sections, throw away the middle section, then
tell everyone that you've *PROVED* that you originally had two pencils.
>> I don't know how Guinn phrased it, but you have the quote in front of
>> you from Frazier saying that these two fragments could indeed have been
>> part of one bullet.
>
>You calling that tap dancing firm? The WCR is more firm in saying
>they couldn't be said to be from the same bullet. Period.
Yep... they couldn't have proven them to be from the same bullet.
You're a raving lunatic.
>> So when you claim that that assertion is a lie, it's *YOU* that's the liar.
>
>No you are the liar, but now I'll just chalk it up to you being to
>slow to figure all of this out. I'll do something you won't do for
>me, I'll cut you a break.
I have a feeling that you really don't realize what other people are thinking
when they read this.
>> >> Either present your citation, Rob - or admit that you can't cite *ANY*
>> >> authoritative source for your assertion that the two large fragments
>> >> found in the limo can't be from the same bullet.
>
>I presented my cite in the original post and if you had read it you
>would know that. Let's end this as you are boring everyone on here.
>Go back and read my original post.
Sorry Rob - you have *NOT* presented any authoritative citation to prove that
the two larger fragments found in the limo *CANNOT* be from the same bullet.
Nor will you ever be able to do so, absent some future scientific method or
technique that could.
>> >Boy you are so full of attack, you can't see what is right in front of
>> >you. Sad.
>>
>> Feel free, anytime, to provide a citation that the two larger fragments
>> found in the limo CANNOT be part of the same bullet.
>
>I did in my first post.
You're a liar, Rob. You've *NEVER* provided a citation that proves that the two
larger fragments found in the limo cannot be part of the same bullet.
> You obviously have reading issues.
I read quite well, thankyou.
>> You've not done so up until this point - and I strongly suspect that
>> sooner or later you'll wake up, and read more carefully what the
>> testimony actually says.
>
>No, I hope you wake up and read my original post.
I've refuted your original post quite thoroughly.
But feel free to try again.
>> Because if you don't - I'll just keep labeling you a liar for asserting that
>> "[Guinn, Frazier, Nicol] lied and said the two fragments can be from the
>> same bullet."
>
>Guinn was the only one that said that, using NAA. Frazier said he
>could not assert this. You can't even get this right. Let's end this
>as it is embarrasing for the LNers to see this.
Frazier did indeed state that it was possible for the two fragments to be from
the same bullet.
Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567; and 569 are
portions of the originally same bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
Mr. FRAZIER - There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated condition
to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit together.
However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such as 567,
which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section of 569, SO THAT
THEY COULD BE PARTS OF ONE BULLET, and then, of course, they could be parts of
separate bullets.
You're a bald-faced liar, Rob.
>> They did not lie, and they did *INDEED* state that the two fragments
>> could have come from the same bullet.
>
>Pathetic.
Liars always are, Rob. It's in black and white right above where I quoted
Frazier's testimony.
>> >> >It makes it easier for
>> >> >him. You need to get up to speed here as this is old news.
>>
>> >> Sad to say, Rob - this *IS* old news to me. And, as I've just finished
>> >> citing, Frazier does *NOT* assert what you evidently believe he said.
>
>No, what you have asserted is you can't read.
No-where does Frazier testify that the two large fragments found in the limo
cannot be from the same bullet.
>> >Really? Sure could fool me.
>>
>> No, you can't fool an honest man. You're a liar, Rob. I strongly recommend
>> that you stop, and read this post a number of times until it sinks in that
>> you've been misrepresenting the testimony.
>
>My dad taught me a long time ago, people accuse you of what they are
>or do. Since you throw the word liar around so fast I'll assume you
>are the liar. I'm not misrepresenting anything, you can't comprehend
>it. Big difference.
Frazier: "...SO THAT THEY COULD BE PARTS OF ONE BULLET..."
Lied, didn't you? You lied about "bullet/fragment", you lied about "high
velocity", and now you're lying about his testimony.
>> >> Once again, it's *you* that's spreading disinfo.
>>
>> >No, you are spreading your ignorance and hate.
>>
>> It's hardly "ignorance and hate" to tell the truth, Rob.
>
>Once again, you belief that you and you only always speak the truth is
>denial. I've read other posts saying you have been caught lying.
Yep... lot's of trolls assert that. Yet they never seem capable of quoting my
"lie", along with the citation that makes it so.
Nor will you be able to. You see, I QUOTE your words, then I cite the testimony
that proves it a lie.
You're a liar, Rob... Frazier said what you assert he didn't.
robcap...@netscape.com
Who the hell said they did? My whole point was Frazier said they
couldn't state *beyond any doubt* that the fragments came from the
SAME bullet, thus the chance they DID NOT was great. Since they had
no other bullet to have fragments come from this shot down their whole
3 shot/2 hit scenario. This is what I have been saying from the
beginning. I don't know what in the hell you are talking about.
>
> Your inability to admit this demonstrates your serious inability to follow
> simple logic.
No, it leaves me confused as you aren't saying anything in the same
ballpark as I was saying.
>
> >This helps the CT case, by showing more bullets had to be
> >fired. I'm not supporting the WCR at all.
>
> Using only the WCR, it's not possible to prove that there were more than three
> shots.
My God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think I have. Why aren't you getting
this? It is not that hard.
Per WCR:
3 bullets
1 hit = 7 wounds
1 hit = head shot
1 miss = Tague injury
2 fragments
1 dent in hardened chome
1 cracked windshield
1st shot = miss and injury to Tague
2nd shot = magic bullet and 7 wounds, more grains found in JBC's wrist
than is missing from the whole bullet (3.0/3.2 to 2.4)
3rd shot = head wound
Two fragments. Where did they come from? Can't be shot # 1 as it
missed. Can't be shot # 2 as there is more found in JBC's wrist than
is missing from CE399 already. Shot 3 is the only possibility
according to the WCR. Frazier says they can't prove beyond any doubt
that the two fragments (or any of the ones found in the bodies) in the
limo came from THE SAME BULLET. What does this mean? It means there
is a great chance they didn't, or he would have fudged and not said
this. IF both fragments can't come from shot # 3 where did they come
from? IF the fragments can't dent hardened chrome or crack a special
windshield, what caused this damage?
This was my point.
> As you have so well demonstrated.
Unbelievable.
>
> >> Just how difficult is this to understand?
>
> >Not at all, you are saying you can't prove the two pieces came from
> >one pencil, but you are also saying you can't say they are from two
> >pencils. So what are you saying? You have to reach a concluson.
> >Either both fragments come from the same source or they don't. Period.
I'm not saying anything, Frazier said they can't and believe me, if
the WCR admits this it means they can't. With all the lies they told
why not tell one more? Probably because some other group, i.e. FBI,
would not agree like they did to Nicol with the slugs taken from JDT.
If not from one, then they are most certainly from two and this has
been my one consistent point from the beginning, you just decide to
read it differently and call me a liar. Low class tactics in my book.
>
> The "conclusion", Rob - is that there is no proof either way.
Baloney, if there were proof they could match to one bullet, the WCR
would have been all over it to save their theory.
>
> You seem to believe that this *DOES* demonstrate that there must have been two
> different bullets involved.
Yes, common sense in my book based on what they are admitting
themselves.
>
> So tell us... what did that bullet strike that would have created a fragment?
> It couldn't have been the chrome - Frazier testified to that, even though you
> lied about it.
The same thing they claim it hit, JFK's head/skull. I have always
said a traditional full-metal jacketed bullet would not have
fragmented at all, and this is what LHO supposedly used, but we all
know it was not LHO and the person was using a fragmentation bullet.
I also agree with Walt in the sense that the fragments could have been
planted after the shooting. This is where the WCR implies the
fragments came from - the head shot, but they also say they definitely
say from the same bullet and this shoots their whole theory to hell.
>
> It couldn't have been the head shot - that provided the *OTHER* fragment.
I give up. Can someone else please explain this to Ben.
>
> It couldn't have been the 'SBT' shot - that was 'CE399'.
>
> It couldn't have been the one that hit the window - again, although you
> misrepresented Frazier's testimony - he makes it crystal clear that it could
> *NOT* have been a whole bullet.
Which bullet hit the windshield in the official theory? I don't know
of any. The only two hits according to the WCR hit flesh and bone.
>
> So tell us... what did that bullet strike?
What bullet? I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
>
> For according to the WCR - there wasn't *ANYTHING* it could have struck to
> create this fragment.
Please, help!
>
> >> >2) The other issue was the dent in the chrome. Frazier surmised that
> >> >one of the above fragments exited JFK's head and caused this.
>
> >> Yep... *NOT* a whole bullet. Thus, your argument that another bullet
> >> was needed to damage the chrome has been demolished.
If you want to believe in fairy tales and think a 44 grain or 21 grain
fragment can make a major dent in hardened chrome be my guest.
>
> >No it hasn't. I don't buy for a second a fragment caused that kind of
> >damage to hardened chrome. You sound like you are agreeing with
> >Frazier and I'm not. I think he was full of shit.
>
> So you *aren't* basing your argument on the evidence contained in the WCR.
Please help, anyone.
>
> You've destroyed your own theory... you *CANNOT* impugn the WCR without access
> to evidence contained outside of it.
Please help me. See the chart above.
>
> I've been saying this over and over, and you keep disagreeing with it.
>
> Yet here, YOU PROVE ME CORRECT!
I am beyond words. Help.
>
> Although, you aren't using evidence, you're using your speculation. Have you
> taken shots at hardened chrome and seen what would happen?
Please help me.
>
> >> Care to admit this?
>
> >Frazier is full of shit.
>
> That means, of course, that *YOU* are.
I think this is the most dense person I have ever talked with.
>
> You keep trying to prove that based entirely on the WCR - you can prove
> additional shots.
>
> You have *STILL* failed to do so.
Only in your odd mind.
> >> >>Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567;
> >> >>and 569 are portions of the originally same bullet?
> >> >> Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
>
> >> >Point 1 above. "this" should be these to be proper English.
>
> >> >> Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
> >> >> Mr. FRAZIER - There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated
> >> >> condition to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit together.
> >> >> However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such
> >> >> as 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section of
> >> >> 569, so that they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of course, they
> >> >> could be parts of separate bullets.
>
> >> >Point 1 above.
>
> >> Sadly, you haven't made your point. THIS IS NOT PROOF THAT DEMANDS ANOTHER
> >> BULLET.
>
> >I give up. If the two fragments cannot be said to come from the same
> >bullet then it has to be another bullet involved.
>
> No, Rob - this is simply not true.
If they can't come from the same bullet, explain how they got there
(beyond planting as we are sticking to the WCR parameters)?
>
> You can prove it to yourself by merely taking a pencil, snapping it into three
> sections, and throwing away the middle section.
Not the same in the least as you can't BALLISTICALLY match a pencil.
Poor example.
>
> By *YOUR* logic, you must have originally had two pencils. Yet you *KNOW* that
> you only had one.
Bullets and fragments don't work like pencils. IF they did, people
would use pencils to kill.
>
> This really isn't difficult to understand at all - which leads me to the
> inevitable conclusion that you're another disinfo troll.
It is extremely difficult for you to understand, so I must conclude
you are the troll. What name did you post under before? You mentioned
the 45 questions going up like 9-10 months ago, but your profile says
your first post was in Sept. of the year.
>
> >The magical one is
> >not an option, and the first one is not an option because it missed
> >the car. Frazier is blaming one bullet, the head shot, for the damage
> >to the head, the dent in the chrome and I guess the windshield. That
> >is impossible. Period.
>
> No, it's entirely 'possible'. And until you take the chrome, and an MC; and do
> some experiments - you have *NOTHING* to base your opinions on.
You are full of shit. Why would I do this test when even the WCR
never CLAIMED a bullet hit the chrome directly? What would me doing
this prove?
>
> Calling Frazier a liar without *ANYTHING* to back it up is beyond stupid.
You are a WCR defender, that is very obvious.
>
> Nor can it even be done using only the WCR.
If you can think it can.
>
> >> >> But, regardless of the point that you misrepresent what Frazier
> >> >> said, *NOW* you try to argue *AGAINST* what Frazier said on the
> >> >> point concerning the chrome damage.
You are confusing everyone in the world on this one. I have not
misrepresented anything as everyone can go to pages 76 & 77 of the WCR
and see exactly what Frazier said. I have no problem with that as my
point still stands.
>
> >I was never in agreement with Frazier, I thought he was a horse's ass
> >from the beginning. You thought I was defending the WCR for some
> >reason. I don't buy anything the man said.
>
> At no point have I ever stated that you were "defending the WCR". So why not
> provide the quote, or retract that statement?
I have done this, you need to keep up.
>
> And unless you can provide evidence contained WITHIN the WCR to demonstrate that
> Frazier was wrong -
About what? You aren't being specific here.
you've proven *MY* thesis - that you cannot impugn the WCR
> based only on the WCR.
Your thesis is wrong, see above.
You *MUST* use evidence contained outside of it.
No you don't because the WCR was written so poorly you can make points
based on what they wrote alone in this issue.
You've
> denied that each time I've said it, yet here you are, still stuck, and unable to
> prove ANYTHING contrary to what the WCR said with reference only to the WCR.
I think I have proved my point many times, you are the one not getting
it for some reason.
>
> Your opinion is not evidence.
I never said it was, this is what you say, your opinion is evidence in
your mind.
>
> >> >I haven't done anything, you have shown you have reading issues.
>
> >> You both used Frazier as an expert, then *DENIED WHAT FRAZIER STATED*
I never used him as an expert, the header in the WCR has him as an
"Expert Witness". I never called him an expert personally.
>
> >I never used him as an expert, I simply wouldn't let DVP wiggle off
> >the hook by using Guinn when he is the defender of the WCR. If he
> >believes LHO did it then he has to deal with Frazier.
>
> If you proclaim Frazier as an expert to contradict Guinn (and, of course, he
> *doesn't* contradict Guinn on the two fragments possibly being from a single
> bullet) then yes you did use Frazier as an expert.
What part of "it was not possible to determine whether two or more of
the fragments came from the same bullet" don't you get? The FBI and
Frazier said this, Guinn did not. The sentence below it is a bunch of
garble, "It is possible for the fragments from the front seat to have
been part of the same bullet as the three fragments found near the
jump seat, since a whole bullet of this type weighs 160-161 grains."
In one sentence we have the FBI saying it is not possible to say two
or more the fragments found in the limo and Parkland were from the
SAME bullet (Frazier agreed) and in the next the are insinuating it is
possible since they would fit the weight of a normal bullet. This
doesn't cut it for me. If it was possible, or more to the point, a
match then it counts. Being similar or possibly from the same bullet
would never hold up in a court of law, CT theories aside.
>
> You can't use him to "prove" what you believe, then deny his testimony on points
> you don't like.
I didn't use him, he said this after the FBI made the same types of
test. I had no belief when I went into this as I never knew the
fragments were matched as being the from the same bullet, I assumed
the WC covered themselves on this.
>
> >> No "reading issues" needed. You believe that neither of the fragments could
> >>have caused the chrome damage, Frazier *SPECIFICALLY* stated that either one of
> >> them could have.
If you want to believe Frazier go ahead, but I believe a full bullet
hit the chrome. I was questioning how a low-to-medium velocity rifle
(the alleged weapon) can produce a "faily high velocity" fragment or
anything else. Wouldn't the skull slow down the speed? It began
slower than "fairly high" to begin with, so how does it hit skull and
speed up?
>
> >Yes, but based on their size this is malarky.
>
> No, you've presented no evidence that the size in anomolous.
If you think a 44 grain or 21 grain fragment can cause a major dent in
the chrome then prove it. I have seen the dent and it is not a small
one.
>
> Once again, you deny Frazier's clear testimony based *ONLY* on your opinion.
> Yet you rely on his analysis that the two fragments could not be matched to a
> single bullet.
I think you have no real clear idea of what I was saying and instead
of trying to work it out,which I'm beginning to think is hopeless, you
start with calling me a liar. Not a nice move.
>
> >> Nor do you demonstrate your basic math skills - you just keep running
> >> from that.
>
> >> So since *YOU* won't answer - I'll lay it out here. 161-(44+21)=96
>
> >> A fragment as large as 96 grains - or more than TWICE the size of the two
> >> remaining fragments - could have hit the chrome and bounced out of the limo.
> >> (obviously, I'm not accounting for the smaller fragments - but this would
> >> not make a huge difference to the 96 grain size)
So you are saying Einstein that no fragment was left in the head? All
that gooey blood, tissue and gel matter, yet no fragment remains. You
have 96 making a dent and leaving the limo, and the other two on the
floor. That makes a lot of sense.
>
> >SO you are defending Frazier and the WCR?
>
> I'm proving that my thesis is correct, that the WCR cannot be impugned without
> access to outside evidence. So far, you've presented Finck's testimony at the
> Shaw trial, and your own opinion.
No, I have presented how it is impossible to account for the injuries
and damage with only two shots hitting the limo. If you can't get
this it is not my fault and certainly doesn't make me a LIAR.
>
> No-one who's ever read my series on the "Provable Lies of the Warren Commission"
> would buy for an instant your silly assertion that I'm defending the WCR.
Never even heard of this.
>
> And if you don't like what Frazier said, then perhaps you shouldn't use it to
> try to prove your thesis.
I never said it was a thesis, but I proved my point whether I like
Frazier or not.
>
> >I think two other bullets
> >hit the limo at a minimum, probably three as there is more and more
> >proof JFK may have been hit in the head twice. I think 8-9 shots were
> >fired. I don't buy for a second fragments dented chrome. You still
> >have the windshield to deal with.
>
> None of which can be proven, or even *implied* ...
Only in your wacky world.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
I meant to say "proof that they did not".
But it's actually an accurate statement either way. (Even if sloppily written
this way)
>My whole point was Frazier said they
>couldn't state *beyond any doubt* that the fragments came from the
>SAME bullet, thus the chance they DID NOT was great.
Oh???
You're improving! You used to say that this was proof that the two fragments
*DID* come from separate bullets... now you accept that it was merely a factor
of probability.
But you *STILL* have it wrong... the "chance" that they were from separate
bullets is not greater than the chance that they were from just one bullet.
Nor have you presented any evidence for such an assertion.
>Since they had
>no other bullet to have fragments come from this shot down their whole
>3 shot/2 hit scenario.
Sorry Rob... the 3 shot/2 hit scenario HAS NOT BEEN SHOT DOWN BY YOU.
Can't be done based only on the evidence given by the WCR.
Nor have you been able to do so.
>This is what I have been saying from the
>beginning. I don't know what in the hell you are talking about.
You can keep right on saying it as many times as you want. Won't make it true.
>> Your inability to admit this demonstrates your serious inability to follow
>> simple logic.
>
>No, it leaves me confused as you aren't saying anything in the same
>ballpark as I was saying.
Tell us about the two pencils, Rob.
You *KNOW* you only started with one... yet you *PROVED* that you must have
started with two.
>> >This helps the CT case, by showing more bullets had to be
>> >fired. I'm not supporting the WCR at all.
>>
>> Using only the WCR, it's not possible to prove that there were more than
>> three shots.
>
>My God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think I have. Why aren't you getting
>this? It is not that hard.
>
>Per WCR:
>3 bullets
>1 hit = 7 wounds
>1 hit = head shot
>1 miss = Tague injury
>2 fragments
>1 dent in hardened chome
>1 cracked windshield
>
>1st shot = miss and injury to Tague
Yep... tis true according to the WCR.
>2nd shot = magic bullet and 7 wounds,
Yep... tis true according to the WCR. Nor is it impossible, given only the
information give by the WCR.
>more grains found in JBC's wrist
>than is missing from the whole bullet (3.0/3.2 to 2.4)
Boing!!! Disqualified, Rob! Attempting to use evidence not contained in the
WCR. Yet again you prove *MY* thesis, and demonstrate that you can't prove
yours.
>3rd shot = head wound
Head shot fragments.... one goes to the chrome, one goes to the window. Nothing
impossible here, Rob.
>Two fragments. Where did they come from? Can't be shot # 1 as it
>missed.
Yep... that's what the WCR would agree with.
>Can't be shot # 2
Because that one is CE399 according to the WCR, and a bullet missing a few
grains at the most cannot also be missing a 44 grain and 21 grain fragments.
>as there is more found in JBC's wrist than
>is missing from CE399 already.
BOING!!! Disqualified again... shame on you Rob - you keep asserting that you
can prove the WCR wrong by only reading the WCR - and you keep failing to do so.
If you can't quote the WCR saying this, then why do you keep bringing it up?
>Shot 3 is the only possibility
>according to the WCR.
Yep... entirely logical. And entirely possible.
>Frazier says they can't prove beyond any doubt
>that the two fragments (or any of the ones found in the bodies) in the
>limo came from THE SAME BULLET.
He also states that he cannot prove that they didn't come from the same bullet.
Somehow, you just keep passing that statement right on by. Surely you haven't
forgotten it, since I've continuously been reminding you of it. Perhaps you're
just too dishonest to remember it?
>What does this mean?
It means that there's no proof that the 44 & 21 grain fragments belong to the
same bullet.
It means that there's no proof that the 44 & 21 grain fragments do not belong to
the same bullet.
You love statement #1 - and run from statement #2.
Rather cowardly, don't you think?
>It means there
>is a great chance they didn't, or he would have fudged and not said
>this.
Reading Frazier's mind now, are we?
Tell us about your two pencils.
>IF both fragments can't come from shot # 3
Who said that both fragments "can't come from shot #3?"
WHO SAID THAT BOTH FRAGMENTS "CAN'T COME FROM SHOT #3?"
You're a liar, Rob - for you're certainly trying to imply that someone asserted
this... and the only one who has is *you*.
>where did they come
>from?
From shot #3, of course. Going by what evidence is contained in the WCR, this
is the only *possible* solution.
>IF the fragments can't dent hardened chrome or crack a special
>windshield, what caused this damage?
Who said that fragments can't dent hardened chrome, Rob.
WHO SAID THAT FRAGMENTS CAN'T DENT HARDENED CHROME, ROB??
Lying again, aren't you? For the only one who *could* have said it is you.
>This was my point.
What, that you can only make a point by lying about the evidence?
>> As you have so well demonstrated.
>
>Unbelievable.
Yes, Rob... it *IS* unbelievable. You're sinking faster than almost any troll
I've seen.
Even cdddraftsman made an effort to stay relatively sane before it became
painfully obvious that he was a troll.
>> >> Just how difficult is this to understand?
>>
>> >Not at all, you are saying you can't prove the two pieces came from
>> >one pencil, but you are also saying you can't say they are from two
>> >pencils. So what are you saying? You have to reach a concluson.
>> >Either both fragments come from the same source or they don't. Period.
>
>I'm not saying anything,
You're responding to yourself.
>Frazier said they can't
No he didn't. You're a liar, Rob.
>and believe me, if
>the WCR admits this it means they can't. With all the lies they told
>why not tell one more? Probably because some other group, i.e. FBI,
>would not agree like they did to Nicol with the slugs taken from JDT.
>If not from one, then they are most certainly from two
Yet you've been totally unable to demonstrate anyone saying this, Rob... other
than yourself, that is.
>and this has
>been my one consistent point from the beginning, you just decide to
>read it differently and call me a liar. Low class tactics in my book.
You *ARE* a liar, Rob. No-where in the WCR does anyone state that the two
fragments cannot be from one bullet.
Nowhere in any testimony either.
Nowhere in any ballistics studies either.
>> The "conclusion", Rob - is that there is no proof either way.
>
>Baloney, if there were proof they could match to one bullet, the WCR
>would have been all over it to save their theory.
When you call everyone a liar who disputes your theory, you don't have a theory,
you have a faith.
I don't need faith, the evidence is quite clear that the WCR lied about the
evidence, and that the evidence shows more than three shots, and that there were
almost certainly *two* conspiracies, one to assassinate JFK, and one to cover it
up.
>> You seem to believe that this *DOES* demonstrate that there must have
>> been two different bullets involved.
>
>Yes, common sense in my book based on what they are admitting
>themselves.
"Common sense" requires lies, Rob?
>> So tell us... what did that bullet strike that would have created a
>> fragment? It couldn't have been the chrome - Frazier testified to that,
>> even though you lied about it.
>
>The same thing they claim it hit, JFK's head/skull.
But you were just asserting that it could *NOT* have been shot #3.
>I have always
>said a traditional full-metal jacketed bullet would not have
>fragmented at all,
Never fired FMJ ammo, have you?
>and this is what LHO supposedly used, but we all
>know it was not LHO and the person was using a fragmentation bullet.
Just for the fun of it, tell me what happens to a *non* FMJ bullet when it goes
through a human body.
It's not easily searchable - let's see if you can answer it.
>I also agree with Walt in the sense that the fragments could have been
>planted after the shooting.
It's certainly possible, but not based only on the evidence contained in the
WCR.
So once again, you prove my thesis correct, and yours wrong.
>This is where the WCR implies the
>fragments came from - the head shot, but they also say they definitely
>say from the same bullet and this shoots their whole theory to hell.
While I'm sure what you said is wrong, it was so mixed up that I don't know
where to start.
>> It couldn't have been the head shot - that provided the *OTHER* fragment.
>
>I give up. Can someone else please explain this to Ben.
Come on, Rob... you assert that you can impugn the WCR based only on the
evidence contained within it.
And yet, you keep failing to do so.
>> It couldn't have been the 'SBT' shot - that was 'CE399'.
>>
>> It couldn't have been the one that hit the window - again, although you
>> misrepresented Frazier's testimony - he makes it crystal clear that it could
>> *NOT* have been a whole bullet.
>
>Which bullet hit the windshield in the official theory? I don't know
>of any. The only two hits according to the WCR hit flesh and bone.
The "official theory" makes it crystal clear that it was *NOT* a whole bullet.
Nor could it have been.
>> So tell us... what did that bullet strike?
>
>What bullet? I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
Literacy is a huge problem in America.
You argue that the second of the two fragments came from another bullet. But
this mythical other bullet must have struck *something* to fragment... what did
it strike.
Tis a simple question... you should certainly find the answer *somewhere* in the
WCR, right? For if you can't, then your thesis is wrong, and I've been proven
correct again - you cannot impugn the WCR without access to the same evidence
that *they* relied on.
>> For according to the WCR - there wasn't *ANYTHING* it could have struck to
>> create this fragment.
>
>Please, help!
Surely you can ask the trolls for help... disinfo is their specialty.
>> >> >2) The other issue was the dent in the chrome. Frazier surmised that
>> >> >one of the above fragments exited JFK's head and caused this.
>>
>> >> Yep... *NOT* a whole bullet. Thus, your argument that another bullet
>> >> was needed to damage the chrome has been demolished.
>
>If you want to believe in fairy tales and think a 44 grain or 21 grain
>fragment can make a major dent in hardened chrome be my guest.
The only evidence contained in the WCR says that it can be. Until you can
locate something in the WCR that says otherwise, then your thesis remains
unproven, doesn't it?
>> >No it hasn't. I don't buy for a second a fragment caused that kind of
>> >damage to hardened chrome. You sound like you are agreeing with
>> >Frazier and I'm not. I think he was full of shit.
>>
>> So you *aren't* basing your argument on the evidence contained in the WCR.
>
>Please help, anyone.
This is really simple Rob - you can't impugn the WCR based only on the evidence
contained within the WCR.
You really *could* simply admit it - then I would have no problems with you
bringing in evidence from other sources.
>> You've destroyed your own theory... you *CANNOT* impugn the WCR without
>> access to evidence contained outside of it.
>
>Please help me. See the chart above.
Sorry, I've seen no chart above. You'll have to be more specific.
>> I've been saying this over and over, and you keep disagreeing with it.
>>
>> Yet here, YOU PROVE ME CORRECT!
>
>I am beyond words. Help.
But you aren't beyond lies, are you? You've lied a couple of times in this very
post - since we all know that no-one said what you implied was said, other than
yourself.
>> Although, you aren't using evidence, you're using your speculation. Have
>> you taken shots at hardened chrome and seen what would happen?
>
>Please help me.
I am. I'm pointing out your flaws of logic and lies.
>> >> Care to admit this?
>>
>> >Frazier is full of shit.
>>
>> That means, of course, that *YOU* are.
>
>I think this is the most dense person I have ever talked with.
Many people would tell you to look in a mirror. You've been caught lying a
number of times, yet you call *ME* the liar.
>> You keep trying to prove that based entirely on the WCR - you can prove
>> additional shots.
>>
>> You have *STILL* failed to do so.
>
>Only in your odd mind.
Oh, I'll let lurkers be the judge of that.
>> >> >>Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567;
>> >> >>and 569 are portions of the originally same bullet?
>> >> >> Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
>>
>> >> >Point 1 above. "this" should be these to be proper English.
>>
>> >> >> Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
>> >> >> Mr. FRAZIER - There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated
>>>> >> condition to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit together.
>> >> >> However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such
>> >> >> as 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section of
>>>> >> 569, so that they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of course, they
>> >> >> could be parts of separate bullets.
>>
>> >> >Point 1 above.
>>
>> >> Sadly, you haven't made your point. THIS IS NOT PROOF THAT DEMANDS
>> >> ANOTHER BULLET.
>>
>> >I give up. If the two fragments cannot be said to come from the same
>> >bullet then it has to be another bullet involved.
>>
>> No, Rob - this is simply not true.
>
>If they can't come from the same bullet, explain how they got there
>(beyond planting as we are sticking to the WCR parameters)?
Tell us where the other pencil came from, Rob?
>> You can prove it to yourself by merely taking a pencil, snapping it
>> into three sections, and throwing away the middle section.
>
>Not the same in the least as you can't BALLISTICALLY match a pencil.
>Poor example.
Sure you can... both pieces are the same factory color.
Now tell us where the other pencil came from... after all, I'M USING YOUR
PRECISE LOGIC.
>> By *YOUR* logic, you must have originally had two pencils. Yet you
>> *KNOW* that you only had one.
>
>Bullets and fragments don't work like pencils. IF they did, people
>would use pencils to kill.
Where'd the other pencil come from, Rob? You *KNOW* you only started with
one... yet you just proved that you originally had two.
(By the way, given a hacksaw and hammer, I can throw away the pencil and do this
with a bullet as well... so you can stop with the "ballistic" matching nonsense)
>> This really isn't difficult to understand at all - which leads me to the
>> inevitable conclusion that you're another disinfo troll.
>
>It is extremely difficult for you to understand, so I must conclude
>you are the troll. What name did you post under before? You mentioned
>the 45 questions going up like 9-10 months ago, but your profile says
>your first post was in Sept. of the year.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Another Internet newbie!!!
You may happily search under 'bnho...@rain.org'.
>> >The magical one is
>> >not an option, and the first one is not an option because it missed
>> >the car. Frazier is blaming one bullet, the head shot, for the damage
>> >to the head, the dent in the chrome and I guess the windshield. That
>> >is impossible. Period.
>>
>> No, it's entirely 'possible'. And until you take the chrome, and an MC;
>> and do some experiments - you have *NOTHING* to base your opinions on.
>
>You are full of shit.
To say that you should have evidence for your beliefs? What sort of world do
you live in?
>Why would I do this test when even the WCR never CLAIMED a bullet hit the
>chrome directly? What would me doing this prove?
So you'd prefer your own faith and speculation to facts...
>> Calling Frazier a liar without *ANYTHING* to back it up is beyond stupid.
>
>You are a WCR defender, that is very obvious.
It doesn't need defending from you. I merely keep lurkers from thinking that
all CT'ers should be judged by your lies.
>> Nor can it even be done using only the WCR.
>
>If you can think it can.
Hmmm... I think I'll let that one pass...
>> >> >> But, regardless of the point that you misrepresent what Frazier
>> >> >> said, *NOW* you try to argue *AGAINST* what Frazier said on the
>> >> >> point concerning the chrome damage.
>
>You are confusing everyone in the world on this one.
No, not at all. You tried to use Frazier as an expert witness, then deny what
he said is the truth where it conflicts with your faith.
>I have not
>misrepresented anything as everyone can go to pages 76 & 77 of the WCR
>and see exactly what Frazier said.
Sadly, if I hadn't done exactly that - people might have believed what you
*SAID* the WCR said Frazier asserted.
But we know now that it wasn't true at all, don't we?
>I have no problem with that as my
>point still stands.
The evidence which supported your point disappeared when the truth about what
Frazier asserted came out.
What other evidence did you have?
>> >I was never in agreement with Frazier, I thought he was a horse's ass
>> >from the beginning. You thought I was defending the WCR for some
>> >reason. I don't buy anything the man said.
>>
>> At no point have I ever stated that you were "defending the WCR". So
>> why not provide the quote, or retract that statement?
>
>I have done this, you need to keep up.
Rob, the place to retract your assertion about what I said is right here - or to
quote me actually saying such.
You're a liar, Rob... and I even gave you the opportunity this time to make your
statement right before labeling you a liar yet again.
So tell us, just how stupid do you think other readers are? They see you making
an assertion about what I said - I not only deny it, but challenge you to quote
it, and all you can say is "I have done this, you need to keep up"
How can you have "done this" when the question was asked here?
You're not just a liar Rob - you're a coward as well. Cowards can't support
their own words.
>> And unless you can provide evidence contained WITHIN the WCR to demonstrate
>> that Frazier was wrong -
>
>About what? You aren't being specific here.
You're now on record as disbelieving him when he said the fragments could have
been from the same bullet, when he spoke of "high velocity" being a lower speed
than normal, when he mentioned that a whole bullet will *NOT* crack a
windshield, but go right through it, and when he said that it was a fragment
that caused the chrome damage.
So *EVERY* assertion of Frazier's that have been mentioned in your posts -
you've disagreed with.
So why duck and run, Rob? Just answer the question.
>> you've proven *MY* thesis - that you cannot impugn the WCR
>> based only on the WCR.
>
>Your thesis is wrong, see above.
Nowhere can anyone find anything you've said so far that refutes my thesis.
>> You *MUST* use evidence contained outside of it.
>
>No you don't because the WCR was written so poorly you can make points
>based on what they wrote alone in this issue.
And yet, you've been completely unable to do so - based only on what they
provided as evidence.
Your opinion is not evidence.
>> You've denied that each time I've said it, yet here you are, still stuck,
>> and unable to prove ANYTHING contrary to what the WCR said with reference
>> only to the WCR.
>
>I think I have proved my point many times, you are the one not getting
>it for some reason.
You've demonstrated your willingness to lie many times...
>> Your opinion is not evidence.
>
>I never said it was, this is what you say, your opinion is evidence in
>your mind.
Anytime you'd like to cite the WCR, go right ahead.
But so far, your citations have been proven to be lies... and you stopped giving
them.
>> >> >I haven't done anything, you have shown you have reading issues.
>>
>> >> You both used Frazier as an expert, then *DENIED WHAT FRAZIER STATED*
>
>I never used him as an expert, the header in the WCR has him as an
>"Expert Witness". I never called him an expert personally.
You're a liar, Rob. Your original thesis was *built* on a foundation of a lie
about what he said.
>> >I never used him as an expert, I simply wouldn't let DVP wiggle off
>> >the hook by using Guinn when he is the defender of the WCR. If he
>> >believes LHO did it then he has to deal with Frazier.
>>
>> If you proclaim Frazier as an expert to contradict Guinn (and, of course, he
>> *doesn't* contradict Guinn on the two fragments possibly being from a single
>> bullet) then yes you did use Frazier as an expert.
>
>What part of "it was not possible to determine whether two or more of
>the fragments came from the same bullet" don't you get?
What part of that statement proves that they cannot be?
>The FBI and
>Frazier said this, Guinn did not. The sentence below it is a bunch of
>garble, "It is possible for the fragments from the front seat to have
>been part of the same bullet as the three fragments found near the
>jump seat, since a whole bullet of this type weighs 160-161 grains."
>In one sentence we have the FBI saying it is not possible to say two
>or more the fragments found in the limo and Parkland were from the
>SAME bullet (Frazier agreed) and in the next the are insinuating it is
>possible since they would fit the weight of a normal bullet.
Yep... perfectly understandable.
>This
>doesn't cut it for me. If it was possible, or more to the point, a
>match then it counts. Being similar or possibly from the same bullet
>would never hold up in a court of law, CT theories aside.
Tell us where the second pencil came from.
>> You can't use him to "prove" what you believe, then deny his testimony
>> on points you don't like.
>
>I didn't use him,
You're a liar, Rob. Frazier is one of only a few WCR witnesses we have
repeatedly discussed.
>he said this after the FBI made the same types of test.
Frazier *IS* FBI... it was *HE* that made the tests. Why not take the time to
do some reading *OUTSIDE* of the WCR... start with the eyewitnesses, and move
through the 26 volumes... you'd look far less stupid... and unable to come up
with whoppers like this one.
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, will you give your name and position?
Mr. FRAZIER - Robert A. Frazier, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
assigned to the FBI Laboratory, Washington, D.C.
>I had no belief when I went into this as I never knew the
>fragments were matched as being the from the same bullet, I assumed
>the WC covered themselves on this.
>>
>> >> No "reading issues" needed. You believe that neither of the
>> >> fragments could have caused the chrome damage, Frazier *SPECIFICALLY*
>> >> stated that either one of them could have.
>
>If you want to believe Frazier go ahead, but I believe a full bullet
>hit the chrome.
Belief is not proof. Nor does it prove your thesis that you can impugn the WCR
by only reading the WCR.
>I was questioning how a low-to-medium velocity rifle
>(the alleged weapon) can produce a "faily high velocity" fragment or
>anything else.
Once again, you lie, don't you? I've even *quoted* Frazier on this topic, yet
you still insist on using his words in a dishonest manner.
I killfiled Buddy the troll for far less lying than this...
>Wouldn't the skull slow down the speed? It began
>slower than "fairly high" to begin with, so how does it hit skull and
>speed up?
Tell us, does Frazier say that "fairly high velocity" is faster or slower than a
normal velocity bullet?
I really don't expect a coward like you to answer this...
>> >Yes, but based on their size this is malarky.
>>
>> No, you've presented no evidence that the size in anomolous.
>
>If you think a 44 grain or 21 grain fragment can cause a major dent in
>the chrome then prove it. I have seen the dent and it is not a small
>one.
Based only on the WCR, which is *YOUR* thesis... Frazier "proves" it.
>> Once again, you deny Frazier's clear testimony based *ONLY* on your
>> opinion. Yet you rely on his analysis that the two fragments could
>> not be matched to a single bullet.
>
>I think you have no real clear idea of what I was saying and instead
>of trying to work it out,which I'm beginning to think is hopeless, you
>start with calling me a liar. Not a nice move.
You're a liar, Rob.
You relied on his testimony... you can't provide anything in it's place... yet
you deny that you relied on his testimony.
>> >> Nor do you demonstrate your basic math skills - you just keep running
>> >> from that.
>>
>> >> So since *YOU* won't answer - I'll lay it out here. 161-(44+21)=96
>>
>> >> A fragment as large as 96 grains - or more than TWICE the size of the two
>>>> remaining fragments - could have hit the chrome and bounced out of the limo.
>> >> (obviously, I'm not accounting for the smaller fragments - but this would
>> >> not make a huge difference to the 96 grain size)
>
>So you are saying Einstein that no fragment was left in the head? All
>that gooey blood, tissue and gel matter, yet no fragment remains. You
>have 96 making a dent and leaving the limo, and the other two on the
>floor. That makes a lot of sense.
Go ahead, Rob... tell us, using the WCR, how many grains of bullet fragments
remained in JFK's head?
In fact, can you even tell us the size of the *LARGEST* fragment pulled out of
JFK's head? (Hint, it was pulled out from the region behind the right eye)
>> >SO you are defending Frazier and the WCR?
>>
>> I'm proving that my thesis is correct, that the WCR cannot be impugned
>> without access to outside evidence. So far, you've presented Finck's
>> testimony at the Shaw trial, and your own opinion.
>
>No, I have presented how it is impossible to account for the injuries
>and damage with only two shots hitting the limo.
You haven't done that yet. Merely asserting it isn't going to get you anywhere.
>If you can't get
>this it is not my fault and certainly doesn't make me a LIAR.
You lie about the evidence, Rob.
>> No-one who's ever read my series on the "Provable Lies of the Warren
>> Commission" would buy for an instant your silly assertion that I'm
>> defending the WCR.
>
>Never even heard of this.
Then by all means, locate it, and try answering them... there's 20 some posts in
that series, as I recall.
>> And if you don't like what Frazier said, then perhaps you shouldn't
>> use it to try to prove your thesis.
>
>I never said it was a thesis, but I proved my point whether I like
>Frazier or not.
No, you don't. You haven't. All you've done is lied repeatedly about Frazier
and his testimony.
>> >I think two other bullets
>> >hit the limo at a minimum, probably three as there is more and more
>> >proof JFK may have been hit in the head twice. I think 8-9 shots were
>> >fired. I don't buy for a second fragments dented chrome. You still
>> >have the windshield to deal with.
>>
>> None of which can be proven, or even *implied* ...
>
>Only in your wacky world.
Then all you have to do is provide the WCR citation that proves it - yet you
hesitate. Why is that, Rob?
robcap...@netscape.com
Prove that they did, the FBI and Frazier couldn't so let's see Ben do
it.
>
> >My whole point was Frazier said they
> >couldn't state *beyond any doubt* that the fragments came from the
> >SAME bullet, thus the chance they DID NOT was great.
>
> Oh???
>
> You're improving! You used to say that this was proof that the two fragments
> *DID* come from separate bullets... now you accept that it was merely a factor
> of probability.
>
> But you *STILL* have it wrong... the "chance" that they were from separate
> bullets is not greater than the chance that they were from just one bullet.
NO it isn't, if it was they would have said this. There would have
been no need to say they couldn't say they came from the same bullet
if they could match them to the same bullet. Prove what you say, that
they came from one bullet.
>
> Nor have you presented any evidence for such an assertion.
I have presented more than you, it is your turn to prove. Prove the
two fragments came from the same bullet.
>
> >Since they had
> >no other bullet to have fragments come from this shot down their whole
> >3 shot/2 hit scenario.
>
> Sorry Rob... the 3 shot/2 hit scenario HAS NOT BEEN SHOT DOWN BY YOU.
Prove it. Stop asserting so and prove it.
>
> Can't be done based only on the evidence given by the WCR.
Stop asserting and prove it.
>
> Nor have you been able to do so.
Stop asserting and prove it.
>
> >This is what I have been saying from the
> >beginning. I don't know what in the hell you are talking about.
>
> You can keep right on saying it as many times as you want. Won't make it true.
Stop asserting and prove it to be false.
>
> >> Your inability to admit this demonstrates your serious inability to follow
> >> simple logic.
>
> >No, it leaves me confused as you aren't saying anything in the same
> >ballpark as I was saying.
>
> Tell us about the two pencils, Rob.
Two pencils? What the heck do two pencils have to do with anything?
Prove what you assert.
>
> You *KNOW* you only started with one... yet you *PROVED* that you must have
> started with two.
No I didn't, I said the WCR said they had results from one that could
not be exclusivley tied to that one. Get it right.
> >> >This helps the CT case, by showing more bullets had to be
> >> >fired. I'm not supporting the WCR at all.
>
> >> Using only the WCR, it's not possible to prove that there were more than
> >> three shots.
Stop asserting and prove it. I have been doing all the scrambling and
the more I give the more you ignore. It is time for you to start
proving what you *assert*.
>
> >My God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think I have. Why aren't you getting
> >this? It is not that hard.
>
> >Per WCR:
> >3 bullets
> >1 hit = 7 wounds
> >1 hit = head shot
> >1 miss = Tague injury
> >2 fragments
> >1 dent in hardened chome
> >1 cracked windshield
>
> >1st shot = miss and injury to Tague
>
> Yep... tis true according to the WCR.
>
> >2nd shot = magic bullet and 7 wounds,
>
> Yep... tis true according to the WCR. Nor is it impossible, given only the
> information give by the WCR.
>
> >more grains found in JBC's wrist
> >than is missing from the whole bullet (3.0/3.2 to 2.4)
>
> Boing!!! Disqualified, Rob! Attempting to use evidence not contained in the
> WCR. Yet again you prove *MY* thesis, and demonstrate that you can't prove
> yours.
Wrong, this was known before the Shaw trial as you mentioned, Finck
mentioned this to the WCR during the investigation. They chose to
ignore it, so again, I ask how can I use what the WCR used when they
didn't list all the things they ignored, omitted or changed? They had
this, but did not put it in, but any person interested in this should
know this. You are splitting hairs to make yourself look good. In the
meanwhile you are supporting the WCR MORE than it would have been on
this board.
>
> >3rd shot = head wound
>
> Head shot fragments.... one goes to the chrome, one goes to the window. Nothing
> impossible here, Rob.
Sure, if you believe in fairy tales and magic bullets/fragments I
guess not.
>
> >Two fragments. Where did they come from? Can't be shot # 1 as it
> >missed.
>
> Yep... that's what the WCR would agree with.
>
> >Can't be shot # 2
>
> Because that one is CE399 according to the WCR, and a bullet missing a few
> grains at the most cannot also be missing a 44 grain and 21 grain fragments.
>
> >as there is more found in JBC's wrist than
> >is missing from CE399 already.
>
> BOING!!! Disqualified again... shame on you Rob - you keep asserting that you
> can prove the WCR wrong by only reading the WCR - and you keep failing to do so.
> If you can't quote the WCR saying this, then why do you keep bringing it up?
Because it was contained in other things around the same time, i.e.
they mentioned the lost weight of the magic bullet, 2.4 grains, how
can a 21 or 44 grain fragment come from a bullet that is only missing
2.4 grains? So even with JBC aside this is impossible. BOING!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >Shot 3 is the only possibility
> >according to the WCR.
>
> Yep... entirely logical. And entirely possible.
>
> >Frazier says they can't prove beyond any doubt
> >that the two fragments (or any of the ones found in the bodies) in the
> >limo came from THE SAME BULLET.
>
> He also states that he cannot prove that they didn't come from the same bullet.
Prove it, where does he say this? That crap you showed me from the WC
testimony was tap dancing. It can't be both, it has to be from or not
from one bullet. The FBI also said no way.
>
> Somehow, you just keep passing that statement right on by. Surely you haven't
> forgotten it, since I've continuously been reminding you of it. Perhaps you're
> just too dishonest to remember it?
Reminding me of what? ON one hand they aren't from the same bullet,
but on the other they are? What kind of crap is this? Who in their
right frame of mind would believe this garbage?
>
> >What does this mean?
>
> It means that there's no proof that the 44 & 21 grain fragments belong to the
> same bullet.
>
> It means that there's no proof that the 44 & 21 grain fragments do not belong to
> the same bullet.
Wrong as usual. They ran test on these fragments and the bullet found
at Parkland. There are two possible outcomes - they match or they
don't match. ONCE they say they can't say definitively say they come
from the same, the only other outcome is they aren't from the same
bullet. Quit sitting on the fence, you are as bad as the WC.
>
> You love statement #1 - and run from statement #2.
>
> Rather cowardly, don't you think?
Who running moron? How does a 44 or 21 grain fragment come from a
bullet that is only missing 2.4 grains (and this was known by the WCR
and is in the report)? Prove your assertion.
>
> >It means there
> >is a great chance they didn't, or he would have fudged and not said
> >this.
>
> Reading Frazier's mind now, are we?
NO, I'm reading where there test failed to confirm they were from the
same bullet.
>
> Tell us about your two pencils.
>
> >IF both fragments can't come from shot # 3
>
> Who said that both fragments "can't come from shot #3?"
The FBI and Frazier.
>
> WHO SAID THAT BOTH FRAGMENTS "CAN'T COME FROM SHOT #3?"
Are you deaf, the FBI and Frazier.
>
> You're a liar, Rob - for you're certainly trying to imply that someone asserted
> this... and the only one who has is *you*.
No you are a moron for thinking if they can't match the fragments to
the same bullet and say so, that there is a greater chance they can.
You make less sense than the WCR.
>
> >where did they come
> >from?
>
> From shot #3, of course. Going by what evidence is contained in the WCR, this
> is the only *possible* solution.
You have the problem of them saying they couldn't match BOTH fragments
to this shot though. Prove them wrong.
>
> >IF the fragments can't dent hardened chrome or crack a special
> >windshield, what caused this damage?
>
> Who said that fragments can't dent hardened chrome, Rob.
Anyone with a brain. Prove me wrong. Stop asserting they can and
prove it.
>
> WHO SAID THAT FRAGMENTS CAN'T DENT HARDENED CHROME, ROB??
See above.
>
> Lying again, aren't you? For the only one who *could* have said it is you.
NO, you are lying now. Prove it then. Take a 44 grain or 21 grain
fragment and show us you can dent hardened chrome. I'm will watch the
film.
>
> >This was my point.
Your point, like you, is full of shit.
>
> What, that you can only make a point by lying about the evidence?
Who lied? You are by saying despite them admitting to something, there
is a greater chance they are wrong. Stop asserting and prove it.
>
> >> As you have so well demonstrated.
>
> >Unbelievable.
>
> Yes, Rob... it *IS* unbelievable. You're sinking faster than almost any troll
> I've seen.
You are the troll Ben. I would love to know who you really are.
>
> Even cdddraftsman made an effort to stay relatively sane before it became
> painfully obvious that he was a troll.
Sure.
>
> >> >> Just how difficult is this to understand?
>
> >> >Not at all, you are saying you can't prove the two pieces came from
> >> >one pencil, but you are also saying you can't say they are from two
> >> >pencils. So what are you saying? You have to reach a concluson.
> >> >Either both fragments come from the same source or they don't. Period.
>
> >I'm not saying anything,
>
> You're responding to yourself.
>
> >Frazier said they can't
>
> No he didn't. You're a liar, Rob.
Prove it and stop asserting.
>
> >and believe me, if
> >the WCR admits this it means they can't. With all the lies they told
> >why not tell one more? Probably because some other group, i.e. FBI,
> >would not agree like they did to Nicol with the slugs taken from JDT.
> >If not from one, then they are most certainly from two
>
> Yet you've been totally unable to demonstrate anyone saying this, Rob... other
> than yourself, that is.
I have proved it as the FBI did the test. Get up to speed troll.
>
> >and this has
> >been my one consistent point from the beginning, you just decide to
> >read it differently and call me a liar. Low class tactics in my book.
>
> You *ARE* a liar, Rob. No-where in the WCR does anyone state that the two
> fragments cannot be from one bullet.
You are blind and dumb. Page 77 (first full paragraph) was the FBI
tested all the fragments and the bullet found at Parkland Hospital and
was determined they were "similar" in metallic composition, BUT is was
**not possible** to determine whether two or more of the fragments
came from the SAME bullet. How is this lying? What part of the NOT
POSSIBLE don't you get?
>
> Nowhere in any testimony either.
You have been shown to be a liar.
>
> Nowhere in any ballistics studies either.
Really? Sure could fool me if you look at page 77.
>
> >> The "conclusion", Rob - is that there is no proof either way.
Sure, if they say NOT POSSIBLE you can say it is, but then the proof
is on you. Start proving and stop asserting.
>
> >Baloney, if there were proof they could match to one bullet, the WCR
> >would have been all over it to save their theory.
>
> When you call everyone a liar who disputes your theory, you don't have a theory,
> you have a faith.
No just you.
>
> I don't need faith, the evidence is quite clear that the WCR lied about the
> evidence, and that the evidence shows more than three shots, and that there were
> almost certainly *two* conspiracies, one to assassinate JFK, and one to cover it
> up.
Sure, you could fool me.
>
> >> You seem to believe that this *DOES* demonstrate that there must have
> >> been two different bullets involved.
>
> >Yes, common sense in my book based on what they are admitting
> >themselves.
>
> "Common sense" requires lies, Rob?
Not if you have a functioning brain.
>
> >> So tell us... what did that bullet strike that would have created a
> >> fragment? It couldn't have been the chrome - Frazier testified to that,
> >> even though you lied about it.
>
> >The same thing they claim it hit, JFK's head/skull.
>
> But you were just asserting that it could *NOT* have been shot #3.
NO I was saying shot #3 could not have produced both fragments based
on the test results of the FBI and Frazier.
>
> >I have always
> >said a traditional full-metal jacketed bullet would not have
> >fragmented at all,
>
> Never fired FMJ ammo, have you?
Sure have, and they do not fragment like that shot. Never heard of the
Geneva Convention, huh?
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
I've never asserted that it *can* be proven. Tell us, Rob - where did your
second pencil go?
And prove that the sandblasted car must have been painted red. (since you
cannot prove it was painted green)
>> >My whole point was Frazier said they
>> >couldn't state *beyond any doubt* that the fragments came from the
>> >SAME bullet, thus the chance they DID NOT was great.
>>
>> Oh???
>>
>> You're improving! You used to say that this was proof that the two
>> fragments *DID* come from separate bullets... now you accept that it was
>> merely a factor of probability.
>>
>> But you *STILL* have it wrong... the "chance" that they were from separate
>> bullets is not greater than the chance that they were from just one bullet.
>
>NO it isn't, if it was they would have said this.
They did.
>There would have
>been no need to say they couldn't say they came from the same bullet
>if they could match them to the same bullet.
If they couldn't match them, then you think that they are not allowed to say
this? How silly!
Where's your second pencil, Rob?
>Prove what you say, that
>they came from one bullet.
No Rob, I said that it cannot be proven.
>> Nor have you presented any evidence for such an assertion.
>
>I have presented more than you, it is your turn to prove. Prove the
>two fragments came from the same bullet.
Prove that you had two pencils, Rob.
>> >Since they had
>> >no other bullet to have fragments come from this shot down their whole
>> >3 shot/2 hit scenario.
>>
>> Sorry Rob... the 3 shot/2 hit scenario HAS NOT BEEN SHOT DOWN BY YOU.
>
>Prove it. Stop asserting so and prove it.
It's quite simple, Rob - you haven't presented *anything* that would dispute the
WCR.
And based entirely on the WCR, it can't be done.
>> Can't be done based only on the evidence given by the WCR.
>
>Stop asserting and prove it.
I just have.
By your inability to show otherwise, it's proven.
>> Nor have you been able to do so.
>
>Stop asserting and prove it.
I have, with your help.
>> >This is what I have been saying from the
>> >beginning. I don't know what in the hell you are talking about.
>>
>> You can keep right on saying it as many times as you want. Won't make
>> it true.
>
>Stop asserting and prove it to be false.
Been there, done that.
>> >> Your inability to admit this demonstrates your serious inability to follow
>> >> simple logic.
>>
>> >No, it leaves me confused as you aren't saying anything in the same
>> >ballpark as I was saying.
>>
>> Tell us about the two pencils, Rob.
>
>Two pencils? What the heck do two pencils have to do with anything?
You started with one - yet you can't prove that the two remaining pieces came
from only one pencil - therefore you MUST have had two pencils.
Where did the second pencil come from, Rob?
>Prove what you assert.
Your inability to tell us about that second pencil *IS* the proof, Rob.
>> You *KNOW* you only started with one... yet you *PROVED* that you must have
>> started with two.
>
>No I didn't, I said the WCR said they had results from one that could
>not be exclusivley tied to that one. Get it right.
You have two pieces of a pencil that you know CANNOT BE EXCLUSIVLY TIED TO ONE
PENCIL.
Where's the other pencil, Rob? Where did it come from?
>> >> >This helps the CT case, by showing more bullets had to be
>> >> >fired. I'm not supporting the WCR at all.
>>
>> >> Using only the WCR, it's not possible to prove that there were more than
>> >> three shots.
>
>Stop asserting and prove it.
Your inability to provide a counter-example *IS* the proof, Rob.
>I have been doing all the scrambling and
>the more I give the more you ignore. It is time for you to start
>proving what you *assert*.
Your "scrambling" *IS* the proof I need, Rob.
>> >My God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think I have. Why aren't you getting
>> >this? It is not that hard.
>>
>> >Per WCR:
>> >3 bullets
>> >1 hit = 7 wounds
>> >1 hit = head shot
>> >1 miss = Tague injury
>> >2 fragments
>> >1 dent in hardened chome
>> >1 cracked windshield
>>
>> >1st shot = miss and injury to Tague
>>
>> Yep... tis true according to the WCR.
>>
>> >2nd shot = magic bullet and 7 wounds,
>>
>> Yep... tis true according to the WCR. Nor is it impossible, given only the
>> information give by the WCR.
>>
>> >more grains found in JBC's wrist
>> >than is missing from the whole bullet (3.0/3.2 to 2.4)
>>
>> Boing!!! Disqualified, Rob! Attempting to use evidence not contained
>> in the WCR. Yet again you prove *MY* thesis, and demonstrate that you
>> can't prove yours.
>
>Wrong, this was known before the Shaw trial as you mentioned, Finck
>mentioned this to the WCR during the investigation. They chose to
>ignore it,
Cite it in the WCR.
For otherwise, you're doing *EXACTLY* as I assert, impugning the WCR by use of
the same evidence that they had. Which, of course, is *MY* thesis.
>so again, I ask how can I use what the WCR used when they
>didn't list all the things they ignored, omitted or changed?
They did... it's in the 26 volumes. (Probably at least 90% of it, anyway)
>They had
>this, but did not put it in, but any person interested in this should
>know this. You are splitting hairs to make yourself look good.
No, I'm merely holding you to your own words. You claim that by *ONLY* reading
the WCR, you can demonstrate more than three bullets.
Yet you've been remarkably unable to do so, without utilizing the lie you told
about Frazier's statement.
>In the meanwhile you are supporting the WCR MORE than it would have been on
>this board.
No, Rob... I support the *truth*. The WCR is full of lies, misrepresentations,
and outright deceptions. I've detailed just some of them in my series on
"Provable Lies of the Warren Commission"
>> >3rd shot = head wound
>>
>> Head shot fragments.... one goes to the chrome, one goes to the window.
>> Nothing impossible here, Rob.
>
>Sure, if you believe in fairy tales and magic bullets/fragments I
>guess not.
What's imposssible, Rob? Give us the physics... give us some expert testimony,
give us ANYTHING AT ALL THAT'S NOT SIMPLY YOUR OPINION.
>> >Two fragments. Where did they come from? Can't be shot # 1 as it
>> >missed.
>>
>> Yep... that's what the WCR would agree with.
>>
>> >Can't be shot # 2
>>
>> Because that one is CE399 according to the WCR, and a bullet missing a few
>> grains at the most cannot also be missing a 44 grain and 21 grain fragments.
>>
>> >as there is more found in JBC's wrist than
>> >is missing from CE399 already.
>>
>> BOING!!! Disqualified again... shame on you Rob - you keep asserting that
>> you can prove the WCR wrong by only reading the WCR - and you keep failing
>> to do so. If you can't quote the WCR saying this, then why do you keep
>> bringing it up?
>
>Because it was contained in other things around the same time, i.e.
>they mentioned the lost weight of the magic bullet, 2.4 grains, how
>can a 21 or 44 grain fragment come from a bullet that is only missing
>2.4 grains? So even with JBC aside this is impossible. BOING!!!!!!!!!!
It's a lie, Rob; to suggest that *ANYONE* ever considered that the 44 or 21
grain fragment came from CE399.
Cite for this assertion, or retract this lie.
>> >Shot 3 is the only possibility
>> >according to the WCR.
>>
>> Yep... entirely logical. And entirely possible.
>>
>> >Frazier says they can't prove beyond any doubt
>> >that the two fragments (or any of the ones found in the bodies) in the
>> >limo came from THE SAME BULLET.
>>
>> He also states that he cannot prove that they didn't come from the
>> same bullet.
>
>Prove it, where does he say this? That crap you showed me from the WC
>testimony was tap dancing. It can't be both, it has to be from or not
>from one bullet.
No Rob, it *doesn't* have to be provable. Just like you can't prove where that
second pencil came from.
Not everything is capable of being proven - for example, before DNA testing, it
was *NOT POSSIBLE* to exclude suspects in a rape case. Yet by your logic, DNA
testing MUST ALWAYS HAVE BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY FEASIBLE AND ABLE TO BE PERFORMED.
Because without DNA testing, it was *IMPOSSIBLE* to preclude an innocent suspect
based on non-existent DNA testing.
There are examples of unprovable things all around you. I've given you several
examples, and you've ducked and run from the pencil example, and will
undoubtably duck and run from the sandblasting example.
>The FBI also said no way.
Who, in the FBI, did this testing?
>> Somehow, you just keep passing that statement right on by. Surely
>> you haven't forgotten it, since I've continuously been reminding you
>> of it. Perhaps you're just too dishonest to remember it?
>
>Reminding me of what?
Frazier's testimony that the two fragments could have been from one bullet.
>ON one hand they aren't from the same bullet,
>but on the other they are?
One one hand you started with one pencil, but on the other hand you must have
originally had two pencils?
>What kind of crap is this? Who in their
>right frame of mind would believe this garbage?
I agree, who *would* believe that you had two pencils when we *KNOW* you only
started with one.
>> >What does this mean?
>>
>> It means that there's no proof that the 44 & 21 grain fragments belong to
>> the same bullet.
>>
>> It means that there's no proof that the 44 & 21 grain fragments do not
>> belong to the same bullet.
>
>Wrong as usual.
Then you'll be happy to provide the citation to prove this, right?
>They ran test on these fragments and the bullet found
>at Parkland. There are two possible outcomes - they match or they
>don't match. ONCE they say they can't say definitively say they come
>from the same, the only other outcome is they aren't from the same
>bullet.
No, Rob.. that's not the only other outcome. The *only* outcome is that it
cannot be proven.
Tell us where your second pencil came from, Rob?
>Quit sitting on the fence, you are as bad as the WC.
The WCR provably lied, but that can only be determined by examining the same
evidence that they used to create the report.
You've been shown to lie repeatedly about Frazier's testimony.
Yet you've been unable to quote any lie of mine, and provide the citation that
makes it a lie.
Why is that, Rob?
>> You love statement #1 - and run from statement #2.
>>
>> Rather cowardly, don't you think?
>
>Who running moron? How does a 44 or 21 grain fragment come from a
>bullet that is only missing 2.4 grains (and this was known by the WCR
>and is in the report)? Prove your assertion.
First you'll have to locate the statement where I asserted that the 44 or 21
grain came from CE399.
For just like your assertion that you're a convicted child molester - it can't
be found.
Indeed, I've stated a number of times that *NO-ONE* ever presumed or stated that
CE399 was the source of the two larger fragments.
You can't cite the WCR saying this, you can't cite *me* saying this... so all
you can do is lie about it.
>> >It means there
>> >is a great chance they didn't, or he would have fudged and not said
>> >this.
>>
>> Reading Frazier's mind now, are we?
>
>NO, I'm reading where there test failed to confirm they were from the
>same bullet.
Just like your inability to *prove* you started with one pencil?
>> Tell us about your two pencils.
Dead silence...
>> >IF both fragments can't come from shot # 3
>>
>> Who said that both fragments "can't come from shot #3?"
>
>The FBI and Frazier.
No, they didn't. You're a liar, Rob.
I defy you to produce any citation where either the FBI or Frazier stated that
the two large fragments "can't come from shot #3" (Which, of course, was the
head shot)
I'm quite sure that you'll duck and run from this one...
>> WHO SAID THAT BOTH FRAGMENTS "CAN'T COME FROM SHOT #3?"
>
>Are you deaf, the FBI and Frazier.
Provide the citation, liar.
>> You're a liar, Rob - for you're certainly trying to imply that someone
>> asserted this... and the only one who has is *you*.
>
>No you are a moron for thinking if they can't match the fragments to
>the same bullet and say so, that there is a greater chance they can.
Never said that, Rob. I said, quite reasonably, that if they said that they
can't match the fragments to each other, then that *PROVES* that they can't
match the fragments to each other.
They *ALSO* stated that they could find no proof that they were *NOT* from the
same bullet.
>You make less sense than the WCR.
>>
>> >where did they come
>> >from?
>>
>> From shot #3, of course. Going by what evidence is contained in
>> the WCR, this is the only *possible* solution.
>
>You have the problem of them saying they couldn't match BOTH fragments
>to this shot though. Prove them wrong.
They couldn't match *ANY* fragments to that shot. The only thing that could
have done that would be DNA testing showing JFK's DNA on the fragments - and
even *that* could not have proven beyond all doubt that it was the bullet that
struck JFK's head.
You've been completely unable to prove your assertion... sad, isn't it?
>> >IF the fragments can't dent hardened chrome or crack a special
>> >windshield, what caused this damage?
>>
>> Who said that fragments can't dent hardened chrome, Rob.
>
>Anyone with a brain. Prove me wrong. Stop asserting they can and
>prove it.
What, Rob, is special about a fragment traveling at "fairly high velocity" that
precludes its ability to dent chrome, yet allow a bullet traveling at full
velocity to do so?
>> WHO SAID THAT FRAGMENTS CAN'T DENT HARDENED CHROME, ROB??
>
>See above.
IOW's... only you.
>> Lying again, aren't you? For the only one who *could* have said it is you.
>
>NO, you are lying now.
I've stated that only *YOU* say that fragments cannot dent chrome. The *PROOF*
that "I'm lying now" would merely be a citation to anyone else saying it. Yet
you can't do it, can you Rob?
>Prove it then.
Just did. By your inability to name someone else who said it, my assertion has
been proven correct.
>Take a 44 grain or 21 grain
>fragment and show us you can dent hardened chrome. I'm will watch the
>film.
Willing to put some money on it? For surely you can't expect me to "prove"
something so obvious without good incentive.
I already *have* expert testimony that this is possible.
You've presented *NO* reasonable explanation for why a fragment traveling at
"fairly high velocity" is incapable of doing what a full sized bullet, traveling
at full velocity, is.
>> >This was my point.
>
>Your point, like you, is full of shit.
Truth hurt, Rob?
>> What, that you can only make a point by lying about the evidence?
>
>Who lied?
You did. About Frazier's testimony... repeatedly.
>You are by saying despite them admitting to something, there
>is a greater chance they are wrong. Stop asserting and prove it.
They aren't wrong at all. They stated that IT CANNOT BE PROVEN. And indeed,
you've been unable to do so.
>> >> As you have so well demonstrated.
>>
>> >Unbelievable.
>>
>> Yes, Rob... it *IS* unbelievable. You're sinking faster than almost
>> any troll I've seen.
>
>You are the troll Ben. I would love to know who you really are.
I'm Ben Holmes. I've been posting for years... I train 2-4 times a week at the
Encino Judo Club, spent over a decade in the Marine Corps, run a dozen websites,
and have lived much of my life in Southern California, where my phone number and
address are EASILY findable in about 10 minutes to anyone who knows anything at
all about the Internet.
By the way, using *ONLY* the information given in the above paragraph, all of
which I've stated before - I located my own phone number & address in less than
a minute. (Of course, I have a slight advantage...)
>> Even cdddraftsman made an effort to stay relatively sane before it became
>> painfully obvious that he was a troll.
>
>Sure.
Feel free to research his posts when he first appeared... Don't take *my* word
for it.
>> >> >> Just how difficult is this to understand?
>>
>> >> >Not at all, you are saying you can't prove the two pieces came from
>> >> >one pencil, but you are also saying you can't say they are from two
>> >> >pencils. So what are you saying? You have to reach a concluson.
>> >> >Either both fragments come from the same source or they don't. Period.
>>
>> >I'm not saying anything,
>>
>> You're responding to yourself.
>>
>> >Frazier said they can't
>>
>> No he didn't. You're a liar, Rob.
>
>Prove it and stop asserting.
I've previously done so, and will be happy to do so again:
Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567; and 569 are
portions of the originally same bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
Mr. FRAZIER - There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated condition
to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit together.
However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such as 567,
which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section of 569, SO THAT
THEY COULD BE PARTS OF ONE BULLET, and then, of course, they could be parts of
separate bullets.
Read it and weep, Rob. You're a liar, and a poor one. Frazier *NEVER* asserte
that CE567 & CE569 (the two large fragments) could not have been from the same
bullet.
>> >and believe me, if
>> >the WCR admits this it means they can't. With all the lies they told
>> >why not tell one more? Probably because some other group, i.e. FBI,
>> >would not agree like they did to Nicol with the slugs taken from JDT.
>> >If not from one, then they are most certainly from two
>>
>> Yet you've been totally unable to demonstrate anyone saying this, Rob...
>> other than yourself, that is.
>
>I have proved it as the FBI did the test. Get up to speed troll.
Who, in the FBI, did the test, Rob?
Name him. I defy you to provide his name.
Then cite him stating that the two fragments must have come from two bullets.
>> >and this has
>> >been my one consistent point from the beginning, you just decide to
>> >read it differently and call me a liar. Low class tactics in my book.
>>
>> You *ARE* a liar, Rob. No-where in the WCR does anyone state that the two
>> fragments cannot be from one bullet.
>
>You are blind and dumb. Page 77 (first full paragraph) was the FBI
>tested all the fragments and the bullet found at Parkland Hospital and
>was determined they were "similar" in metallic composition, BUT is was
>**not possible** to determine whether two or more of the fragments
>came from the SAME bullet. How is this lying? What part of the NOT
>POSSIBLE don't you get?
"Not possible" to prove that they are from the same bullet. "Not possible" to
prove that they are from separate bullets.
But to state that the FBI or WCR said it was "not possible" that the fragments
were from the same bullet is a lie, Rob.
Why can't you wrap your mind around this simple concept?
And where is that second pencil?
>> Nowhere in any testimony either.
>
>You have been shown to be a liar.
Yet you can't cite the testimony... why is that, Rob?
>> Nowhere in any ballistics studies either.
>
>Really? Sure could fool me if you look at page 77.
Cite the ballistics study that "proves" that the fragments must have been from
separate bullets, Rob.
"Page 77" of the WCR isn't it.
>> >> The "conclusion", Rob - is that there is no proof either way.
>
>Sure, if they say NOT POSSIBLE you can say it is,
Never have, Rob. You will *NEVER* be able to quote me stating that it was
"possible to prove the two fragments came from the same bullet"
You're a liar, Rob. Why bother? You know I'm only going to point it out!
>but then the proof
>is on you. Start proving and stop asserting.
Just did... above... where I quoted Frazier's testimony.
>> >Baloney, if there were proof they could match to one bullet, the WCR
>> >would have been all over it to save their theory.
>>
>> When you call everyone a liar who disputes your theory, you don't have
>> a theory, you have a faith.
>
>No just you.
Frazier, remember?
>> I don't need faith, the evidence is quite clear that the WCR lied about
>> the evidence, and that the evidence shows more than three shots, and
>> that there were almost certainly *two* conspiracies, one to assassinate
>> JFK, and one to cover it up.
>
>Sure, you could fool me.
No, Rob... I can only fool someone stupid enough not to have taken the time to
read my posts on the topic.
>> >> You seem to believe that this *DOES* demonstrate that there must have
>> >> been two different bullets involved.
>>
>> >Yes, common sense in my book based on what they are admitting
>> >themselves.
>>
>> "Common sense" requires lies, Rob?
>
>Not if you have a functioning brain.
Then why do you keep lying about what Frazier said?
When are you going to QUOTE him saying that the two fragments could not have
come from the same bullet?
>> >> So tell us... what did that bullet strike that would have created a
>> >> fragment? It couldn't have been the chrome - Frazier testified to that,
>> >> even though you lied about it.
>>
>> >The same thing they claim it hit, JFK's head/skull.
>>
>> But you were just asserting that it could *NOT* have been shot #3.
>
>NO I was saying shot #3 could not have produced both fragments based
>on the test results of the FBI and Frazier.
And yet, Frazier says that it certainly could have.
>> >I have always
>> >said a traditional full-metal jacketed bullet would not have
>> >fragmented at all,
>>
>> Never fired FMJ ammo, have you?
>
>Sure have, and they do not fragment like that shot.
Well, I think I'll stack my dozen years in the USMC, and my dozen years as a
rated Expert shot, and my 5-6 years as a rifle range coach to my unit, and my
year on the West Coast USMC Rifle Team - against your qualifications.
Oh, what were they?
>Never heard of the Geneva Convention, huh?
Required knowledge in the Marine Corps. Just what did the Geneva Convention do
to prevent FMJ bullets from fragmenting?
When do you plan to tell us where that second pencil came from?
When do you plan to explain what copper cladding actually *does* for the lead in
a bullet?
When do you plan to tell anyone just *WHO* in the FBI did the testing on the
bullet fragments?
When do you plan to cite ANYONE who asserts that CE399 could have produced CE567
& CE569?
When do you plan to cite ANYONE who asserts that CE567 & CE569 *CANNOT* be part
of the same bullet?
When are you planning to prove that the sandblasted car must have been painted
with racing stripes, since you *KNOW* you can't prove it was painted red?
When do you plan to stop lying about Frazier's testimony?