HSCA COULD NOT CONNECT CE399 WITH THE C2766 RIFLE
Gil Jesus
THE HSCA COULD NOT CONNECT CE399 OR THE FBI 1964 TEST BULLETS WITH THE
C2766 RIFLE:
Mr. MCDONALD. Did you compare the FBI test bullets with your own test
bullets that you recently fired out of 139?
Mr. BATES. Yes, we also made a microscopic comparison of that.
Mr. MCDONALD. And what did the comparison show?
Mr. BATES. The results of this examination indicated that we could not
determine whether the FBI test bullets were, in fact, fired from the
rifle, CE-139.
Mr. McDONALD. And would you please explain your answer?
Mr. BATES. Based upon the microscopic comparison, there were
differences in the individual identifying characteristics found
within the land and groove impressions on the FBI test bullets and on
the panel test bullets.
Mr. McDONALD. Just so we are clear, when you are speaking of bullets,
you are referring to the tip of what would be known as a cartridge,
the complete projectile would be called the cartridge; correct?
Mr. BATES. No; the loaded projectile in the cartridge case is the
cartridge. The bullet is the portion, or tip that is released upon
firing of the cartridge.
Mr. McDONALD. And you are saying in your test fires, your comparison
with the FBI test fires, you could not say that those bullets came
from CE-139 ?
Mr. BATES. That is correct.
( 1 HSCA 463-464 )
Gil Jesus
CE 399 MATCHED THE FBI TEST BULLETS THAT COULD NOT BE CONNECTED TO THE
C2766 RIFLE.
Mr. BATES. As a result of our comparative microscopic examinations, it
is our opinion that the bullet, CE-399, was fired through the same
firearm barrel that fired the FBI tests, CE-572.
( 1 HSCA 465 )
IN OTHER WORDS, CE 399 WAS FIRED FROM A M-C RIFLE USED BY THE FBI FOR
IT'S "TESTS".
David Von Pein
>>> "THE HSCA COULD NOT CONNECT CE399 OR THE FBI 1964 TEST BULLETS WITH THE C2766 RIFLE." <<<
Just so that people aren't misled by a mega-kook named Gil J. Jesus,
please note that the VERY NEXT WORDS out of John Bates' mouth (right
after the words that Gil last posted) were the following words, which
fully explain why the various test bullets could not be matched to
each other:
Mr. MCDONALD. Would you have expected that result considering the
number of times that CE-139 [Oswald's Carcano rifle #C2766] has been
fired over the years?
Mr. BATES. Yes, we would have.
Mr. MCDONALD. Would you explain?
Mr. BATES. Our inability to identify our panel tests with each other
and the failure to identify the panel tests with the FBI tests is
believed by us to be due by one or a combination of several factors.
No. 1, repeated test firing of CE-139 over the years causing extensive
changes in the individual rifling characteristics within the barrel of
the weapon. No. 2, natural variations caused by the high velocity of
the 6.5 bullet resulting in extreme heat and friction during the
passage of the bullet through the bore of the weapon. And No. 3,
deterioration of the rifling surfaces over an extended period of time
due to the absence of proper cleaning, maintenance and/or protective
lubrication.
Mr. MCDONALD. So what you are saying though, you can't compare the
bullets but, of course, we have had previous testimony regarding the
cartridge cases with firing pin impressions and the like and because
of the deterioration in the barrel, it has made it impossible to match
up your test fires with the FBI test fires, is that correct?
Mr. BATES. That is correct, yes.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/firearm.htm
=========================
I knew that such an explanation most certainly existed in the record
for such a thing after reading Gil's post, wherein he conveniently cut
off Bates' explanation for WHY the test bullets did not match.
IOW--Gil wanted to obscure the full truth. And that's because he
desperately WANTS that make-believe conspiracy of his to exist.
But, you see, there IS a good explanation for every point that a kook
like Gil can raise. And that's because: Oswald killed Kennedy (all by
himself). And the physical evidence proves it.
>>> "CE 399 WAS FIRED FROM A M-C RIFLE USED BY THE FBI FOR IT'S [sic] "TESTS"." <<<
And that MC rifle was Oswald's rifle (of course), which is the ONE AND
ONLY rifle that anybody was talking about when giving their testimony
in front of the WC and the HSCA. Only a kook like Gil could possibly
believe otherwise.
Gil Jesus
> >>> "THE HSCA COULD NOT CONNECT CE399 OR THE FBI 1964 TEST BULLETS WITH THE C2766 RIFLE." <<<
>
> Just so that people aren't misled by a mega-kook named Gil J. Jesus,
> please note that the VERY NEXT WORDS out of John Bates' mouth (right
> after the words that Gil last posted) were the following words, which
> fully explain why the various test bullets could not be matched to
> each other:
>
> Mr. MCDONALD. Would you have expected that result considering the
> number of times that CE-139 [Oswald's Carcano rifle #C2766] has been
> fired over the years?
>
> Mr. BATES. Yes, we would have.
>
> Mr. MCDONALD. Would you explain?
>
> Mr. BATES. Our inability to identify our panel tests with each other
> and the failure to identify the panel tests with the FBI tests is
> believed by us to be due by one or a combination of several factors.
> No. 1, repeated test firing of CE-139 over the years causing extensive
> changes in the individual rifling characteristics within the barrel of
> the weapon. No. 2, natural variations caused by the high velocity of
> the 6.5 bullet resulting in extreme heat and friction during the
> passage of the bullet through the bore of the weapon. And No. 3,
> deterioration of the rifling surfaces over an extended period of time
> due to the absence of proper cleaning, maintenance and/or protective
> lubrication.
ROFLMAO......so I guess then that all a criminal would have to do if
he murdered someone would be to keep firing rounds through the rifle
and eventually, he'd "erase" the ballistic fingerprint and get away
scott free.
Brilliant.
David Von Pein
>>> "So I guess then that all a criminal would have to do if he murdered someone would be to keep firing rounds through the rifle and eventually, he'd "erase" the ballistic fingerprint and get away scott free." <<<
Oh, goodie! So now Gil The Kook wants to make John Bates of the HSCA
firearms panel "Conspirator #2,397" on Gil's list of make-believe
plotters and cover-uppers.
Brilliant.
BTW, how many murderers would take the time to fire an additional
HUNDRED rounds or so through their murder weapons RIGHT AFTER
MURDERING THEIR VICTIM(S) in order to change the rifling
characteristics of the weapon's barrel?
Not many, I would assume.
But, yes, if a murderer was THAT patient (and had that much time), he
obviously could, indeed, do what you suggested, Mr. Kook.
Gil Jesus
THERE'S THREE WAYS TO CHANGE BALLISTIC FINGERPRINTS
1. Fire lapping
http://www.lasc.us/bellmFirelappingBarrels.htm
2. "Cleaning" the barrel with an abrasive
i.e. soaking a patch in an abrasive and running it up and down the
barrel vigorously several times.
3. Rebore the barrel
http://www.essex1.com/people/chuckbri/ballisticfingerprint.html
Now stop flooding these groups with your disinformation nonsense.
Gil Jesus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dave kook:
Don't you recognize an "excuse" when you read it ?
The FBI fired all of the bullets currently in "evidence" and they did
it with a rifle that was NOT the C 2766 rifle.
THAT'S WHY CE399 had no blood, bone particles or clothing fibers on
it.
Do you understand that ?
THE FBI FIRED CE 399.
David Von Pein
Great. So now Gil Jesus knows more about the subject of "rifling
characteristics" than does a firearms expert who testified for the
HSCA (John Bates):
Mr. BATES. Our inability to identify our panel tests with each other
and the failure to identify the panel tests with the FBI tests is
believed by us to be due by one or a combination of several factors.
No. 1, repeated test firing of CE-139 over the years causing extensive
changes in the individual rifling characteristics within the barrel of
the weapon. No. 2, natural variations caused by the high velocity of
the 6.5 bullet resulting in extreme heat and friction during the
passage of the bullet through the bore of the weapon. And No. 3,
deterioration of the rifling surfaces over an extended period of time
due to the absence of proper cleaning, maintenance and/or protective
lubrication.
Now....should I believe a firearms expert? Or should I place my faith
in a retard named "Gil" (who probably rushed to "Google" to find out
some stuff about rifling characteristics after he was proven to be an
evidence-mangler earlier in this thread re. John Bates).
Google is, indeed, a great tool. But should it supercede and render
worthless the above words of a FIREARMS EXPERT named Bates?
Gil, naturally, thinks so.
David Von Pein
>>> "Don't you recognize an "excuse" when you read it?" <<<
This just keeps getting better and better.
Gil The Kook thinks that the HSCA's John Bates was a liar when he said
the FBI's test bullets couldn't be matched to the HSCA test bullets
due to the fact that the weapon had been fired repeatedly since the
original 1964 FBI tests, thus changing the rifling characteristics of
the barrel of the weapon....
But, per Gil The Kook, instead of merely telling a DIFFERENT LIE (one
that would align with the '64 FBI tests on the rifle), Bates decides
to make up a lie about how the barrel had changed configuration.
Why didn't Bates merely say this to the HSCA in '78?:
"Our firearms panel concluded that our test bullets did, indeed,
match the FBI's 1964 test bullets, and all of these test bullets were
positively fired in Rifle CE139, Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano."
Since Bates was a scumbag and a liar ANYWAY (per Gilbert), then why
wouldn't Bates just say something like the above?
>>> "The FBI fired all of the bullets currently in "evidence" and they did it with a rifle that was NOT the C 2766 rifle." <<<
Good, Gil. Keep making up shit. That's your forte.
>>> "THAT'S WHY CE399 had no blood, bone particles or clothing fibers on it." <<<
Sure was stupid of those FBI fools to not "plant" some blood and
fibers on CE399, wasn't it, Gil?
CE399, btw, wasn't even specifically tested for traces of blood or
embedded fibers (AFAIK). So how do you know there were no such traces
on that bullet? Maybe there were.
>>> "Do you understand that?" <<<
I understand one thing for sure -- you are an idiot and an evidence-
mangler. And you seem to be proud of those attributes. Strange.
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:244fffd7-c411-477e...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
According to the Secret Service, the FBI was their First Suspect ! ! !
Sam McClung
who joined skull and bones in 1943
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:kkstm.13947$6f4....@newsfe08.iad...
timstter
Hey Gil,
Part of the reason the WC couldn't conclusively match the Walker
bullet to Oswald's rifle was because the rifling characteristics of
his weapon had changed between April 1963, when he fired at Walker,
and November 1963, when he fired at Kennedy.
That's why the identifying marks on the Walker bullet are so
important, Gil.
Helpful Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Walt
Perhaps you should compare the FBI photos of CE 399 and CE 573 side by
side.... Use the scale that is oin the photo and you'll find that the
width of the rifling grooves is different. It doesn't make a bit of
difference how the rifling might have deteriorated in a mere nine
months.... ( probably wouldn't have changed at all) because when the
groove on each bullet is measured it's very clear that they were fired
from different rifles.....
>
> That's why the identifying marks on the Walker bullet are so
> important, Gil.
>
> Helpful Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
Gil Jesus
> Hey Gil,
>
> Part of the reason the WC couldn't conclusively match the Walker
> bullet to Oswald's rifle was because the rifling characteristics of
> his weapon had changed between April 1963, when he fired at Walker,
> and November 1963, when he fired at Kennedy.
Source ?
tomnln
HOHOHOHOHOHO !
"timstter" <tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:79845dfc-08ce-4c92...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Unbelieveable. Girlie made a guess and for one of the few times in his
life, he actually guessed right. Yes, the characteristics of a barrel
does change over time through repeated firing. This has been one of
the arguments made against ballistic fingerprinting of all firearms
sold in the US. Unlike human fingerprints, ballistic markings do
change over time so it serves no purpose to keep a database containing
ballistic fingerprints of weapons since such a system could not be
counted on to identify a weapon after it leaves the factory. New York
City and the state of Maryland have both maintained ballistic
fingerprinting databases and combined those two databases have served
to solve one crime. Police organizations throughout the country have
opposed the use of ballistic fingerprinting databases as they are a
monumental waste of resources which could be better spent on other
crime fighting tools and protective equipment for officers on the
street.
timstter
> NOW, we have a Liar answering for Liars ! ! !
>
> HOHOHOHOHOHO !
>
LOL! It's ol' tomnln, fresh back from lying down @ Black Ops Radio!
I don't think I'd bother calling anyone a liar if I was a proven liar
like you, Mr Rossley.
Fixed your lying website yet, tomnln?
I didn't think so...
KUTGW, tomnln!
Walt
The key words are "THROUGH REPEATED FIRING"....... It seems that CE
139 ( the suspect rifle) was not fired at all between April and
November....
This has been one of
> the arguments made against ballistic fingerprinting of all firearms
> sold in the US. Unlike human fingerprints, ballistic markings do
> change over time so it serves no purpose to keep a database containing
> ballistic fingerprints of weapons since such a system could not be
> counted on to identify a weapon after it leaves the factory. New York
> City and the state of Maryland have both maintained ballistic
> fingerprinting databases and combined those two databases have served
> to solve one crime. Police organizations throughout the country have
> opposed the use of ballistic fingerprinting databases as they are a
> monumental waste of resources which could be better spent on other
> crime fighting tools and protective equipment for officers on the
> street.- Hide quoted text -