View Single Post
Old 12th October 2017, 09:52 PM   #1840
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I love Hank's hearsay accusation.
Your argument seems to be that your hearsay is okay because I cited some hearsay.

Not at all the case.

First of all, I cited the testimony I did - from Bugliosi's book - to establish your source was knocking down a strawman argument. They falsely claimed that Bugliosi (and Posner) both said the bullet was damaged upon firing. I showed that was a falsehood from your cited source because Bugliosi cited Champagne saying the damage came upon ejection of the bullet, AFTER firing, contrary to what your source was lying to you about.

Secondly, I didn't cite hearsay.

I cited the testimony of Champagne, a firearms expert who served on the HSCA firearms panel.

The panel wrote that one of the four test bullets had a damaged shell when ejected from CE139. Champagne testified to that fact. That's first hand evidence. Not hearsay. Yours however was definitely hearsay, and not admissible. All you quoted was what Griffith said Donahue said. Quote Donahue's actual verifiable statement and show where it came from.

But if you want the testimony of the member of the firearms panel who actually ejected the test bullet with the damaged lip, here it is (and note they examined two test shells from FBI tests done for the Warren Commission, one of which had a dented mouth):
Mr. MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, if we could now have JFK exhibit No. F-98. Mr. Champagne, have you seen that photograph before?
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Yes, sir; I have.
Mr. MCDONALD. Does the photograph accurately depict the condition of the exhibit that you have in front of you at the time of your examination?
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. If I may look at it.
Mr. McDONALD. Please do.
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Yes, sir. This composite photograph depicts CE-543 and in particular the area of the mouth that has an indentation in it. This is shown primarily in the lower left-hand photograph. It is rather difficult to see but it is there. It can also be seen to a certain extent in the upper left-hand photograph in this area.
Mr. MCDONALD. Mr. Champagne; as you have testified, this was one of the cartridges found on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building and the mouth has a dent. Could that dent have occurred during the loading process.
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. No, sir; this is not a dent that would have been in the cartridge case during the loading process.
Mr. MCDONALD. Could it have occurred during the ejection process?
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Yes; during the testing of the weapon we found that one of the tests that were fired and ejected from the weapon by the panelists also included a cartridge case with a similar information of the mouth of the cartridge case.
Mr. MCDONALD. In other words.
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. We also examined Federal tests. Of two tests that we examined, one of them also had an indented mouth.
Mr. MCDONALD. Are you saying then when your panel test fired CE-139, out of four fired cartridges, one was ejected with a dented mouth?
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Yes, sir, that occurred during the ejection process in firing the weapon. If I may.
Mr. McDONALD. Yes, please.
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. The ejection is that process whereby the bolt handle is moved to the rear to eject the expended cartridge case, ejecting the cartridge case out of the weapon.
Mr. MCDONALD. Now, when you tested the rifle, the panel tested the rifle, of your panel members, who ejected the shell or cartridge case that came out with the dent?
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Mr. Lutz.
Mr. MCDONALD. Would Mr. Lutz please come forward and demonstrate to us how you ejected to cause a dent in the test cartridge case.
Mr. LUTZ. The particular amount of force that I used to extract and eject the cartridge case from the weapon was much in the manner that I would consider to be employed during an attempt to rapidly fire the firearm. The cartridge was fired with the bolt being closed and then with considerable speed and pressure being applied, opening it and pulling the bolt to the rear and holding it to my side, and in a manner very rapidly, kicking the cartridge back and ejecting the cartridge and causing it fall to the floor.
Mr. PREYER. Mr. Edgar.
Mr. EDGAR. Mr. Lutz, would you turn so we can see it.
Mr. LUTZ. In this manner, where I have grasped the bolt forward, the cartridge had been fired, moved away from the firing tube holding the bolt handle and then pulling it back with a violent move duplicating what I deemed to be a rapid sequence of firing, operating the handle to rapidly fire the firearm.

Mr. MCDONALD. Thank you.
Mr. Champagne, we have before you on the easel JFK exhibit No. F-100. Does that accurately portray the four spent cartridge cases that your panel test fired?
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Yes, sir, it does.
Mr. McDONALD. And does one of the four cartridge cases have a dent?
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. No. 2 has the dent in the mouth.

Mr. MCDONALD. Could we place before the panel JFK cartridge cases No. F-280, please?
Are those the cartridge cases that the panel test fired?
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Yes, sir.
Mr. MCDONALD. How do you know, sir?
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. The container has our initials on it.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
A guy from the HSCA claiming that some other guy- who is unnamed- might have recreated the dent in CE543 by normal firing and ejecting, versus a researcher who performed actual experiments testing this issue out.
And he was able to reproduce that damaged shell when he ejected empty cartridges. That's sufficient to show your argument is wrong. Unless you can explain how the ejector mechanism knows when and how a bullet was fired before the empty shell is ejected.

At the end of the cycle, after firing the bullet, you have an empty cartridge in the chamber. This is likewise true if you load an empty cartridge into the chamber.

In either case, you now have to cycle the bolt to eject the empty cartridge. Your own source says he reproduced the damage, and saw the damage on empty shells he ejected. We're done here.

You just don't realize it yet.

Hank

PS: And there was a lot more to my posts on this subject than just the hearsay accusation. You ignored every other point. For instance:
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Thank you for that information. So we now know the sources of the misinformation and falsehoods you're telling here.

Not one of your sources tested the actual weapon CE139 to see if the lip could be dented upon working the bolt and ejecting the shell. The HSCA firearms panel did that, and duplicated the issue.

Many of the people you cite are well-known known conspiracy buffs, who are apparently more than content to ignore all contrary evidence that establishes when something they are claiming is false.

They all *assumed* the bullet had that dented lip prior to being fired, and working from that assumption, they concluded that shell could not have been fired that day. But the HSCA did the experiment they did not, using the actual weapon, and reproduced similar damage from a shell after firing a test bullet (see the language above).

Their other claims are also all contrary to the findings of the HSCA firearms panel. Josiah Thompson is cited as saying "As Josiah Thompson notes, it also had three identifying marks revealing it had been loaded and extracted from a weapon at least three times before."

Consulting his book, SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS, the source of that is an FBI memo here: https://www.history-matters.com/arch...ol26_0243a.htm
https://www.history-matters.com/arch...ol26_0243b.htm

But the language is less strong there than Thompson pretends, only saying that there are additional marks that could be marks from a rifle, not that there are additional marks from a rifle. That memo also notes that many of these marks are very faint, and could not be associated with the CE139 rifle (called the C14 rifle by the FBI). They also note throughout there is only one set of marks on each shell that could be associated with the CE139 rifle. And they didn't have sufficient evidence to associate the other marks with a weapon.

And the HSCA firearms panel noted this in stronger language, " (157) There was no evidence in the form of multiple extractor or ejector marks on the cartridge case to indicate that it was chambered in the rifle more than once. This also applies to cartridge cases CE 544 and CE 545."

Note as well that Oswald is only known to own one rifle, CE139, the assassination weapon found on the sixth floor. So where did these supposed other rifle marks come from? They could be random markings on the shells obtained from handling or even markings from the manufacture process.

You don't know. Thompson doesn't know. You (and Thompson) simply pretend the memo says something it doesn't.
And then there's:
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
No, I covered all this above.

But let's address those points in greater detail.




I pointed out Thompson didn't test the actual weapon, but another similar model.

How does one prove a negative? Thompson is saying he did that -- based on what? Ten tests? Twenty? What if it occurs once in a hundred trials? How many tests did Thompson actually do, and how did he determine that was sufficient to rule out the damage as being possible? Can you cite the numbers and how Thompson determined his testing was adequate to rule it out as ever occurring?




I don't recall anything of the sort. Neither man is quoted. Nor do you reference any page numbers in either book. This could be nothing more than a misunderstanding at best or, at worst, a deliberate strawman argument advanced merely to put the argument away. Please quote the precise words of Bugliosi and Posner where they argued for the bullet shell being damaged upon firing, not upon ejection.

The HSCA firearms panel, of which Lutz was a member, determined the shell was damaged upon ejection, and claimed to duplicate the problem. Bugliosi or Posner citing Monty Lutz is therefore citing an firearms expert. Lutz' testimony would be allowed in court. And Bugliosi's and/or Posner's citing of Lutz' claim is therefore allowed.

Here's how Bugliosi quoted Donald Champagne's testimony (another one of the five HSCA firearms experts). See page 928 of RECLAIMING HISTORY:
Question: Are you saying then when your panel test-fired CE139 (Oswald's rifle), out of four fired cartridges, one was ejected with a dented mouth?
Answer: Yes sir, that occurred during the ejection process in firing the weapon.


It's clear the argument you quote above is just a strawman argument. Bugliosi not only didn't say it happened in firing the weapon, but in ejecting the bullet, and he quoted the firearms expert directly saying that. And it was Champagne, not Lutz, that Bugliosi quoted.

So that's how trustworthy your source is. NOT AT ALL TRUSTWORTHY. They are lying to you by claiming Posner and Bugliosi said something they apparently never said, and in passing on their false claims here, without any independent verification of their claims by you, you are at least as guilty.




Donahue has his own theory about the assassination, which contradicts the HSCA's theory. He had every reason to belittle the findings of the HSCA which contradict his own.

Moreover, Mike Griffith is a long-time conspiracy theorist, as is the author of the book you cite (Jim DiEugenio). A conspiracy theorist (you) quoting a conspiracy theorist (DiEugenio) quoting a conspiracy theorist (Griffith) quoting a man with a different theory (Donahue) is hardly getting to the source.

Quote Donahue's testimony directly, as Buliosi quoted Champagne's. Not what Griffith says he said (that's hearsay). Not what DiEugenio says Griffith says Donahue said (that's likewise hearsay).
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 12th October 2017 at 10:43 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top