|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
30th August 2017, 05:39 PM | #1521 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
Man your hobby sucks. What are you even doing? Cavitation is a cavity of air produced by a projectile, deflection is when a projectile is deflected. Backspatter is when blood and debris is blown outwards from a point of entry for a projectile, forward spatter is blood and debris blown forwards from a point of exit for a projectile.
|
30th August 2017, 05:54 PM | #1522 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
I did not mean to say that the center of the photograph (showing skull bone beveled OUTWARD) was lower parietal bone, but perhaps upper occipital bone, which appears to be the area that actually correlates to the red spot in the BOH photographs. In this situation, the red spot would be best explained as an exit for a fragment, since the reflected scalp shows a tiny dimple which perhaps correlates to the beveled exit on the skull bone. The relatively low-quality black and white versions are ambiguous to where a suture line could be, if it does show one at all.
Didn't mean to sound confusing, when it comes to specifics, "cowlick" can mean a lot of things. Kennedy's actual cowlick in the upper left of his head, the presumed area of parted hair on the BOH photographs, the upper area on the X-rays theorized to be an entry wound, etc. |
30th August 2017, 05:59 PM | #1523 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
Axxman, anybody who has read all of the Dr.'s statements know it would be silly to think there was never a photograph showing the bruise on Kennedy's lung. Then you have other statements by the doctors and photographer about close-ups of the EOP wound in the scalp, outer and inner surface of the skull, a view showing most of his entire body laying on the table, a view showing his inner body upon dissection. Then you have the other stories of an X-ray showing a probe going from the back to the throat, Knudsen's two or three probes going through the body, etc.
|
30th August 2017, 06:04 PM | #1524 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
The confusion with the white splotch is, to me, just a sign that the doctors were using their honest-to-God fifteen-year-old memory to relate what they experienced: That the wound was low in the head. A centimeter here or there is a reasonably expected discrepancy between the original records and fifteen-year-old memory (but you better believe that their memory of that event stayed pretty strong since they were literally examining the President's dead naked body for several hours).
That, and it can be confusing looking at an incomplete autopsy photographic record which appears to have been picked clean by vultures with an agenda to keep everything as vague as possible. |
30th August 2017, 06:35 PM | #1525 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
Dr. Perry thought it was an entrance wound or a fragment wound, and probably told Dr. Humes that at around midnight while the autopsy was still in progress. A good deal of evidence indicates that the official story was almost that the throat wound was somehow the consequence of a (or the) head spot. Richard Lipsey's observations as well as the endless early reports claiming that the autopsy concluded the throat wound was a fragment from the head shot.
A possible back-to-throat connection may have been investigated during the autopsy, as indicated by the hearsay CBS memo with the X-ray of a probe going through the body, or perhaps Knudsen's recollections of seeing a photographic negative of probes going through Kennedy's body. But, ultimately, the majority of the statements from the autopsy participants indicate the back wound was shallow. James Curtis Jenkins claimed to distinctly recall seeing a probe poking up against the lining of Kennedy's chest cavity.
Quote:
Quote:
And how can you know anything about the fragments besides perhaps that they were from a 6.5 Carcano round? They're too mangled to show rifling. Neutron Activation analysis is debunked. What are you talking about "ballistically traceable"? And for what it's worth, there's always this little story from Secret Service agent Paul Landis in the 2010 book The Kennedy Detail: JFK's Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence" "Agents Hill, Lawson, Kellerman, and the sobbing Dave Powers lifted the president out of the limo and placed him on the gurney as Bill Greer steadied it. When Agent Paul Landis helped Mrs. Kennedy out of the car he saw a bullet fragment in the back where the top would be secured. He picked it up and put it on the seat, thinking that if the car were moved, it might be blown off. And then he saw a bloody Zippo lighter with the presidential seal on it. He picked it up and put it in his pocket. He picked up her hat and purse and brought them inside". Yes, I know, it's a 47-year-old recollection. I said "for what it's worth".
Quote:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=956 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=962 You have failed to refute the 11/29/1963 George Barnum diary entry saying this: "[Dr. Burkley said, regarding the shots that hit JFK, that] The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat. The second shot striking him above and to the rear of the right ear, this shot not coming out…" The last part is a little confusing, but the point stands and it makes no sense to just ignore it. |
30th August 2017, 08:31 PM | #1526 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Excuse me, I was confused, on page 35 some moron posted this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post11972686
Quote:
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
30th August 2017, 08:36 PM | #1527 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
They never probed the neck wound all the way through.
They didn't have to because the fiber evidence spells out a single entry to the back and a single exit out the front. Those photographs are still in the archives, and their descriptions of what they detail show that they have all of that. Your source material is almost all CT based, and should not be trusted as all if it was written in the name of making money, not shedding light on the truth. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
30th August 2017, 08:51 PM | #1528 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Prove it. Give us the film roll numbers which have missing exposures.
Don't tell us about vultures unless you name them. Who are these shadowy people with seemingly magical powers? You assume conspiracy without being brave or intellectually honest enough to lay it out for us. WHY? You talk about mystery autopsy photos being destroyed before they are inventoried without explaining the process or how this could occur. Maybe you're unaware but JFK's brother was the Attorney General of the United States, and a man who had been actively attempting to kill Fidel Castro - so how does RFK sound like a guy you want to cross? This last point is why the assassination CTs are so offensive to honest people, they assume that RFK and the rest of the Kennedys would just lie down and remain silent. This idea shows a galaxy-sized depth of ignorance of history, and while it is every American's right to be a slack-jawed moron it is not their right to spread lies. Both Kennedy brothers faced off against the mafia, JFK went to war in a small wooden boat to face off against Japanese destroyers. These are not men who backed down from a fight, and if you messed with one Kennedy you took on all of them. So in what universe does RFK roll over and let the murder of his brother become a fiction? Not in this one. And if you knew anything about the Kennedy's you'd know that any conclusion about the killer of JFK that was not the truth would have resulted in political carnage unseen since the Civil War. My advice: get into Bigfoot. It will get you out in the fresh air. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
30th August 2017, 09:15 PM | #1529 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
This is a lie.
The fiber evidence from Kennedy's clothes, and exit wounds leave something called an "Abrasion Collar", and the tracheostomy had left one edge of the exit wound intact. X-Rays show no missile inside the body, but they do show wounds to the internal structures of the neck suggesting that the back was the entrance wound. In fact, these X-rays are the strongest evidence for trajectory leading back to the 6th floor of the TSBD. What I wrote above is the truth.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What are your bonafides again to make this claim? How many homocide crime scenes have you worked, or are you just a Secret Service veteran? There was nothing to botch. They got the President to Parkland as fast as possible, and got him out and into the ER. THIS WAS PRIORITY ONE. None of the detail was think about "Preserving a Crime Scene" because they were out in the real world doing their job. This all took place within minutes of the President being shot. You can't handle the stress on a internet message board without posting stupid pictures and whining about how unfair we are/life is, but these guys got JFK to the hospital, and took care of the First Lady, and the Governor of Texas while keeping it together. You can learn a lot from these men.
Quote:
A subsonic round would have never exited the skull if fired from the proposed distances you allege, which you'd know if you went to a firing range a few times.
Quote:
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
30th August 2017, 09:53 PM | #1530 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
Wrong again:
https://www.hornady.com/team-hornady...nal-ballistics The primary way a bullet causes damage to an animal is through the permanent cavity it leaves - the hole that is created as the bullet passes through skin, bone or flesh. This wound channel is the same diameter as the bullet/bullet fragments and is a function of bullet penetration and expansion. A secondary way that a bullet causes damage is by the temporary cavity it causes. When a bullet hits soft tissue, the tissue acts more like a fluid than a solid as it gives way and tries to absorb the bullet’s energy. The bullet does not immediately penetrate the tissue; instead, it makes an impact crater that stretches in until the bullet penetrates the tissue. As the bullet continues its path, it violently pushes the tissue ahead of it both directly and indirectly in such a way that the tissue is stretched beyond its elasticity and is cut and torn as it quickly tries to return to its original position and beyond. Maybe the mind that invented the ventriloquist suppressor believes that projectiles create air and air damages flesh, muscles and organs, but the fact is that the human body doesn't cope well with metal intruders of the ballistic type. And again: https://www.azflse.org/download.cfm?...loc=csiarizona "Arterial Spurting (or gushing) Pattern -- Bloodstain pattern(s) resulting from blood exiting the body under pressure from a breached artery. Back Spatter -- Blood directed back towards the source of energy or force that caused the spatter. Bloodstain -- Evidence that liquid blood has come into contact with a surface." How about providing one single reference in forensic literature citing a video of a injured person as an example of "back spatter." |
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus |
|
31st August 2017, 08:09 PM | #1531 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
While we're talking bullets, and cavitation, here's a cool video just uploaded featuring the Underwood .30 caliber designed to cavitate. While it's not 6.5x52mm the act of cavitation, as well as yaw, and tumbling are clearly depicted in this video using ballistic gel blocks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4NHSMcnSd8 For a good ole boy just having fun with a WWII carbine, this video is pretty comprehensive for demonstrating what some bullets do when they find their target. Warning: Ham is massacred in this video. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
1st September 2017, 05:43 AM | #1532 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
Viewing the results is impressive. One can easily realize the damage that the bullet caused exploding the skull, causing massive fracturing.
|
12th September 2017, 12:54 PM | #1533 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 7,051
|
|
12th September 2017, 02:16 PM | #1534 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
This is the false claim I referenced in the 9/11 thread.
Specifically, here: The two largest fragments found in the limo were, contrary to your assertion, ballistically traceable to Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. Here's how the Warren Commission wrote it up: https://www.archives.gov/research/jf...chapter-3.html
Quote:
Here's the testimony of Frazier on the fragments: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm Mr. EISENBERG - I now hand you a bullet fragment [CE567], what appears to be a bullet fragment, in a pill box which is labeled jacket and Lead Q-2, and it has certain initials on it. For the record, this was found--this bullet fragment was found--in the front portion of the car in which the President was riding. I ask you whether you are familiar with this object. Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I am. Mr. EISENBERG - Is your mark on-- Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this? Is this a bullet fragment, Mr. Frazier? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. This consists of a piece of the jacket portion of a bullet from the nose area and a piece of the lead core from under the jacket. Mr. EISENBERG - How were you able to conclude it is part of the nose area? Mr. FRAZIER - Because of the rifling marks which extend part way up the side, and then have the characteristic leading edge impressions and no longer continue along the bullet, and by the fact that the bullet has a rounded contour to it which has not been mutilated. Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this bullet to determine whether it had been fired from Exhibit 139 to the exclusion of all other weapons? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion? Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment was fired in this rifle, 139. .... Mr. EISENBERG - Can we go back a second? I don't think I asked for admission of the bullet fragment which--Mr. Frazier identified. May I have that admitted? Mr. McCLOY - It may be admitted. Mr. EISENBERG - The bullet fragment will be 567 and the photograph just identified by Mr. Frazier will be 568. Mr. McCLOY - It may be admitted. ... Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, may I have this bullet fragment marked Q-3 admitted as Commission 569? Mr. McCLOY - It may be admitted. ... Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment [CE569] with a view to determining whether it had been fired from the rifle, Exhibit 139? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion? Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment, Exhibit 569, was fired from this particular rifle, 139. Mr. EISENBERG - Again to the exclusion of all other rifles? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. I am certain this language is contained in this thread or its predecessor threads. I may even have posted it directly in response to one of your claims in the past. Here's the testimony of Nicol on the fragments: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/nicol.htm Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Nicol, did you examine the three exhibits which were given to you as Q-1, Q-2, and Q-3, and which are now, I believe 567, 569, and 399? Mr. NICOL. Yes sir; I did. Mr. EISENBERG. To determine whether or not they had come from the identical barrel as that in which the two--the bullets in Exhibit 572 had been fired? Mr. NICOL. Yes, I did. Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your conclusions? Mr. NICOL. Yes. It is my opinion that the same weapon that fired Commission's Exhibit 572 also fired the projectiles in Commission's Exhibits 569, 567, and 399. Mr. EISENBERG. That would be to the exclusion of all other weapons? Mr. NICOL. Correct. MicahJava, go back and actually read the above. Don't just skim it. Did both Frazier and Nicol testify there were sufficient lands and grooves in the two bullet fragments to offer sufficient markings to determine whether those fragments matched the test bullet fired from Oswald's rifle? Yes, they did. Did both those men say the fragments were ballistically traceable to Oswald's weapon, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world? Yes, they did. Did the Warren Commission Report adequately and accurately cover this testimony, pointing out that the fragments in the limo were ballistically traceable to Oswald's weapon, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world? Yes, it does. Was your claim to the contrary false? You said above: (They're too mangled to show rifling... What are you talking about "ballistically traceable"? ) Your claim that the fragments in the limo aren't ballistically traceable to Oswald's rifle is absolutely false. It has been false in the past, it is false now, and it will be false the next time you make the claim, and every time thereafter. Hank |
__________________
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 |
|
12th September 2017, 02:37 PM | #1536 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
12th September 2017, 06:10 PM | #1537 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
YAWN. You shouldn't have to quote a long line of WC dialogue to give a straight answer. Where's the specific proof that the fragments can be traced to the rifle in evidence to the exclusion of all other weapons? the fragments were so mangled that nobody could see that 'rifling marks' are next to useless.
|
12th September 2017, 06:16 PM | #1538 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
So why isn't the EOP wound basically considered historical fact?
A. The autopsy report, partially based on contemporary notes made during the autopsy (2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance). B. All statements from those present at the autopsy, including the autopsy doctors and autopsy photographer, support a wound low in the head near the EOP. C. The official autopsy photographs and X-rays cannot be excluded from being compatible with the EOP wound. D. Dr. Finck arrived at the autopsy after the brain had already been removed, and that he was able to examine the entry wound within the rest of the intact, open cranium. This almost certainly cannot be true unless the entry wound was low in the head, near the EOP. ??? |
12th September 2017, 06:19 PM | #1539 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
12th September 2017, 06:22 PM | #1540 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
Based on what? I can understand the rifling marks on CE 399, since it is a pristine bullet, consistent with a bullet fired through water as shown by Henry Hurt, by why those mangled fragments? It seems like all that can be shown is that they can be consistent with the rifle in evidence, not proven to have come from the rifle in evidence.
|
12th September 2017, 06:24 PM | #1541 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
12th September 2017, 06:36 PM | #1542 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
12th September 2017, 06:45 PM | #1543 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Your problem is you are apparently bored to sleep by evidence and testimony. That's the stuff that should get your attention. It puts you to sleep.
Also quoted the testimony of Frazier and Nicol, who are experts and found the matching characteristics that tied the two fragments to Oswald's rifle, to the exclusions of all other weapons in the world. THAT'S "the specific proof that the fragments can be traced to the rifle in evidence to the exclusion of all other weapons" that you are seeking. THEY claimed the fragments weren't so mangled that they were useless. To the contrary, they both said the fragments contained sufficient surface area that they could match the fragments at a microscopic level to the test bullet fired from Oswald's weapon. Your uninformed contrary opinion that they were too "mangled" to do so carries no weight. Denying the facts doesn't make them more true. But that's pretty much your modus operandi. You made a false claim. You got called on it. You double-down and repeat the false claim. Nope, that's not going to work. Hank PS: You also ignored the other point I made, about asserting to have read the Warren Commission Report yet apparently being unfamiliar with their basic conclusions and the testimony supporting those conclusions. |
__________________
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 |
|
12th September 2017, 07:09 PM | #1544 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Hilarious. Based on the testimony of Frazier and Nicol, cited here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1534 I scolded you in that original post to not just skim the testimony but go back and read it ("MicahJava, go back and actually read the above. Don't just skim it"). It appears you never did. Just because you ignore the testimony and evidence that destroys your assertions doesn't mean we have to accept your ignorance of that evidence. The Warren Report even told you (and I quoted) the source of their claim:
Quote:
That's the LOGICAL FALLACY of an appeal to personal incredulity. Scratch a conspiracy theorist argument, you typically find a logical fallacy underneath. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity Personal Incredulity "Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true. Complex subjects like biological evolution through natural selection require some amount of understanding before one is able to make an informed judgement about the subject at hand; this fallacy is usually used in place of that*understanding." https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...om-Incredulity Argument from Incredulity (also known as:* argument from personal astonishment, argument from personal incredulity, personal incredulity) Description: Concluding that because you can't or refuse to believe something, it must not be true, improbable, or the argument must be flawed. This is a specific form of the argument from ignorance. Logical Form: Person 1 makes a claim. Person 2 cannot believe the claim. Person 2 concludes, without any reason besides he or she cannot believe or refuses to believe it, that the claim is false or improbable. Example #2: NASA: Yes, we really did successfully land men on the moon. TinFoilHatGuy1969: Yea, right. And Elvis is really dead. Explanation: The unwillingness to entertain ideas that one finds unbelievable is fallacious, especially when the ideas are mainstream ideas made by a reputable source, such as a NASA and the truthfulness of the moon landings Just so we're clear, I'm person one in the above, you're playing the part of person two (and doing so quite well, I might add). You're the one refusing to accept the testimony of two independent experts who concluded the fragments had sufficient undamaged surface area to make the match. Your personal incredulity aside, the evidence is that those two fragments found in the limo were indisputably fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. Just like no two fingerprints are alike, no two weapons can put the same markings on a bullet. And these two fragments had the microscopic markings linking them to Oswald's rifle. You can pretend the evidence doesn't exist. You can pretend your failure to understand that evidence renders it meaningless. You can even stamp your feet and hold your breath until you pass out. None of that changes the fact that you were wrong to claim the fragments couldn't be linked to Oswald's rifle, by science. They can. And they do so to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. Here's some of that evidence for you to ignore or not understand (comparison photos of fragments compared microscopically to test bullet): https://www.history-matters.com/arch...ol17_0150a.htm https://www.history-matters.com/arch...ol17_0150b.htm Hank |
__________________
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 |
|
12th September 2017, 07:40 PM | #1545 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
Oh jeez, Joseph Nicol? just never mind please.
|
12th September 2017, 07:50 PM | #1546 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
I said at the time one of your approaches would be to change the subject. You're ignoring all the points I made and now just questioning the expertise or independence of one of the experts. Your approach here is straight out of the conspiracy books. Folks like Mark Lane denigrate Nicol but never say why -- apparently it's only because they didn't like his testimony. You are doing the same thing, in the exact same manner. No reasons given, just a dismissal of the man.
Please, read this and tell me what - precisely and specifically - you have a problem with: Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, would you state your name and position? Mr. NICOL. Joseph D. Nicol, Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation for the State of Illinois. Mr. EISENBERG. Could you briefly describe your qualifications in the field of firearms investigation? Mr. NICOL. I began studying this field in 1941 in the Chicago Police Crime Laboratory under Charles Wilson, remained there as a firearms technician for approximately 9 years, and then moved to Pittsburgh, where I directed and set up the Pittsburgh and Allegheny County Crime Laboratory, also working in the field of ballistics. Then I went to Miami, Fla., and set up the Dade County Crime Laboratory and worked there for 5 years. I went to Michigan State and taught for 4 and now I am back in Illinois, in Springfield, as Superintendent of the Bureau. Mr. EISENBERG. Could you tell us approximately how many bullets and cartridge cases you have examined to identify them or attempt to identify them to suspect weapons? Mr. NICOL. This would number in the thousands, I do not have an exact figure, but our caseload in Chicago is approximately 4,000 guns annually, of which we would make approximately between 10 and a dozen comparisons, so the comparisons that would be conducted by myself or those under my direct supervision would be approximately 50,000 a year. Now this is just a rough figure. Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have any publications or lectures? Mr. NICOL. I have one minor publication in the field of firearms. Most of my publication work has been with the "Journal of Criminology" in the area of the technical note and abstract section. I do not have any major publications in the firearms field. Mr. EISENBERG. What is your association with that journal? Mr. NICOL. I am associate editor of the "Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology." Mr. EISENBERG. Do you lecture on any regular basis? Mr. NICOL. At the present time I am lecturing with the University of Illinois in criminal investigation, at the Chicago campus, and prior to that I had been on the staff at Michigan State University for approximately 4 years. Mr. EISENBERG. What was your education before you went into this field? Mr. NICOL. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry from Northwestern, and during the period that I was with the Chicago Crime Laboratory I got a Master's in Physics also from Northwestern. Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like permission to take Mr. Nicol's testimony as an expert witness in the field of firearms identification. Mr. DULLES. You may proceed. You don't have any real objections to his qualifications (there are none, he was eminently qualified). You are just trying to prolong the conversation so it looks like you have a point. You don't. Your claim that the two fragments recovered from the limo couldn't be matched to Oswald's rifle was false and remains false. Keep digging that hole you're in deeper. Hank |
__________________
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 |
|
12th September 2017, 07:52 PM | #1547 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
12th September 2017, 07:54 PM | #1548 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
Wasn't Nicol literally the only guy out of seven who claimed to match the bullets recovered from Tippit's body to the revolver in evidence?
|
12th September 2017, 07:55 PM | #1549 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
12th September 2017, 08:04 PM | #1550 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
You are still attempting to change the subject. We were talking about the two fragments recovered from the limo and whether or not those fragments could be linked to Oswald's weapon. I cited the testimony of two experts who said they could, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
If you have some reason to doubt his expertise or his conclusions about the fragments, spell it out. You are now talking about bullets removed from Tippit. Not a surprise to me. I totally predicted you would take this approach. Right here: I might as well take this opportunity to point out the HSCA ballistics panel studied the extant ballistic evidence and reached the same conclusions as Frazier and Nicol. Presumably you will be dismissing them next because you don't like their conclusions either. You can ignore that finding at your leisure here: https://www.history-matters.com/arch...Vol7_0190a.htm (see paragraphs 141 and 145). Hank |
__________________
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 |
|
12th September 2017, 08:08 PM | #1551 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
You lie again. The rifling marks could only be more clear if they were neon:
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305151 Gotta love the National Archives, you can zoom right in on the two angles . Plus, if there was a second rifle in Dealey Plaza it would have been a Carcano because science and ballistics are funny that way. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
12th September 2017, 08:13 PM | #1552 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
It doesn't matter what you see, or what the experts saw. MicahJava's opinion is the only one that matters, at least to MicahJava. He will figuratively close his eyes and sing "La La La, I can't hear you!" rather than admit the evidence establishes his claim was wrong.
And he wonders why his claims aren't taken seriously. Just because he chooses to ignore the evidence and dismiss the testimony he doesn't like doesn't mean anyone else has to. Hank |
__________________
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 |
|
12th September 2017, 08:20 PM | #1553 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
First off, a "pristine" bullet is one that was never fired.
Second, the statement that CE-399 was fired into water is a LIE. Anyone with a few hours of trigger squeezing of the Carcano can tell you that this bullet was fired by a Carcano. Specifically Oswald's Carcano. CE 399 is not pristine, it is deformed from impact, which is clearly visible in these high resolution pictures: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305144 In fact, looking at the bottom you can see pieces of lead missing from the core. Guess where these were found, no really - guess: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305166 The basic truth of the assassination is that the lone weapon was a Carcano rifle, 6.5x52mm, fired from the 6th Floor of the TSBD, by Lee Oswald. Thanks for playing. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
12th September 2017, 08:22 PM | #1554 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
12th September 2017, 08:22 PM | #1555 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
|
12th September 2017, 08:25 PM | #1556 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
12th September 2017, 08:29 PM | #1557 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
The Apollo hoax was got me started in wading through the CT BS. You also need to include basic distrust of authority, as I feel a lot of the CT's start there or maybe continue there. Because "they" always lie then everything "they" tell us is incorrect. One can list all the CT's thoughts after that statement.
|
12th September 2017, 08:34 PM | #1558 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
I keep trying to give MJ an out. I tell him that if there was a conspiracy he's not going to find evidence in Dealey Plaza, and to look into Oswald's life for someone who might have known what he was up to, or even gave assistance.
If someone needs JFK's death to be a result of conspiracy this is the best they can get. No coordinated kill-zone in Dealey Plaza, no secret bullets, no silenced weapons, just a guy with his cheap Italian rifle in the best place to take the shots, and was 2 for 3. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
13th September 2017, 01:08 AM | #1559 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
|
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
13th September 2017, 12:18 PM | #1560 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
No surprise to you that I would point out a major flaw in your argument: That Nicol's trustworthiness is demonstrably questionable. The HSCA claimed that no new reliable analysis could be done on rifling marks because it was fires too many times after, so I guess you only have Mr. "I'm the only person out of seven to say the Tippit bullets matched the revolver". What exactly do you have besides Neutron Activation baloney debunked years ago and not used in courts anymore?
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|