Discussion:
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs. Blenner re the head
(too old to reply)
donald willis
2019-03-05 18:11:38 UTC
Permalink
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)

The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.

The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.

"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)

dcw
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-12 01:04:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
donald willis
2019-03-17 03:04:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.

dcw
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-18 19:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
BOZ
2019-03-19 15:35:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
donald willis
2019-03-20 02:42:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???

As for the g.k., I go with Sam Holland, as per Deputy Sheriff McCurley:
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....

dcw
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-21 12:30:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
What's your source? The Alterationist oriented the head and the wound
incorrectly. I have posted my diagrams to help you orient the wounds
properly.
Post by donald willis
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
Close enough to start. But you don't rely on witnesses. You only use
them as clues to do further studies.
You also forgot to mention that Sam Holland walked Mark Lane over to the
spot where he thought the shot came from.
That is one reason why the HSCA chose that location to place their test
shooter. Why ddn't they chose the storm drain or Dal-Tex?
Post by donald willis
dcw
donald willis
2019-03-22 16:35:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
What's your source?
I assume the HSCA. Did they not say "cowlicK"?

The Alterationist oriented the head and the wound
Post by Anthony Marsh
incorrectly. I have posted my diagrams to help you orient the wounds
properly.
Post by donald willis
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
Close enough to start. But you don't rely on witnesses. You only use
them as clues to do further studies.
You also forgot to mention that Sam Holland walked Mark Lane over to the
spot where he thought the shot came from.
That is one reason why the HSCA chose that location to place their test
shooter. Why ddn't they chose the storm drain or Dal-Tex?
Post by donald willis
dcw
k***@gmail.com
2019-03-21 12:40:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
You mean this statement where he doesn't mention a stockade fence?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hollan1.htm

Where he says the shots came from the direction of 'the arcade' behind the
trees?

== QUOTE ==
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS

Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D.
1963 personally appeared S. M. Holland Address 1119 Lucille, Irving, Texas
Age 57 , Phone No. BL3-2185
Deposes and says:

I am a signal supervisor for the Union Terminal and I was inspecting
signal and switches and stopped to watch the parade. I was standing on top
of the triple underpass and the President's Car was coming down Elm Street
and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the
moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard
three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke
I saw. I immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade and
did not see anyone running from there. But the puff of smoke I saw
definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees. After the first
shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and tried to
get over in the back seat to him and then the second shot rang out. After
the first shot the secret service man raised up in the seat with a machine
gun and then dropped back down in the seat. And they immediately sped off.
Everything is spinning in my head and if I remember anything else later I
will come back and tell Bill.

/s/ S M Holland

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963

/s/ Aleen Davis
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== UNQUOTE ==

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arcade

== QUOTE ==
Definition of arcade

1 : a long arched building or gallery
2a : an arched covered passageway or avenue (as between shops)
b chiefly British : a building that includes many shops A job fair … today will introduce locals to the details of the 250 jobs that a new shopping arcade will bring when its doors open this autumn. — The Journal (Newcastle, England)
3 : a series of arches with their columns or piers
4 : an amusement center having coin-operated games
== UNQUOTE ==

You sure he was talking about the fence initially?

He said 'arcade'... only the white curved structure - not the fence -
could fit that word usage. And behind that white curved structure is the
TSBD - from his position on the knoll. The knoll fence is in front of the
white arcade structure from his position.

Hank
donald willis
2019-03-22 16:35:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
You mean this statement where he doesn't mention a stockade fence?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hollan1.htm
Where he says the shots came from the direction of 'the arcade' behind the
trees?
== QUOTE ==
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D.
1963 personally appeared S. M. Holland Address 1119 Lucille, Irving, Texas
Age 57 , Phone No. BL3-2185
I am a signal supervisor for the Union Terminal and I was inspecting
signal and switches and stopped to watch the parade. I was standing on top
of the triple underpass and the President's Car was coming down Elm Street
and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the
moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard
three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke
I saw. I immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade and
did not see anyone running from there. But the puff of smoke I saw
definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees. After the first
shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and tried to
get over in the back seat to him and then the second shot rang out. After
the first shot the secret service man raised up in the seat with a machine
gun and then dropped back down in the seat. And they immediately sped off.
Everything is spinning in my head and if I remember anything else later I
will come back and tell Bill.
/s/ S M Holland
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963
/s/ Aleen Davis
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== UNQUOTE ==
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arcade
== QUOTE ==
Definition of arcade
1 : a long arched building or gallery
2a : an arched covered passageway or avenue (as between shops)
b chiefly British : a building that includes many shops A job fair … today will introduce locals to the details of the 250 jobs that a new shopping arcade will bring when its doors open this autumn. — The Journal (Newcastle, England)
3 : a series of arches with their columns or piers
4 : an amusement center having coin-operated games
== UNQUOTE ==
You sure he was talking about the fence initially?
He said 'arcade'... only the white curved structure - not the fence -
could fit that word usage. And behind that white curved structure is the
TSBD - from his position on the knoll. The knoll fence is in front of the
white arcade structure from his position.
Hank
He may have confused "arcade" with "stockade".
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-03-23 16:25:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
You mean this statement where he doesn't mention a stockade fence?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hollan1.htm
Where he says the shots came from the direction of 'the arcade' behind the
trees?
== QUOTE ==
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D.
1963 personally appeared S. M. Holland Address 1119 Lucille, Irving, Texas
Age 57 , Phone No. BL3-2185
I am a signal supervisor for the Union Terminal and I was inspecting
signal and switches and stopped to watch the parade. I was standing on top
of the triple underpass and the President's Car was coming down Elm Street
and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the
moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard
three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke
I saw. I immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade and
did not see anyone running from there. But the puff of smoke I saw
definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees. After the first
shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and tried to
get over in the back seat to him and then the second shot rang out. After
the first shot the secret service man raised up in the seat with a machine
gun and then dropped back down in the seat. And they immediately sped off.
Everything is spinning in my head and if I remember anything else later I
will come back and tell Bill.
/s/ S M Holland
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963
/s/ Aleen Davis
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== UNQUOTE ==
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arcade
== QUOTE ==
Definition of arcade
1 : a long arched building or gallery
2a : an arched covered passageway or avenue (as between shops)
b chiefly British : a building that includes many shops A job fair … today will introduce locals to the details of the 250 jobs that a new shopping arcade will bring when its doors open this autumn. — The Journal (Newcastle, England)
3 : a series of arches with their columns or piers
4 : an amusement center having coin-operated games
== UNQUOTE ==
You sure he was talking about the fence initially?
He said 'arcade'... only the white curved structure - not the fence -
could fit that word usage. And behind that white curved structure is the
TSBD - from his position on the knoll. The knoll fence is in front of the
white arcade structure from his position.
Hank
He may have confused "arcade" with "stockade".
Does that make sense to you?

Where does he say the limo was when the first shot was fired?

Let's examine his statement: "I was standing on top of the triple
underpass and the President's Car was coming down Elm Street and when they
got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the moment was a
fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked toward the arcade and trees
and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard three more shots
after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke I saw."

He places the President's car at about "the arcade". Do you place the President's
car at about the stockade fence for the first shot (past Zapruder) or
do place the President's car at about the pergola area for the first shot?

If you place the limo at the stockade fence you're claiming Holland
thought the first shot came after the President's head exploded... which
would make him a terrible witness.

Just accept his words at face value and stop trying to twist them to say
something they don't. Where's he place the limo at the first shot? Where's
he place the limo when he saw the only incidence of smoke? Where'd the
smoke appear to come from? "But the puff of smoke I saw definitely came
from behind the arcade through the trees."

Behind the arcade (pergola) from his position is the Depository. Isn't it?

Hank
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-24 03:55:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
You mean this statement where he doesn't mention a stockade fence?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hollan1.htm
Where he says the shots came from the direction of 'the arcade' behind the
trees?
== QUOTE ==
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D.
1963 personally appeared S. M. Holland Address 1119 Lucille, Irving, Texas
Age 57 , Phone No. BL3-2185
I am a signal supervisor for the Union Terminal and I was inspecting
signal and switches and stopped to watch the parade. I was standing on top
of the triple underpass and the President's Car was coming down Elm Street
and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the
moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard
three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke
I saw. I immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade and
did not see anyone running from there. But the puff of smoke I saw
definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees. After the first
shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and tried to
get over in the back seat to him and then the second shot rang out. After
the first shot the secret service man raised up in the seat with a machine
gun and then dropped back down in the seat. And they immediately sped off.
Everything is spinning in my head and if I remember anything else later I
will come back and tell Bill.
/s/ S M Holland
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963
/s/ Aleen Davis
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== UNQUOTE ==
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arcade
== QUOTE ==
Definition of arcade
1 : a long arched building or gallery
2a : an arched covered passageway or avenue (as between shops)
b chiefly British : a building that includes many shops A job fair … today will introduce locals to the details of the 250 jobs that a new shopping arcade will bring when its doors open this autumn. — The Journal (Newcastle, England)
3 : a series of arches with their columns or piers
4 : an amusement center having coin-operated games
== UNQUOTE ==
You sure he was talking about the fence initially?
He said 'arcade'... only the white curved structure - not the fence -
could fit that word usage. And behind that white curved structure is the
TSBD - from his position on the knoll. The knoll fence is in front of the
white arcade structure from his position.
Hank
He may have confused "arcade" with "stockade".
Does that make sense to you?
Where does he say the limo was when the first shot was fired?
Let's examine his statement: "I was standing on top of the triple
underpass and the President's Car was coming down Elm Street and when they
got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the moment was a
fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked toward the arcade and trees
and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard three more shots
after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke I saw."
He places the President's car at about "the arcade". Do you place the President's
car at about the stockade fence for the first shot (past Zapruder) or
do place the President's car at about the pergola area for the first shot?
If you place the limo at the stockade fence you're claiming Holland
thought the first shot came after the President's head exploded... which
would make him a terrible witness.
Just accept his words at face value and stop trying to twist them to say
something they don't. Where's he place the limo at the first shot? Where's
he place the limo when he saw the only incidence of smoke? Where'd the
smoke appear to come from? "But the puff of smoke I saw definitely came
from behind the arcade through the trees."
Behind the arcade (pergola) from his position is the Depository. Isn't it?
Not directly. Behind the fence and to the left is the TSBD.
You are playing the Sophist.
The TSBD and the fence were in FRONT of Holland who was facing the
corrner of Elm and Houston watching the limousine come down Em Street.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Hank
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-03-27 19:42:03 UTC
Permalink
No sophistry. Holland said the shots came from behind the arcade. (Do you
agree that he meant the curved white concrete structure on the north side
of Elm, sometimes referred to as the pergola?)

What's behind that pergola from Holland's position?

I see some trees and a big building known as the Texas School Book
Depository. What do you see?

Loading Image...

You're the one playing the sophist because you're attempting to confuse the issue by claiming both the pergola and the Depository were in front of
Holland. Nobody said differently, not I and certainly not Holland. However
Holland said the shots came from behind the arcade ("pergola") and behind
the arcade ("pergola") is the Depository. True or false?
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-30 03:25:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
No sophistry. Holland said the shots came from behind the arcade. (Do you
agree that he meant the curved white concrete structure on the north side
of Elm, sometimes referred to as the pergola?)
Of course. Are you disputing that it IS a pergola?
Again, I challenge you to find one wirness who called it a pergola
on 11/22/63.
But he was wrong to think the shot came from BEHIND the pergola. Is that
just YOUR spin to discredit him?
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS

Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November
A.D. 1963 personally appeared S. M. Holland Address 1119 Lucille,
Irving, Texas Age 57 , Phone No. BL3-2185
Deposes and says:

I am a signal supervisor for the Union Terminal and I was inspecting
signal and switches and stopped to watch the parade. I was standing on top
of the triple underpass and the President's Car was coming down Elm Street
and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the
moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard
three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke
I saw. I immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade and
did not see anyone running from there. But the puff of smoke I saw
definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees. After the first
shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and tried to
get over in the back seat to him and then the second shot rang out. After
the first shot the secret service man raised up in the seat with a machine
gun and then dropped back down in the seat. And they immediately sped off.
Everything is spinning in my head and if I remember anything else later I
will come back and tell Bill.

/s/ S M Holland

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963

/s/ Aleen Davis
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas

He ran to the arcade to look behind the arcade. He thought the puff of
smoke starteed from behind the arcade.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
What's behind that pergola from Holland's position?
I see some trees and a big building known as the Texas School Book
Depository. What do you see?
http://www.orwelltoday.com/jfkpickethollandoverpass.jpg
You're the one playing the sophist because you're attempting to confuse the issue by claiming both the pergola and the Depository were in front of
Holland. Nobody said differently, not I and certainly not Holland. However
Holland said the shots came from behind the arcade ("pergola") and behind
the arcade ("pergola") is the Depository. True or false?
Again you know nothing. Holland was on the overpass looking to the EAST.
So at that moment both the TSBD and pergola would be in front of him.
Simple geometry, which you never took in 1st grade.
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-03-31 18:01:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
No sophistry. Holland said the shots came from behind the arcade. (Do you
agree that he meant the curved white concrete structure on the north side
of Elm, sometimes referred to as the pergola?)
Of course. Are you disputing that it IS a pergola?
No. Not at all.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Again, I challenge you to find one wirness who called it a pergola
on 11/22/63.
Meaningless. A rose by any other name... Holland called it the arcade. He
said the shots came from behind that. What's behind the arcade from his
position on the knoll? The TSBD.
Post by Anthony Marsh
But he was wrong to think the shot came from BEHIND the pergola.
You are now arguing with the witness. You're no longer arguing with me.
You've left the realm of debate and entered the realm of the ouija board,
spirit mediums, and communing with the dead.

Quite frankly, your assertion that Holland was wrong to think the shot(s)
came from behind the pergola is not backed up by any contemporaneous
evidence.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Is that
just YOUR spin to discredit him?
The only one claiming he's wrong on this board in this thread in the
statement below is you and Donald Willis. Not me. I'm trying to credit his
statement. You're the one claiming he's wrong: " he was wrong to think the
shot came from BEHIND the pergola".
Post by Anthony Marsh
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November
A.D. 1963 personally appeared S. M. Holland Address 1119 Lucille,
Irving, Texas Age 57 , Phone No. BL3-2185
I am a signal supervisor for the Union Terminal and I was inspecting
signal and switches and stopped to watch the parade. I was standing on top
of the triple underpass and the President's Car was coming down Elm Street
and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the
moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard
three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke
I saw. I immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade and
did not see anyone running from there. But the puff of smoke I saw
definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees. After the first
shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and tried to
get over in the back seat to him and then the second shot rang out. After
the first shot the secret service man raised up in the seat with a machine
gun and then dropped back down in the seat. And they immediately sped off.
Everything is spinning in my head and if I remember anything else later I
will come back and tell Bill.
/s/ S M Holland
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963
/s/ Aleen Davis
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
He ran to the arcade to look behind the arcade. He thought the puff of
smoke starteed from behind the arcade.
Behind the arcade (pergola) is the TSBD.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
What's behind that pergola from Holland's position?
I see some trees and a big building known as the Texas School Book
Depository. What do you see?
http://www.orwelltoday.com/jfkpickethollandoverpass.jpg
You're the one playing the sophist because you're attempting to confuse the issue by claiming both the pergola and the Depository were in front of
Holland. Nobody said differently, not I and certainly not Holland. However
Holland said the shots came from behind the arcade ("pergola") and behind
the arcade ("pergola") is the Depository. True or false?
Again you know nothing. Holland was on the overpass looking to the EAST.
I'll give you that one.
Post by Anthony Marsh
So at that moment both the TSBD and pergola would be in front of him.
And which was closer? The pergola. Which puts the Depository behind the
pergola. And that's where he located the shots... behind the pergola
(which he called the arcade): "But the puff of smoke I saw definitely came
from behind the arcade through the trees."
Post by Anthony Marsh
Simple geometry, which you never took in 1st grade.
You got there me. I didn't take geometry in first grade. Most people don't
take geometry until high school. I was in advanced math classes and took
it in 7th grade. I took calculus in high school.

Hank
donald willis
2019-04-01 18:53:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
No sophistry. Holland said the shots came from behind the arcade. (Do you
agree that he meant the curved white concrete structure on the north side
of Elm, sometimes referred to as the pergola?)
Of course. Are you disputing that it IS a pergola?
No. Not at all.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Again, I challenge you to find one wirness who called it a pergola
on 11/22/63.
Meaningless. A rose by any other name... Holland called it the arcade. He
said the shots came from behind that. What's behind the arcade from his
position on the knoll? The TSBD.
Anthony -- This is how LNs lead CTs astray. They frame the debate.
Here, for instance, Hank uses the phrase "from his position on the knoll"
to explain Holland's "behind". That's HIS phrase, not Holland's. Thus
does he say what he thinks--or wants us to think--what Holland meant by
"behind". "Behind" from Holland's pov.

But by "behind" Holland may really have meant "in back of" the arcade--as
opposed to "in front of" it. And if that's true, the railroad spur--not
the depository--is BEHIND the arcade. LNs are very canny!

dcw
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-04-02 20:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
No sophistry. Holland said the shots came from behind the arcade. (Do you
agree that he meant the curved white concrete structure on the north side
of Elm, sometimes referred to as the pergola?)
Of course. Are you disputing that it IS a pergola?
No. Not at all.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Again, I challenge you to find one wirness who called it a pergola
on 11/22/63.
Meaningless. A rose by any other name... Holland called it the arcade. He
said the shots came from behind that. What's behind the arcade from his
position on the knoll? The TSBD.
Anthony -- This is how LNs lead CTs astray. They frame the debate.
Here, for instance, Hank uses the phrase "from his position on the knoll"
to explain Holland's "behind". That's HIS phrase, not Holland's. Thus
does he say what he thinks--or wants us to think--what Holland meant by
"behind". "Behind" from Holland's pov.
But by "behind" Holland may really have meant "in back of" the arcade--as
opposed to "in front of" it. And if that's true, the railroad spur--not
the depository--is BEHIND the arcade. LNs are very canny!
dcw
Hello? Whose point of view would he be using except his own?

JFK's? Zapruder's? Bill Newman's? Oswald's?

Behind the arcade is the Depository.

From Holland's point of view.

Hank
donald willis
2019-04-03 20:39:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
No sophistry. Holland said the shots came from behind the arcade. (Do you
agree that he meant the curved white concrete structure on the north side
of Elm, sometimes referred to as the pergola?)
Of course. Are you disputing that it IS a pergola?
No. Not at all.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Again, I challenge you to find one wirness who called it a pergola
on 11/22/63.
Meaningless. A rose by any other name... Holland called it the arcade. He
said the shots came from behind that. What's behind the arcade from his
position on the knoll? The TSBD.
Anthony -- This is how LNs lead CTs astray. They frame the debate.
Here, for instance, Hank uses the phrase "from his position on the knoll"
to explain Holland's "behind". That's HIS phrase, not Holland's. Thus
does he say what he thinks--or wants us to think--what Holland meant by
"behind". "Behind" from Holland's pov.
But by "behind" Holland may really have meant "in back of" the arcade--as
opposed to "in front of" it. And if that's true, the railroad spur--not
the depository--is BEHIND the arcade. LNs are very canny!
dcw
Hello? Whose point of view would he be using except his own?
JFK's? Zapruder's? Bill Newman's? Oswald's?
Behind the arcade is the Depository.
From Holland's point of view.
Hank
See, Anthony, this LN can't admit of any interpretation of witness
observations except his own. And in this case, his interpretation is most
probably wrong. Yet he wants us to base our discussion on his apparent
error.

dcw
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-04-14 22:13:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
No sophistry. Holland said the shots came from behind the arcade. (Do you
agree that he meant the curved white concrete structure on the north side
of Elm, sometimes referred to as the pergola?)
Of course. Are you disputing that it IS a pergola?
No. Not at all.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Again, I challenge you to find one wirness who called it a pergola
on 11/22/63.
Meaningless. A rose by any other name... Holland called it the arcade. He
said the shots came from behind that. What's behind the arcade from his
position on the knoll? The TSBD.
Anthony -- This is how LNs lead CTs astray. They frame the debate.
Here, for instance, Hank uses the phrase "from his position on the knoll"
to explain Holland's "behind". That's HIS phrase, not Holland's. Thus
does he say what he thinks--or wants us to think--what Holland meant by
"behind". "Behind" from Holland's pov.
But by "behind" Holland may really have meant "in back of" the arcade--as
opposed to "in front of" it. And if that's true, the railroad spur--not
the depository--is BEHIND the arcade. LNs are very canny!
dcw
Hello? Whose point of view would he be using except his own?
JFK's? Zapruder's? Bill Newman's? Oswald's?
Behind the arcade is the Depository.
From Holland's point of view.
Hank
See, Anthony, this LN can't admit of any interpretation of witness
observations except his own. And in this case, his interpretation is most
probably wrong. Yet he wants us to base our discussion on his apparent
error.
dcw
Hilarious.

I'm taking his own words and pointing out a possible interpretation that
has been ignored for 55+ years. I readily concede there's been a different
interpretation of his same-day statement that has been credited (mostly in
CT books) for those 55+ years. I can admit of differing interpretations.

Right now, the only ones refusing to admit of differing interpretations
and who wants us to base our discussion on their interpretation is you and
other CTs.

You've offered no reason to reject the interpretation I've offered up,
other than it's been interpreted that way.

What part of my interpretation do you disagree with? Specifically? Spell
it out and tell us why. Tell us how I'm misinterpreting his statement. He
said the shots came from behind the arcade.

Tell us what was further from him than the arcade along his line of sight
(and therefore behind the arcade from his viewpoint except the Depository
building. Tell us what was closer to him along his line of sight than the
arcade from where he stood, and therefore in front of the arcade. Was it
the knoll? Why, yes, it was.

Claiming Holland meant the knoll by his claim the shots came from behind
the arcade doesn't appear to make much sense.

Hank
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-16 16:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
No sophistry. Holland said the shots came from behind the arcade. (Do you
agree that he meant the curved white concrete structure on the north side
of Elm, sometimes referred to as the pergola?)
Of course. Are you disputing that it IS a pergola?
No. Not at all.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Again, I challenge you to find one wirness who called it a pergola
on 11/22/63.
Meaningless. A rose by any other name... Holland called it the arcade. He
said the shots came from behind that. What's behind the arcade from his
position on the knoll? The TSBD.
Anthony -- This is how LNs lead CTs astray. They frame the debate.
Here, for instance, Hank uses the phrase "from his position on the knoll"
to explain Holland's "behind". That's HIS phrase, not Holland's. Thus
does he say what he thinks--or wants us to think--what Holland meant by
"behind". "Behind" from Holland's pov.
But by "behind" Holland may really have meant "in back of" the arcade--as
opposed to "in front of" it. And if that's true, the railroad spur--not
the depository--is BEHIND the arcade. LNs are very canny!
dcw
Hello? Whose point of view would he be using except his own?
JFK's? Zapruder's? Bill Newman's? Oswald's?
Behind the arcade is the Depository.
From Holland's point of view.
Hank
See, Anthony, this LN can't admit of any interpretation of witness
observations except his own. And in this case, his interpretation is most
probably wrong. Yet he wants us to base our discussion on his apparent
error.
dcw
Hilarious.
I'm taking his own words and pointing out a possible interpretation that
has been ignored for 55+ years. I readily concede there's been a different
interpretation of his same-day statement that has been credited (mostly in
CT books) for those 55+ years. I can admit of differing interpretations.
Right now, the only ones refusing to admit of differing interpretations
and who wants us to base our discussion on their interpretation is you and
other CTs.
You've offered no reason to reject the interpretation I've offered up,
other than it's been interpreted that way.
What part of my interpretation do you disagree with? Specifically? Spell
it out and tell us why. Tell us how I'm misinterpreting his statement. He
said the shots came from behind the arcade.
Tell us what was further from him than the arcade along his line of sight
(and therefore behind the arcade from his viewpoint except the Depository
building. Tell us what was closer to him along his line of sight than the
arcade from where he stood, and therefore in front of the arcade. Was it
the knoll? Why, yes, it was.
Claiming Holland meant the knoll by his claim the shots came from behind
the arcade doesn't appear to make much sense.
HOLLAND poointed out exactly where he thought the shot came from. Not
from the pergola. From the fence.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Hank
donald willis
2019-03-25 00:29:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
You mean this statement where he doesn't mention a stockade fence?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hollan1.htm
Where he says the shots came from the direction of 'the arcade' behind the
trees?
== QUOTE ==
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D.
1963 personally appeared S. M. Holland Address 1119 Lucille, Irving, Texas
Age 57 , Phone No. BL3-2185
I am a signal supervisor for the Union Terminal and I was inspecting
signal and switches and stopped to watch the parade. I was standing on top
of the triple underpass and the President's Car was coming down Elm Street
and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the
moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard
three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke
I saw. I immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade and
did not see anyone running from there. But the puff of smoke I saw
definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees. After the first
shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and tried to
get over in the back seat to him and then the second shot rang out. After
the first shot the secret service man raised up in the seat with a machine
gun and then dropped back down in the seat. And they immediately sped off.
Everything is spinning in my head and if I remember anything else later I
will come back and tell Bill.
/s/ S M Holland
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963
/s/ Aleen Davis
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== UNQUOTE ==
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arcade
== QUOTE ==
Definition of arcade
1 : a long arched building or gallery
2a : an arched covered passageway or avenue (as between shops)
b chiefly British : a building that includes many shops A job fair … today will introduce locals to the details of the 250 jobs that a new shopping arcade will bring when its doors open this autumn. — The Journal (Newcastle, England)
3 : a series of arches with their columns or piers
4 : an amusement center having coin-operated games
== UNQUOTE ==
You sure he was talking about the fence initially?
He said 'arcade'... only the white curved structure - not the fence -
could fit that word usage. And behind that white curved structure is the
TSBD - from his position on the knoll. The knoll fence is in front of the
white arcade structure from his position.
Hank
He may have confused "arcade" with "stockade".
Does that make sense to you?
Where does he say the limo was when the first shot was fired?
Let's examine his statement: "I was standing on top of the triple
underpass and the President's Car was coming down Elm Street and when they
got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the moment was a
fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked toward the arcade and trees
and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard three more shots
after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke I saw."
He places the President's car at about "the arcade". Do you place the President's
car at about the stockade fence for the first shot (past Zapruder) or
do place the President's car at about the pergola area for the first shot?
If you place the limo at the stockade fence you're claiming Holland
thought the first shot came after the President's head exploded... which
would make him a terrible witness.
Just accept his words at face value and stop trying to twist them to say
something they don't. Where's he place the limo at the first shot? Where's
he place the limo when he saw the only incidence of smoke? Where'd the
smoke appear to come from? "But the puff of smoke I saw definitely came
from behind the arcade through the trees."
Behind the arcade (pergola) from his position is the Depository. Isn't it?
Hank
The whole of Dallas, come to that, is behind the pergola. Holland got the
shooting sequence wrong--as I've said, he was a confused witness. But he
did not say the smoke came from the depository...

dcw
donald willis
2019-03-22 16:36:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
You mean this statement where he doesn't mention a stockade fence?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hollan1.htm
Where he says the shots came from the direction of 'the arcade' behind the
trees?
== QUOTE ==
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D.
1963 personally appeared S. M. Holland Address 1119 Lucille, Irving, Texas
Age 57 , Phone No. BL3-2185
I am a signal supervisor for the Union Terminal and I was inspecting
signal and switches and stopped to watch the parade. I was standing on top
of the triple underpass and the President's Car was coming down Elm Street
and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the
moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard
three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke
I saw. I immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade and
did not see anyone running from there. But the puff of smoke I saw
definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees. After the first
shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and tried to
get over in the back seat to him and then the second shot rang out. After
the first shot the secret service man raised up in the seat with a machine
gun and then dropped back down in the seat. And they immediately sped off.
Everything is spinning in my head and if I remember anything else later I
will come back and tell Bill.
/s/ S M Holland
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963
/s/ Aleen Davis
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== UNQUOTE ==
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arcade
== QUOTE ==
Definition of arcade
1 : a long arched building or gallery
2a : an arched covered passageway or avenue (as between shops)
b chiefly British : a building that includes many shops A job fair … today will introduce locals to the details of the 250 jobs that a new shopping arcade will bring when its doors open this autumn. — The Journal (Newcastle, England)
3 : a series of arches with their columns or piers
4 : an amusement center having coin-operated games
== UNQUOTE ==
You sure he was talking about the fence initially?
He said 'arcade'... only the white curved structure - not the fence -
could fit that word usage. And behind that white curved structure is the
TSBD - from his position on the knoll. The knoll fence is in front of the
white arcade structure from his position.
Hank
I have to admire your chutzpah--trying to turn Sam Holland into a
depository witness! Looking at the diagram of Dealey Plaza in Trask's
Pictures of the Pain, I see that the TSBD is also behind the STOCKADE
FENCE! It's also behind the TREES.

McCurley stated that Holland said the "bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence". The latter is not in the vicinity of the depository.

And if you're implying that smoke from a shot from the fifth or sixth
floor of the depository wafted down to the arcade, why don't we see that
smoke outside the window of the depository?

dcw
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-23 13:35:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
You mean this statement where he doesn't mention a stockade fence?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hollan1.htm
Where he says the shots came from the direction of 'the arcade' behind the
trees?
== QUOTE ==
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D.
1963 personally appeared S. M. Holland Address 1119 Lucille, Irving, Texas
Age 57 , Phone No. BL3-2185
I am a signal supervisor for the Union Terminal and I was inspecting
signal and switches and stopped to watch the parade. I was standing on top
of the triple underpass and the President's Car was coming down Elm Street
and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the
moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard
three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke
I saw. I immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade and
did not see anyone running from there. But the puff of smoke I saw
definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees. After the first
shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and tried to
get over in the back seat to him and then the second shot rang out. After
the first shot the secret service man raised up in the seat with a machine
gun and then dropped back down in the seat. And they immediately sped off.
Everything is spinning in my head and if I remember anything else later I
will come back and tell Bill.
/s/ S M Holland
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963
/s/ Aleen Davis
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== UNQUOTE ==
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arcade
== QUOTE ==
Definition of arcade
1 : a long arched building or gallery
2a : an arched covered passageway or avenue (as between shops)
b chiefly British : a building that includes many shops A job fair … today will introduce locals to the details of the 250 jobs that a new shopping arcade will bring when its doors open this autumn. — The Journal (Newcastle, England)
3 : a series of arches with their columns or piers
4 : an amusement center having coin-operated games
== UNQUOTE ==
You sure he was talking about the fence initially?
He said 'arcade'... only the white curved structure - not the fence -
could fit that word usage. And behind that white curved structure is the
TSBD - from his position on the knoll. The knoll fence is in front of the
white arcade structure from his position.
Hank
I have to admire your chutzpah--trying to turn Sam Holland into a
depository witness! Looking at the diagram of Dealey Plaza in Trask's
Pictures of the Pain, I see that the TSBD is also behind the STOCKADE
FENCE! It's also behind the TREES.
McCurley stated that Holland said the "bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence". The latter is not in the vicinity of the depository.
And if you're implying that smoke from a shot from the fifth or sixth
floor of the depository wafted down to the arcade, why don't we see that
smoke outside the window of the depository?
dcw
No one eveer asks why no one saw smoke coming from the TSB.
WC defenders say that Oswald's Carcano never smoked.
But you saw the CBS tests you would see that sometimes a Carcano smokes.
donald willis
2019-03-25 00:25:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
You mean this statement where he doesn't mention a stockade fence?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hollan1.htm
Where he says the shots came from the direction of 'the arcade' behind the
trees?
== QUOTE ==
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D.
1963 personally appeared S. M. Holland Address 1119 Lucille, Irving, Texas
Age 57 , Phone No. BL3-2185
I am a signal supervisor for the Union Terminal and I was inspecting
signal and switches and stopped to watch the parade. I was standing on top
of the triple underpass and the President's Car was coming down Elm Street
and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the
moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard
three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke
I saw. I immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade and
did not see anyone running from there. But the puff of smoke I saw
definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees. After the first
shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and tried to
get over in the back seat to him and then the second shot rang out. After
the first shot the secret service man raised up in the seat with a machine
gun and then dropped back down in the seat. And they immediately sped off.
Everything is spinning in my head and if I remember anything else later I
will come back and tell Bill.
/s/ S M Holland
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963
/s/ Aleen Davis
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== UNQUOTE ==
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arcade
== QUOTE ==
Definition of arcade
1 : a long arched building or gallery
2a : an arched covered passageway or avenue (as between shops)
b chiefly British : a building that includes many shops A job fair … today will introduce locals to the details of the 250 jobs that a new shopping arcade will bring when its doors open this autumn. — The Journal (Newcastle, England)
3 : a series of arches with their columns or piers
4 : an amusement center having coin-operated games
== UNQUOTE ==
You sure he was talking about the fence initially?
He said 'arcade'... only the white curved structure - not the fence -
could fit that word usage. And behind that white curved structure is the
TSBD - from his position on the knoll. The knoll fence is in front of the
white arcade structure from his position.
Hank
I have to admire your chutzpah--trying to turn Sam Holland into a
depository witness! Looking at the diagram of Dealey Plaza in Trask's
Pictures of the Pain, I see that the TSBD is also behind the STOCKADE
FENCE! It's also behind the TREES.
McCurley stated that Holland said the "bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence". The latter is not in the vicinity of the depository.
And if you're implying that smoke from a shot from the fifth or sixth
floor of the depository wafted down to the arcade, why don't we see that
smoke outside the window of the depository?
dcw
No one eveer asks why no one saw smoke coming from the TSB.
WC defenders say that Oswald's Carcano never smoked.
But you saw the CBS tests you would see that sometimes a Carcano smokes.
And it's not just a matter of a witness perhaps seeing smoke, or not. We
have three photos of the upper right hand corner of the building taken in
the seconds after the shots were fired. No smoke.

And I don't quite get that myself since I believe that two shots were
fired from that area....

dcw
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-03-23 16:26:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
You mean this statement where he doesn't mention a stockade fence?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hollan1.htm
Where he says the shots came from the direction of 'the arcade' behind the
trees?
== QUOTE ==
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D.
1963 personally appeared S. M. Holland Address 1119 Lucille, Irving, Texas
Age 57 , Phone No. BL3-2185
I am a signal supervisor for the Union Terminal and I was inspecting
signal and switches and stopped to watch the parade. I was standing on top
of the triple underpass and the President's Car was coming down Elm Street
and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the
moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard
three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke
I saw. I immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade and
did not see anyone running from there. But the puff of smoke I saw
definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees. After the first
shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and tried to
get over in the back seat to him and then the second shot rang out. After
the first shot the secret service man raised up in the seat with a machine
gun and then dropped back down in the seat. And they immediately sped off.
Everything is spinning in my head and if I remember anything else later I
will come back and tell Bill.
/s/ S M Holland
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963
/s/ Aleen Davis
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== UNQUOTE ==
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arcade
== QUOTE ==
Definition of arcade
1 : a long arched building or gallery
2a : an arched covered passageway or avenue (as between shops)
b chiefly British : a building that includes many shops A job fair … today will introduce locals to the details of the 250 jobs that a new shopping arcade will bring when its doors open this autumn. — The Journal (Newcastle, England)
3 : a series of arches with their columns or piers
4 : an amusement center having coin-operated games
== UNQUOTE ==
You sure he was talking about the fence initially?
He said 'arcade'... only the white curved structure - not the fence -
could fit that word usage. And behind that white curved structure is the
TSBD - from his position on the knoll. The knoll fence is in front of the
white arcade structure from his position.
Hank
I have to admire your chutzpah--trying to turn Sam Holland into a
depository witness!
As I admire the chutzpah of the early conspiracy theorists trying to turn
Holland into a knoll witness.
Post by donald willis
Looking at the diagram of Dealey Plaza in Trask's
Pictures of the Pain, I see that the TSBD is also behind the STOCKADE
FENCE! It's also behind the TREES.
And that's where Holland placed the smoke he saw. Behind the arcade and
behind the trees. Thank you for admitting that Holland said the smoke came
from behind all that.
Post by donald willis
McCurley stated that Holland said the "bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence". The latter is not in the vicinity of the depository.
Hearsay. Not evidence. Not admissible in court. I thought you guys could
build a case for a conspiracy from the evidence? I never see that.
Post by donald willis
And if you're implying that smoke from a shot from the fifth or sixth
floor of the depository wafted down to the arcade, why don't we see that
smoke outside the window of the depository?
1. He said the limo was at about the arcade (archway, e.g., pergola) at
the time of the first shot when he saw the smoke. "...the President's
Car was coming down Elm Street and when they got just about to the
Arcade I heard what I thought for the moment was a fire cracker..."

2. And he said the smoke came from behind the arcade "But the puff of
smoke I saw definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees."

3. And he said he saw smoke after the first shot only "I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I
heard three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff
of smoke I saw."

I am taking his statements at face value. The only assumption I'm making
is he meant the curved structure (the pergola) when he said "the arcade".
As I said, it's the only structure that fits the definition.

How do you put this together? Do you think he was an accurate witness and
only the first shot came from the knoll? If you place his shooter on the
knoll, and you think he's an accurate witness, then that's the only shot
he placed as coming from there. Isn't it?

Hank
donald willis
2019-03-25 00:30:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
You mean this statement where he doesn't mention a stockade fence?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hollan1.htm
Where he says the shots came from the direction of 'the arcade' behind the
trees?
== QUOTE ==
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D.
1963 personally appeared S. M. Holland Address 1119 Lucille, Irving, Texas
Age 57 , Phone No. BL3-2185
I am a signal supervisor for the Union Terminal and I was inspecting
signal and switches and stopped to watch the parade. I was standing on top
of the triple underpass and the President's Car was coming down Elm Street
and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the
moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard
three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke
I saw. I immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade and
did not see anyone running from there. But the puff of smoke I saw
definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees. After the first
shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and tried to
get over in the back seat to him and then the second shot rang out. After
the first shot the secret service man raised up in the seat with a machine
gun and then dropped back down in the seat. And they immediately sped off.
Everything is spinning in my head and if I remember anything else later I
will come back and tell Bill.
/s/ S M Holland
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963
/s/ Aleen Davis
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== UNQUOTE ==
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arcade
== QUOTE ==
Definition of arcade
1 : a long arched building or gallery
2a : an arched covered passageway or avenue (as between shops)
b chiefly British : a building that includes many shops A job fair … today will introduce locals to the details of the 250 jobs that a new shopping arcade will bring when its doors open this autumn. — The Journal (Newcastle, England)
3 : a series of arches with their columns or piers
4 : an amusement center having coin-operated games
== UNQUOTE ==
You sure he was talking about the fence initially?
He said 'arcade'... only the white curved structure - not the fence -
could fit that word usage. And behind that white curved structure is the
TSBD - from his position on the knoll. The knoll fence is in front of the
white arcade structure from his position.
Hank
I have to admire your chutzpah--trying to turn Sam Holland into a
depository witness!
As I admire the chutzpah of the early conspiracy theorists trying to turn
Holland into a knoll witness.
Are you f***ing kidding? ("***" mine)
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Looking at the diagram of Dealey Plaza in Trask's
Pictures of the Pain, I see that the TSBD is also behind the STOCKADE
FENCE! It's also behind the TREES.
And that's where Holland placed the smoke he saw. Behind the arcade and
behind the trees. Thank you for admitting that Holland said the smoke came
from behind all that.
Sorry--he said "through the trees". So you think that he could have seen
smoke at the upper window of the depository from where he was? Even the
photos of the upper windows circa 12:30 don't show any smoke there. Or
has smoke gotten in your eyes?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
McCurley stated that Holland said the "bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence". The latter is not in the vicinity of the depository.
Hearsay. Not evidence. Not admissible in court. I thought you guys could
build a case for a conspiracy from the evidence? I never see that.
Post by donald willis
And if you're implying that smoke from a shot from the fifth or sixth
floor of the depository wafted down to the arcade, why don't we see that
smoke outside the window of the depository?
1. He said the limo was at about the arcade (archway, e.g., pergola) at
the time of the first shot when he saw the smoke. "...the President's
Car was coming down Elm Street and when they got just about to the
Arcade I heard what I thought for the moment was a fire cracker..."
2. And he said the smoke came from behind the arcade "But the puff of
smoke I saw definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees."
3. And he said he saw smoke after the first shot only "I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I
heard three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff
of smoke I saw."
I am taking his statements at face value. The only assumption I'm making
is he meant the curved structure (the pergola) when he said "the arcade".
As I said, it's the only structure that fits the definition.
How do you put this together? Do you think he was an accurate witness and
only the first shot came from the knoll? If you place his shooter on the
knoll, and you think he's an accurate witness, then that's the only shot
he placed as coming from there. Isn't it?
Inaccurate, but smoke from the trees is a consistent theme, whatever shot
he remembered before seeing that....
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Hank
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-03-26 18:37:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
You mean this statement where he doesn't mention a stockade fence?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hollan1.htm
Where he says the shots came from the direction of 'the arcade' behind the
trees?
== QUOTE ==
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D.
1963 personally appeared S. M. Holland Address 1119 Lucille, Irving, Texas
Age 57 , Phone No. BL3-2185
I am a signal supervisor for the Union Terminal and I was inspecting
signal and switches and stopped to watch the parade. I was standing on top
of the triple underpass and the President's Car was coming down Elm Street
and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the
moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard
three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke
I saw. I immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade and
did not see anyone running from there. But the puff of smoke I saw
definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees. After the first
shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and tried to
get over in the back seat to him and then the second shot rang out. After
the first shot the secret service man raised up in the seat with a machine
gun and then dropped back down in the seat. And they immediately sped off.
Everything is spinning in my head and if I remember anything else later I
will come back and tell Bill.
/s/ S M Holland
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963
/s/ Aleen Davis
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== UNQUOTE ==
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arcade
== QUOTE ==
Definition of arcade
1 : a long arched building or gallery
2a : an arched covered passageway or avenue (as between shops)
b chiefly British : a building that includes many shops A job fair … today will introduce locals to the details of the 250 jobs that a new shopping arcade will bring when its doors open this autumn. — The Journal (Newcastle, England)
3 : a series of arches with their columns or piers
4 : an amusement center having coin-operated games
== UNQUOTE ==
You sure he was talking about the fence initially?
He said 'arcade'... only the white curved structure - not the fence -
could fit that word usage. And behind that white curved structure is the
TSBD - from his position on the knoll. The knoll fence is in front of the
white arcade structure from his position.
Hank
I have to admire your chutzpah--trying to turn Sam Holland into a
depository witness!
As I admire the chutzpah of the early conspiracy theorists trying to turn
Holland into a knoll witness.
Are you f***ing kidding? ("***" mine)
No. Your problem is you believed the early conspiracy authors without
checking and confirming for yourself what witnesses said and whether they
were taking anything out of context. So of course you recoil when someone
shows you a different interpretation of Holland's own words.
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Looking at the diagram of Dealey Plaza in Trask's
Pictures of the Pain, I see that the TSBD is also behind the STOCKADE
FENCE! It's also behind the TREES.
And that's where Holland placed the smoke he saw. Behind the arcade and
behind the trees. Thank you for admitting that Holland said the smoke came
from behind all that.
Sorry--he said "through the trees".
And there are trees at the corner of Elm and Houston, in front of the
Depository from Holland's position. And even the trees on the knoll are in
front of the Depository from where Holland was.

Perhaps you need a refresher course on Holland's view:
Loading Image...
Post by donald willis
So you think that he could have seen
smoke at the upper window of the depository from where he was? Even the
photos of the upper windows circa 12:30 don't show any smoke there. Or
has smoke gotten in your eyes?
He said he saw one puff of smoke which he connected with the first shot.

There are no photos showing the upper windows of the Depository at the
time of the first shot.

Your argument is a non-starter.

What I think he could see is also a non-starter. I'm citing the statement
of the actual witness and relaying what he said he saw. You're now in the
position of arguing with the witness and claiming he couldn't see what he
said he saw, offering up your interpretation of his words, and telling us
your interpretation fits your beliefs (in a conspiracy) better. Yeah,
because it's your interpretation.
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
McCurley stated that Holland said the "bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence". The latter is not in the vicinity of the depository.
Hearsay. Not evidence. Not admissible in court. I thought you guys could
build a case for a conspiracy from the evidence? I never see that.
Post by donald willis
And if you're implying that smoke from a shot from the fifth or sixth
floor of the depository wafted down to the arcade, why don't we see that
smoke outside the window of the depository?
1. He said the limo was at about the arcade (archway, e.g., pergola) at
the time of the first shot when he saw the smoke. "...the President's
Car was coming down Elm Street and when they got just about to the
Arcade I heard what I thought for the moment was a fire cracker..."
2. And he said the smoke came from behind the arcade "But the puff of
smoke I saw definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees."
3. And he said he saw smoke after the first shot only "I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I
heard three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff
of smoke I saw."
I am taking his statements at face value. The only assumption I'm making
is he meant the curved structure (the pergola) when he said "the arcade".
As I said, it's the only structure that fits the definition.
How do you put this together? Do you think he was an accurate witness and
only the first shot came from the knoll? If you place his shooter on the
knoll, and you think he's an accurate witness, then that's the only shot
he placed as coming from there. Isn't it?
Inaccurate, but smoke from the trees is a consistent theme, whatever shot
he remembered before seeing that....
Smoke from the trees, not smoke from the knoll. His first hand statement.
And remember where he placed the source ... behind the arcade. The TSBD is
behind the arcade from Holland's position. He also placed the limo at
about the position of the arcade when he saw the smoke. Surely that's not
the position of the limo at the time of the head shot.

And now you're claiming he was an inaccurate witness. So why are you
relying on him as a witness, when the hard evidence tells us where the
shooter was? Remember that a rifle and three spent shells were found on
the sixth floor of the Depository. Remember that two large fragments
traceable to that weapon were found in the limo. Remember that tests
indicated that one of Oswald's bullets could pretty well replicate the
damage to the skull and the damage to the bullets. Beyond that, you have a
witness you're claiming was inaccurate who you earlier cited as evidence
for a knoll shot (quoting not Holland's own words, ironically, but the
hearsay claim of another witness entirely).

Hank
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-28 14:41:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
You mean this statement where he doesn't mention a stockade fence?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hollan1.htm
Where he says the shots came from the direction of 'the arcade' behind the
trees?
== QUOTE ==
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D.
1963 personally appeared S. M. Holland Address 1119 Lucille, Irving, Texas
Age 57 , Phone No. BL3-2185
I am a signal supervisor for the Union Terminal and I was inspecting
signal and switches and stopped to watch the parade. I was standing on top
of the triple underpass and the President's Car was coming down Elm Street
and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the
moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard
three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke
I saw. I immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade and
did not see anyone running from there. But the puff of smoke I saw
definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees. After the first
shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and tried to
get over in the back seat to him and then the second shot rang out. After
the first shot the secret service man raised up in the seat with a machine
gun and then dropped back down in the seat. And they immediately sped off.
Everything is spinning in my head and if I remember anything else later I
will come back and tell Bill.
/s/ S M Holland
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963
/s/ Aleen Davis
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== UNQUOTE ==
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arcade
== QUOTE ==
Definition of arcade
1 : a long arched building or gallery
2a : an arched covered passageway or avenue (as between shops)
b chiefly British : a building that includes many shops A job fair ??? today will introduce locals to the details of the 250 jobs that a new shopping arcade will bring when its doors open this autumn. ??? The Journal (Newcastle, England)
3 : a series of arches with their columns or piers
4 : an amusement center having coin-operated games
== UNQUOTE ==
You sure he was talking about the fence initially?
He said 'arcade'... only the white curved structure - not the fence -
could fit that word usage. And behind that white curved structure is the
TSBD - from his position on the knoll. The knoll fence is in front of the
white arcade structure from his position.
Hank
I have to admire your chutzpah--trying to turn Sam Holland into a
depository witness!
As I admire the chutzpah of the early conspiracy theorists trying to turn
Holland into a knoll witness.
Are you f***ing kidding? ("***" mine)
No. Your problem is you believed the early conspiracy authors without
checking and confirming for yourself what witnesses said and whether they
were taking anything out of context. So of course you recoil when someone
shows you a different interpretation of Holland's own words.
No. I constantly disagree with conspiracy authors. Especially the
Alterationists.

zzi don't care what your interpretation is but it may be wrong because
of your bias.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Looking at the diagram of Dealey Plaza in Trask's
Pictures of the Pain, I see that the TSBD is also behind the STOCKADE
FENCE! It's also behind the TREES.
And that's where Holland placed the smoke he saw. Behind the arcade and
behind the trees. Thank you for admitting that Holland said the smoke came
from behind all that.
Sorry--he said "through the trees".
And there are trees at the corner of Elm and Houston, in front of the
Depository from Holland's position. And even the trees on the knoll are in
front of the Depository from where Holland was.
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Evidence/SMHolland.jpg
Post by donald willis
So you think that he could have seen
smoke at the upper window of the depository from where he was? Even the
photos of the upper windows circa 12:30 don't show any smoke there. Or
has smoke gotten in your eyes?
He said he saw one puff of smoke which he connected with the first shot.
There are no photos showing the upper windows of the Depository at the
time of the first shot.
Your argument is a non-starter.
We have the photos.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
What I think he could see is also a non-starter. I'm citing the statement
of the actual witness and relaying what he said he saw. You're now in the
position of arguing with the witness and claiming he couldn't see what he
said he saw, offering up your interpretation of his words, and telling us
your interpretation fits your beliefs (in a conspiracy) better. Yeah,
because it's your interpretation.
No. I do not have to believe every word from a witness.
Sometimes I know that the witness used the wrong word.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
McCurley stated that Holland said the "bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence". The latter is not in the vicinity of the depository.
Hearsay. Not evidence. Not admissible in court. I thought you guys could
build a case for a conspiracy from the evidence? I never see that.
Post by donald willis
And if you're implying that smoke from a shot from the fifth or sixth
floor of the depository wafted down to the arcade, why don't we see that
smoke outside the window of the depository?
1. He said the limo was at about the arcade (archway, e.g., pergola) at
the time of the first shot when he saw the smoke. "...the President's
Car was coming down Elm Street and when they got just about to the
Arcade I heard what I thought for the moment was a fire cracker..."
2. And he said the smoke came from behind the arcade "But the puff of
smoke I saw definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees."
3. And he said he saw smoke after the first shot only "I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I
heard three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff
of smoke I saw."
I am taking his statements at face value. The only assumption I'm making
is he meant the curved structure (the pergola) when he said "the arcade".
As I said, it's the only structure that fits the definition.
How do you put this together? Do you think he was an accurate witness and
only the first shot came from the knoll? If you place his shooter on the
knoll, and you think he's an accurate witness, then that's the only shot
he placed as coming from there. Isn't it?
Inaccurate, but smoke from the trees is a consistent theme, whatever shot
he remembered before seeing that....
Smoke from the trees, not smoke from the knoll. His first hand statement.
Excuse me? The trees are on the grass knoll. He meant the tiny trees or
bushes right in front of the fence. That is all onn the grassy knoll.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
And remember where he placed the source ... behind the arcade. The TSBD is
I don't dismiss him because he didn't know the word PERGOLA.
He also may have thought that the shooter was IN the pergola. Very
close from his perspective.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
behind the arcade from Holland's position. He also placed the limo at
about the position of the arcade when he saw the smoke. Surely that's not
the position of the limo at the time of the head shot.
It may have looked like it from his perspective. That is why I said that
I do not expect any witness to remember everything perfectly. Do not
rely on witnesses.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
And now you're claiming he was an inaccurate witness. So why are you
Every witness is inaccurate about something. BFD.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
relying on him as a witness, when the hard evidence tells us where the
Aagin, stop lying. I never rely on any witness.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
shooter was? Remember that a rifle and three spent shells were found on
the sixth floor of the Depository. Remember that two large fragments
The acoustical evidence proves that 3 shot were fired from the dniper's
nest. If I could see ALL of it I might be able to prove which rifle
fired the shots. For right now I ASSuME that it was Oswald's rifle.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
traceable to that weapon were found in the limo. Remember that tests
indicated that one of Oswald's bullets could pretty well replicate the
damage to the skull and the damage to the bullets. Beyond that, you have a
No, they did not. Stop lying.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
witness you're claiming was inaccurate who you earlier cited as evidence
for a knoll shot (quoting not Holland's own words, ironically, but the
hearsay claim of another witness entirely).
Hearsay does not prove anything. It is just a clue to follow up.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Hank
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-03-31 18:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
You mean this statement where he doesn't mention a stockade fence?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hollan1.htm
Where he says the shots came from the direction of 'the arcade' behind the
trees?
== QUOTE ==
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D.
1963 personally appeared S. M. Holland Address 1119 Lucille, Irving, Texas
Age 57 , Phone No. BL3-2185
I am a signal supervisor for the Union Terminal and I was inspecting
signal and switches and stopped to watch the parade. I was standing on top
of the triple underpass and the President's Car was coming down Elm Street
and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the
moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard
three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke
I saw. I immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade and
did not see anyone running from there. But the puff of smoke I saw
definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees. After the first
shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and tried to
get over in the back seat to him and then the second shot rang out. After
the first shot the secret service man raised up in the seat with a machine
gun and then dropped back down in the seat. And they immediately sped off.
Everything is spinning in my head and if I remember anything else later I
will come back and tell Bill.
/s/ S M Holland
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963
/s/ Aleen Davis
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== UNQUOTE ==
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arcade
== QUOTE ==
Definition of arcade
1 : a long arched building or gallery
2a : an arched covered passageway or avenue (as between shops)
b chiefly British : a building that includes many shops A job fair ??? today will introduce locals to the details of the 250 jobs that a new shopping arcade will bring when its doors open this autumn. ??? The Journal (Newcastle, England)
3 : a series of arches with their columns or piers
4 : an amusement center having coin-operated games
== UNQUOTE ==
You sure he was talking about the fence initially?
He said 'arcade'... only the white curved structure - not the fence -
could fit that word usage. And behind that white curved structure is the
TSBD - from his position on the knoll. The knoll fence is in front of the
white arcade structure from his position.
Hank
I have to admire your chutzpah--trying to turn Sam Holland into a
depository witness!
As I admire the chutzpah of the early conspiracy theorists trying to turn
Holland into a knoll witness.
Are you f***ing kidding? ("***" mine)
No. Your problem is you believed the early conspiracy authors without
checking and confirming for yourself what witnesses said and whether they
were taking anything out of context. So of course you recoil when someone
shows you a different interpretation of Holland's own words.
No. I constantly disagree with conspiracy authors. Especially the
Alterationists.
Not talking to you, Tony. That was a reply to what Don Willis wrote. Try
to follow along.
Post by Anthony Marsh
zzi don't care what your interpretation is but it may be wrong because
of your bias.
Or again, it may not. You should be trying to explain what I got wrong and
how, not just telling me I am biased.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Looking at the diagram of Dealey Plaza in Trask's
Pictures of the Pain, I see that the TSBD is also behind the STOCKADE
FENCE! It's also behind the TREES.
And that's where Holland placed the smoke he saw. Behind the arcade and
behind the trees. Thank you for admitting that Holland said the smoke came
from behind all that.
Sorry--he said "through the trees".
And there are trees at the corner of Elm and Houston, in front of the
Depository from Holland's position. And even the trees on the knoll are in
front of the Depository from where Holland was.
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Evidence/SMHolland.jpg
Post by donald willis
So you think that he could have seen
smoke at the upper window of the depository from where he was? Even the
photos of the upper windows circa 12:30 don't show any smoke there. Or
has smoke gotten in your eyes?
He said he saw one puff of smoke which he connected with the first shot.
There are no photos showing the upper windows of the Depository at the
time of the first shot.
Your argument is a non-starter.
We have the photos.
I'll say it again: No photos show the Depository sixth floor at the time
of the first shot.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
What I think he could see is also a non-starter. I'm citing the statement
of the actual witness and relaying what he said he saw. You're now in the
position of arguing with the witness and claiming he couldn't see what he
said he saw, offering up your interpretation of his words, and telling us
your interpretation fits your beliefs (in a conspiracy) better. Yeah,
because it's your interpretation.
No. I do not have to believe every word from a witness.
Sometimes I know that the witness used the wrong word.
Not the issue. Whether you call it the 'pergola' or the 'arcade' or the
'funny curved white concrete structure' doesn't matter, and that's not
what we're discussing. We're discussing where Holland put the smoke he saw
at the time of the first shot. Here it is again: "But the puff of smoke I
saw definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees".

Behind the arcade from his position is the Depository.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
McCurley stated that Holland said the "bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence". The latter is not in the vicinity of the depository.
Hearsay. Not evidence. Not admissible in court. I thought you guys could
build a case for a conspiracy from the evidence? I never see that.
Post by donald willis
And if you're implying that smoke from a shot from the fifth or sixth
floor of the depository wafted down to the arcade, why don't we see that
smoke outside the window of the depository?
1. He said the limo was at about the arcade (archway, e.g., pergola) at
the time of the first shot when he saw the smoke. "...the President's
Car was coming down Elm Street and when they got just about to the
Arcade I heard what I thought for the moment was a fire cracker..."
2. And he said the smoke came from behind the arcade "But the puff of
smoke I saw definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees."
3. And he said he saw smoke after the first shot only "I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I
heard three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff
of smoke I saw."
I am taking his statements at face value. The only assumption I'm making
is he meant the curved structure (the pergola) when he said "the arcade".
As I said, it's the only structure that fits the definition.
How do you put this together? Do you think he was an accurate witness and
only the first shot came from the knoll? If you place his shooter on the
knoll, and you think he's an accurate witness, then that's the only shot
he placed as coming from there. Isn't it?
Inaccurate, but smoke from the trees is a consistent theme, whatever shot
he remembered before seeing that....
Smoke from the trees, not smoke from the knoll. His first hand statement.
Excuse me? The trees are on the grass knoll. He meant the tiny trees or
bushes right in front of the fence. That is all onn the grassy knoll.
There are trees right in front of the Depository's sixth floor window,
from his position on the overpass.

Perhaps you need a refresher course on Holland's view:
http://www.jfklancer= .com/photos/Evidence/SMHolland.jpg
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
And remember where he placed the source ... behind the arcade. The TSBD is
I don't dismiss him because he didn't know the word PERGOLA.
Neither do I. This is simply a straw man argument by you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
He also may have thought that the shooter was IN the pergola. Very
close from his perspective.
Except that's not what he said. He said the source of the smoke was behind
the arcade. "But the puff of smoke I saw definitely came from behind the
arcade through the trees". You're back to arguing with the witness.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
behind the arcade from Holland's position. He also placed the limo at
about the position of the arcade when he saw the smoke. Surely that's not
the position of the limo at the time of the head shot.
It may have looked like it from his perspective. That is why I said that
I do not expect any witness to remember everything perfectly. Do not
rely on witnesses.
I'm relying on the hard evidence. But Holland put the source of the first
shot at a minimum as behind the arcade (AKA pergola). Behind the pergola
is the Depository. That's what he said. You don't like that, so you're
treating us all to a bunch of conjectures now:

1. "He also may have thought that the shooter was IN the pergola"
2. "It may have looked like it from his perspective."
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
And now you're claiming he was an inaccurate witness. So why are you
Every witness is inaccurate about something. BFD.
Willis cited a hearsay claim about the witness in question, Sam Holland. I
pointed out his same day signed statement says something entirely
different.

Guess which one is admissible? The one I cited.
Guess which one is not? The hearsay statement cited by Willis.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
relying on him as a witness, when the hard evidence tells us where the
Aagin, stop lying. I never rely on any witness.
Again, you need to follow along. The statement above was written to Don
Willis, who cited a hearsay statement instead of the first person signed
statement by Holland. It wasn't written to you.

Another straw man argument by you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
shooter was? Remember that a rifle and three spent shells were found on
the sixth floor of the Depository. Remember that two large fragments
The acoustical evidence proves that 3 shot were fired from the dniper's
nest.
Change of subject. I'm not discussing the so-called acoustic evidence. If
you want to discuss it, first establish the chain of custody of the
original dictabelt... with sworn statements.
Post by Anthony Marsh
If I could see ALL of it I might be able to prove which rifle
fired the shots. For right now I ASSuME that it was Oswald's rifle.
You needn't assume that. The ballistic evidence recovered on the day of
the evidence establishes that all the bullets recovered that day were
fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the
world. But that too is a side issue and a deflection by you.

We are discussing the signed statement by Holland from 11/22/63. Where did
he put the source of the first shot? Behind the pergola? What's behind the
pergola from his position? The Depository?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
traceable to that weapon were found in the limo. Remember that tests
indicated that one of Oswald's bullets could pretty well replicate the
damage to the skull and the damage to the bullets. Beyond that, you have a
No, they did not. Stop lying.
No, they absolutely did. I cited the testimony of the man who performed
the tests. He testified the tests he performed:

Mr. SPECTER. What did that examination or test, rather, disclose?
Dr. OLIVIER. It disclosed that the type of head wounds that the President
received could be done by this type of bullet.
...
Mr. SPECTER. Now, I show you two fragments designated as Commission
Exhibits 567 and 579 heretofore identified as having been found on the
front seat of the President's car on November 22, 1963, and ask you if
you have had an opportunity to examine those before.
Dr. OLIVIER. Yes, I have.
Mr. SPECTER. And have you had an opportunity to compare those to the two
fragments identified as Commission Exhibit 857?
Dr. OLIVIER. Yes, I have.
Mr. SPECTER. And what did that comparison show?
Dr. OLIVIER. They are quite similar.
...
Mr. SPECTER. Did you formulate any other conclusions or opinions based on
the tests on firing at the skull?
Dr. OLIVIER. Well, let's see. We found that this bullet could do
exactly--could make the type of wound that the President received.
Also, that the recovered fragments were very similar to the ones recovered
on the front seat and on the floor of the car.
This, to me, indicates that those fragments did come from the bullet that
wounded the President in the head.
Mr. SPECTER. And how do the two major fragments in 857 compare, then, with
the fragments heretofore identified as 567 and 569?
Dr. OLIVIER. They are quite similar.
...

Dr. OLIVIER. There were, the two larger fragments were recovered outside of the skull in the cotton waste we were using to catch the fragments without
deforming them. There are some smaller fragments in here that were
obtained from the gelatin within the cranial cavity after the experiment.
We melted the gelatin out and recovered the smallest fragments from within
the cranial cavity.

"It disclosed that the type of head wounds that the President received
could be done by this type of bullet....Also, that the recovered fragments
were very similar to the ones recovered on the front seat and on the floor
of the car....There are some smaller fragments in here that were obtained
from the gelatin within the cranial cavity after the experiment. We melted
the gelatin out and recovered the smallest fragments from within the
cranial cavity."

So according to the expert, the wound is very similar, the bullet left
small fragments in the gelatin acting as a brain simulant, and the bullet
broke into two large pieces that exited the head, pretty much exactly what
happened to JFK.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
witness you're claiming was inaccurate who you earlier cited as evidence
for a knoll shot (quoting not Holland's own words, ironically, but the
hearsay claim of another witness entirely).
Hearsay does not prove anything. It is just a clue to follow up.
Try to remember I didn't cite the hearsay. I cited Holland's same-day
signed first-hand account. That account puts the source of the first shot
as behind the pergola / arcade.

Hank
donald willis
2019-03-29 14:35:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi a CUT rly conspiracy theorists trying to turn
Holland into a knoll witness.
Are you f***ing kidding? ("***" mine)
No. Your problem is you believed the early conspiracy authors without
checking and confirming for yourself what witnesses said and whether they
were taking anything out of context. So of course you recoil when someone
shows you a different interpretation of Holland's own words.
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Looking at the diagram of Dealey Plaza in Trask's
Pictures of the Pain, I see that the TSBD is also behind the STOCKADE
FENCE! It's also behind the TREES.
And that's where Holland placed the smoke he saw. Behind the arcade and
behind the trees. Thank you for admitting that Holland said the smoke came
from behind all that.
Sorry--he said "through the trees".
And there are trees at the corner of Elm and Houston, in front of the
Depository from Holland's position. And even the trees on the knoll are in
front of the Depository from where Holland was.
There are trees in my back yard, too, but I don't think Holland was
talking about them.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Evidence/SMHolland.jpg
Post by donald willis
So you think that he could have seen
smoke at the upper window of the depository from where he was? Even the
photos of the upper windows circa 12:30 don't show any smoke there. Or
has smoke gotten in your eyes?
He said he saw one puff of smoke which he connected with the first shot.
There are no photos showing the upper windows of the Depository at the
time of the first shot.
Yes, maybe 8 seconds later, and the Powell shows the whole facade of the
depository just after the last shot, and, guess what, no sign of smoke....
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Your argument is a non-starter.
What I think he could see is also a non-starter. I'm citing the statement
of the actual witness and relaying what he said he saw. You're now in the
position of arguing with the witness and claiming he couldn't see what he
said he saw, offering up your interpretation of his words, and telling us
your interpretation fits your beliefs (in a conspiracy) better. Yeah,
because it's your interpretation.
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
McCurley stated that Holland said the "bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence". The latter is not in the vicinity of the depository.
Hearsay. Not evidence. Not admissible in court. I thought you guys could
build a case for a conspiracy from the evidence? I never see that.
Post by donald willis
And if you're implying that smoke from a shot from the fifth or sixth
floor of the depository wafted down to the arcade, why don't we see that
smoke outside the window of the depository?
1. He said the limo was at about the arcade (archway, e.g., pergola) at
the time of the first shot when he saw the smoke. "...the President's
Car was coming down Elm Street and when they got just about to the
Arcade I heard what I thought for the moment was a fire cracker..."
2. And he said the smoke came from behind the arcade "But the puff of
smoke I saw definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees."
3. And he said he saw smoke after the first shot only "I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I
heard three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff
of smoke I saw."
I am taking his statements at face value. The only assumption I'm making
is he meant the curved structure (the pergola) when he said "the arcade".
As I said, it's the only structure that fits the definition.
How do you put this together? Do you think he was an accurate witness and
only the first shot came from the knoll? If you place his shooter on the
knoll, and you think he's an accurate witness, then that's the only shot
he placed as coming from there. Isn't it?
Inaccurate, but smoke from the trees is a consistent theme, whatever shot
he remembered before seeing that....
Smoke from the trees, not smoke from the knoll. His first hand statement.
And remember where he placed the source ... behind the arcade. The TSBD is
behind the arcade from Holland's position. He also placed the limo at
about the position of the arcade when he saw the smoke. Surely that's not
the position of the limo at the time of the head shot.
And now you're claiming he was an inaccurate witness. So why are you
relying on him as a witness
LNers dote on Howard Brennan, though they say he was wrong re the
shooter's window being wide open. Witness's testimony is not necessarily
accurate re everything they say they saw. (Though, yes, I do believe
Brennan re the window!)

dw
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-30 03:26:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi a CUT rly conspiracy theorists trying to turn
Holland into a knoll witness.
Are you f***ing kidding? ("***" mine)
No. Your problem is you believed the early conspiracy authors without
checking and confirming for yourself what witnesses said and whether they
were taking anything out of context. So of course you recoil when someone
shows you a different interpretation of Holland's own words.
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Looking at the diagram of Dealey Plaza in Trask's
Pictures of the Pain, I see that the TSBD is also behind the STOCKADE
FENCE! It's also behind the TREES.
And that's where Holland placed the smoke he saw. Behind the arcade and
behind the trees. Thank you for admitting that Holland said the smoke came
from behind all that.
Sorry--he said "through the trees".
And there are trees at the corner of Elm and Houston, in front of the
Depository from Holland's position. And even the trees on the knoll are in
front of the Depository from where Holland was.
There are trees in my back yard, too, but I don't think Holland was
talking about them.
What is that trick called? Misdirection? Inability to stay on-topic?
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Evidence/SMHolland.jpg
Post by donald willis
So you think that he could have seen
smoke at the upper window of the depository from where he was? Even the
photos of the upper windows circa 12:30 don't show any smoke there. Or
has smoke gotten in your eyes?
No one was talking about the TSBD.
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
He said he saw one puff of smoke which he connected with the first shot.
There are no photos showing the upper windows of the Depository at the
time of the first shot.
But we have film close to that time.
Post by donald willis
Yes, maybe 8 seconds later, and the Powell shows the whole facade of the
depository just after the last shot, and, guess what, no sign of smoke....
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Your argument is a non-starter.
What I think he could see is also a non-starter. I'm citing the statement
of the actual witness and relaying what he said he saw. You're now in the
position of arguing with the witness and claiming he couldn't see what he
said he saw, offering up your interpretation of his words, and telling us
your interpretation fits your beliefs (in a conspiracy) better. Yeah,
because it's your interpretation.
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
McCurley stated that Holland said the "bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence". The latter is not in the vicinity of the depository.
Hearsay. Not evidence. Not admissible in court. I thought you guys could
build a case for a conspiracy from the evidence? I never see that.
Post by donald willis
And if you're implying that smoke from a shot from the fifth or sixth
floor of the depository wafted down to the arcade, why don't we see that
smoke outside the window of the depository?
1. He said the limo was at about the arcade (archway, e.g., pergola) at
the time of the first shot when he saw the smoke. "...the President's
Car was coming down Elm Street and when they got just about to the
Arcade I heard what I thought for the moment was a fire cracker..."
2. And he said the smoke came from behind the arcade "But the puff of
smoke I saw definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees."
3. And he said he saw smoke after the first shot only "I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I
heard three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff
of smoke I saw."
I am taking his statements at face value. The only assumption I'm making
is he meant the curved structure (the pergola) when he said "the arcade".
As I said, it's the only structure that fits the definition.
How do you put this together? Do you think he was an accurate witness and
only the first shot came from the knoll? If you place his shooter on the
knoll, and you think he's an accurate witness, then that's the only shot
he placed as coming from there. Isn't it?
Inaccurate, but smoke from the trees is a consistent theme, whatever shot
he remembered before seeing that....
Smoke from the trees, not smoke from the knoll. His first hand statement.
And remember where he placed the source ... behind the arcade. The TSBD is
behind the arcade from Holland's position. He also placed the limo at
about the position of the arcade when he saw the smoke. Surely that's not
the position of the limo at the time of the head shot.
And now you're claiming he was an inaccurate witness. So why are you
relying on him as a witness
LNers dote on Howard Brennan, though they say he was wrong re the
shooter's window being wide open. Witness's testimony is not necessarily
accurate re everything they say they saw. (Though, yes, I do believe
Brennan re the window!)
dw
donald willis
2019-03-30 22:38:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi a CUT rly conspiracy theorists trying to turn
Holland into a knoll witness.
Are you f***ing kidding? ("***" mine)
No. Your problem is you believed the early conspiracy authors without
checking and confirming for yourself what witnesses said and whether they
were taking anything out of context. So of course you recoil when someone
shows you a different interpretation of Holland's own words.
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Looking at the diagram of Dealey Plaza in Trask's
Pictures of the Pain, I see that the TSBD is also behind the STOCKADE
FENCE! It's also behind the TREES.
And that's where Holland placed the smoke he saw. Behind the arcade and
behind the trees. Thank you for admitting that Holland said the smoke came
from behind all that.
Sorry--he said "through the trees".
And there are trees at the corner of Elm and Houston, in front of the
Depository from Holland's position. And even the trees on the knoll are in
front of the Depository from where Holland was.
There are trees in my back yard, too, but I don't think Holland was
talking about them.
What is that trick called? Misdirection? Inability to stay on-topic?
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Evidence/SMHolland.jpg
Post by donald willis
So you think that he could have seen
smoke at the upper window of the depository from where he was? Even the
photos of the upper windows circa 12:30 don't show any smoke there. Or
has smoke gotten in your eyes?
No one was talking about the TSBD.
Joe Z was.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
He said he saw one puff of smoke which he connected with the first shot.
There are no photos showing the upper windows of the Depository at the
time of the first shot.
But we have film close to that time.
Post by donald willis
Yes, maybe 8 seconds later, and the Powell shows the whole facade of the
depository just after the last shot, and, guess what, no sign of smoke....
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Your argument is a non-starter.
What I think he could see is also a non-starter. I'm citing the statement
of the actual witness and relaying what he said he saw. You're now in the
position of arguing with the witness and claiming he couldn't see what he
said he saw, offering up your interpretation of his words, and telling us
your interpretation fits your beliefs (in a conspiracy) better. Yeah,
because it's your interpretation.
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
McCurley stated that Holland said the "bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence". The latter is not in the vicinity of the depository.
Hearsay. Not evidence. Not admissible in court. I thought you guys could
build a case for a conspiracy from the evidence? I never see that.
Post by donald willis
And if you're implying that smoke from a shot from the fifth or sixth
floor of the depository wafted down to the arcade, why don't we see that
smoke outside the window of the depository?
1. He said the limo was at about the arcade (archway, e.g., pergola) at
the time of the first shot when he saw the smoke. "...the President's
Car was coming down Elm Street and when they got just about to the
Arcade I heard what I thought for the moment was a fire cracker..."
2. And he said the smoke came from behind the arcade "But the puff of
smoke I saw definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees."
3. And he said he saw smoke after the first shot only "I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I
heard three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff
of smoke I saw."
I am taking his statements at face value. The only assumption I'm making
is he meant the curved structure (the pergola) when he said "the arcade".
As I said, it's the only structure that fits the definition.
How do you put this together? Do you think he was an accurate witness and
only the first shot came from the knoll? If you place his shooter on the
knoll, and you think he's an accurate witness, then that's the only shot
he placed as coming from there. Isn't it?
Inaccurate, but smoke from the trees is a consistent theme, whatever shot
he remembered before seeing that....
Smoke from the trees, not smoke from the knoll. His first hand statement.
And remember where he placed the source ... behind the arcade. The TSBD is
behind the arcade from Holland's position. He also placed the limo at
about the position of the arcade when he saw the smoke. Surely that's not
the position of the limo at the time of the head shot.
And now you're claiming he was an inaccurate witness. So why are you
relying on him as a witness
LNers dote on Howard Brennan, though they say he was wrong re the
shooter's window being wide open. Witness's testimony is not necessarily
accurate re everything they say they saw. (Though, yes, I do believe
Brennan re the window!)
dw
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-04-02 20:45:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi a CUT rly conspiracy theorists trying to turn
Holland into a knoll witness.
Are you f***ing kidding? ("***" mine)
No. Your problem is you believed the early conspiracy authors without
checking and confirming for yourself what witnesses said and whether they
were taking anything out of context. So of course you recoil when someone
shows you a different interpretation of Holland's own words.
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Looking at the diagram of Dealey Plaza in Trask's
Pictures of the Pain, I see that the TSBD is also behind the STOCKADE
FENCE! It's also behind the TREES.
And that's where Holland placed the smoke he saw. Behind the arcade and
behind the trees. Thank you for admitting that Holland said the smoke came
from behind all that.
Sorry--he said "through the trees".
And there are trees at the corner of Elm and Houston, in front of the
Depository from Holland's position. And even the trees on the knoll are in
front of the Depository from where Holland was.
There are trees in my back yard, too, but I don't think Holland was
talking about them.
What is that trick called? Misdirection? Inability to stay on-topic?
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Evidence/SMHolland.jpg
Post by donald willis
So you think that he could have seen
smoke at the upper window of the depository from where he was? Even the
photos of the upper windows circa 12:30 don't show any smoke there. Or
has smoke gotten in your eyes?
No one was talking about the TSBD.
Joe Z was.
And Holland, if we take his words at face value. Curious that you want to
use hearsay instead of his same day statement.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
He said he saw one puff of smoke which he connected with the first shot.
There are no photos showing the upper windows of the Depository at the
time of the first shot.
But we have film close to that time.
Post by donald willis
Yes, maybe 8 seconds later, and the Powell shows the whole facade of the
depository just after the last shot, and, guess what, no sign of smoke....
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Your argument is a non-starter.
What I think he could see is also a non-starter. I'm citing the statement
of the actual witness and relaying what he said he saw. You're now in the
position of arguing with the witness and claiming he couldn't see what he
said he saw, offering up your interpretation of his words, and telling us
your interpretation fits your beliefs (in a conspiracy) better. Yeah,
because it's your interpretation.
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
McCurley stated that Holland said the "bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence". The latter is not in the vicinity of the depository.
Hearsay. Not evidence. Not admissible in court. I thought you guys could
build a case for a conspiracy from the evidence? I never see that.
Post by donald willis
And if you're implying that smoke from a shot from the fifth or sixth
floor of the depository wafted down to the arcade, why don't we see that
smoke outside the window of the depository?
1. He said the limo was at about the arcade (archway, e.g., pergola) at
the time of the first shot when he saw the smoke. "...the President's
Car was coming down Elm Street and when they got just about to the
Arcade I heard what I thought for the moment was a fire cracker..."
2. And he said the smoke came from behind the arcade "But the puff of
smoke I saw definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees."
3. And he said he saw smoke after the first shot only "I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I
heard three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff
of smoke I saw."
I am taking his statements at face value. The only assumption I'm making
is he meant the curved structure (the pergola) when he said "the arcade".
As I said, it's the only structure that fits the definition.
How do you put this together? Do you think he was an accurate witness and
only the first shot came from the knoll? If you place his shooter on the
knoll, and you think he's an accurate witness, then that's the only shot
he placed as coming from there. Isn't it?
Inaccurate, but smoke from the trees is a consistent theme, whatever shot
he remembered before seeing that....
Smoke from the trees, not smoke from the knoll. His first hand statement.
And remember where he placed the source ... behind the arcade. The TSBD is
behind the arcade from Holland's position. He also placed the limo at
about the position of the arcade when he saw the smoke. Surely that's not
the position of the limo at the time of the head shot.
And now you're claiming he was an inaccurate witness. So why are you
relying on him as a witness
LNers dote on Howard Brennan, though they say he was wrong re the
shooter's window being wide open. Witness's testimony is not necessarily
accurate re everything they say they saw. (Though, yes, I do believe
Brennan re the window!)
dw
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-04-02 20:44:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi a CUT rly conspiracy theorists trying to turn
Holland into a knoll witness.
Are you f***ing kidding? ("***" mine)
No. Your problem is you believed the early conspiracy authors without
checking and confirming for yourself what witnesses said and whether they
were taking anything out of context. So of course you recoil when someone
shows you a different interpretation of Holland's own words.
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Looking at the diagram of Dealey Plaza in Trask's
Pictures of the Pain, I see that the TSBD is also behind the STOCKADE
FENCE! It's also behind the TREES.
And that's where Holland placed the smoke he saw. Behind the arcade and
behind the trees. Thank you for admitting that Holland said the smoke came
from behind all that.
Sorry--he said "through the trees".
And there are trees at the corner of Elm and Houston, in front of the
Depository from Holland's position. And even the trees on the knoll are in
front of the Depository from where Holland was.
There are trees in my back yard, too, but I don't think Holland was
talking about them.
What is that trick called? Misdirection? Inability to stay on-topic?
You should know. You use both a lot. Here you're complaining about the
point a fellow CT made.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Evidence/SMHolland.jpg
Post by donald willis
So you think that he could have seen
smoke at the upper window of the depository from where he was? Even the
photos of the upper windows circa 12:30 don't show any smoke there. Or
has smoke gotten in your eyes?
No one was talking about the TSBD.
Here you're responding to yourself, arguing with the point you yourself made earlier. You're accusing yourself of changing the subject. Misdirection at its finest. Good job, Anthony.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
He said he saw one puff of smoke which he connected with the first shot.
There are no photos showing the upper windows of the Depository at the
time of the first shot.
But we have film close to that time.
Nothing close enough. Smoke from a gunshot will dissipate in a second or two. See the film of the MOVE shooting in Philly, or the tests conducted by the HSCA.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Yes, maybe 8 seconds later, and the Powell shows the whole facade of the
depository just after the last shot, and, guess what, no sign of smoke....
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Your argument is a non-starter.
What I think he could see is also a non-starter. I'm citing the statement
of the actual witness and relaying what he said he saw. You're now in the
position of arguing with the witness and claiming he couldn't see what he
said he saw, offering up your interpretation of his words, and telling us
your interpretation fits your beliefs (in a conspiracy) better. Yeah,
because it's your interpretation.
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
McCurley stated that Holland said the "bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence". The latter is not in the vicinity of the depository.
Hearsay. Not evidence. Not admissible in court. I thought you guys could
build a case for a conspiracy from the evidence? I never see that.
Post by donald willis
And if you're implying that smoke from a shot from the fifth or sixth
floor of the depository wafted down to the arcade, why don't we see that
smoke outside the window of the depository?
1. He said the limo was at about the arcade (archway, e.g., pergola) at
the time of the first shot when he saw the smoke. "...the President's
Car was coming down Elm Street and when they got just about to the
Arcade I heard what I thought for the moment was a fire cracker..."
2. And he said the smoke came from behind the arcade "But the puff of
smoke I saw definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees."
3. And he said he saw smoke after the first shot only "I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I
heard three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff
of smoke I saw."
I am taking his statements at face value. The only assumption I'm making
is he meant the curved structure (the pergola) when he said "the arcade".
As I said, it's the only structure that fits the definition.
How do you put this together? Do you think he was an accurate witness and
only the first shot came from the knoll? If you place his shooter on the
knoll, and you think he's an accurate witness, then that's the only shot
he placed as coming from there. Isn't it?
Inaccurate, but smoke from the trees is a consistent theme, whatever shot
he remembered before seeing that....
Smoke from the trees, not smoke from the knoll. His first hand statement.
And remember where he placed the source ... behind the arcade. The TSBD is
behind the arcade from Holland's position. He also placed the limo at
about the position of the arcade when he saw the smoke. Surely that's not
the position of the limo at the time of the head shot.
And now you're claiming he was an inaccurate witness. So why are you
relying on him as a witness
LNers dote on Howard Brennan, though they say he was wrong re the
shooter's window being wide open. Witness's testimony is not necessarily
accurate re everything they say they saw. (Though, yes, I do believe
Brennan re the window!)
dw
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-22 16:42:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
You mean this statement where he doesn't mention a stockade fence?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hollan1.htm
Where he says the shots came from the direction of 'the arcade' behind the
trees?
== QUOTE ==
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D.
1963 personally appeared S. M. Holland Address 1119 Lucille, Irving, Texas
Age 57 , Phone No. BL3-2185
I am a signal supervisor for the Union Terminal and I was inspecting
signal and switches and stopped to watch the parade. I was standing on top
of the triple underpass and the President's Car was coming down Elm Street
and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the
moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard
three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke
I saw. I immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade and
did not see anyone running from there. But the puff of smoke I saw
definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees. After the first
shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and tried to
get over in the back seat to him and then the second shot rang out. After
the first shot the secret service man raised up in the seat with a machine
gun and then dropped back down in the seat. And they immediately sped off.
Everything is spinning in my head and if I remember anything else later I
will come back and tell Bill.
/s/ S M Holland
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963
/s/ Aleen Davis
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== UNQUOTE ==
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arcade
== QUOTE ==
Definition of arcade
1 : a long arched building or gallery
2a : an arched covered passageway or avenue (as between shops)
b chiefly British : a building that includes many shops A job fair … today will introduce locals to the details of the 250 jobs that a new shopping arcade will bring when its doors open this autumn. — The Journal (Newcastle, England)
3 : a series of arches with their columns or piers
4 : an amusement center having coin-operated games
== UNQUOTE ==
You sure he was talking about the fence initially?
He said 'arcade'... only the white curved structure - not the fence -
could fit that word usage. And behind that white curved structure is the
TSBD - from his position on the knoll. The knoll fence is in front of the
white arcade structure from his position.
Hank
Cute, but I could counter by saying that he mean penny arcade.
I think it is obvious that none of the witnesses knew the word pergola.
Search all the testimonies and statements and let me know how many
people used the word PERGOLA."

But you overlook the fact that Holland walked Mark Lane over to the
exact spot where he thought the shot came from.
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-03-23 16:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
You mean this statement where he doesn't mention a stockade fence?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hollan1.htm
Where he says the shots came from the direction of 'the arcade' behind the
trees?
== QUOTE ==
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D.
1963 personally appeared S. M. Holland Address 1119 Lucille, Irving, Texas
Age 57 , Phone No. BL3-2185
I am a signal supervisor for the Union Terminal and I was inspecting
signal and switches and stopped to watch the parade. I was standing on top
of the triple underpass and the President's Car was coming down Elm Street
and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the
moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard
three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke
I saw. I immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade and
did not see anyone running from there. But the puff of smoke I saw
definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees. After the first
shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and tried to
get over in the back seat to him and then the second shot rang out. After
the first shot the secret service man raised up in the seat with a machine
gun and then dropped back down in the seat. And they immediately sped off.
Everything is spinning in my head and if I remember anything else later I
will come back and tell Bill.
/s/ S M Holland
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963
/s/ Aleen Davis
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== UNQUOTE ==
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arcade
== QUOTE ==
Definition of arcade
1 : a long arched building or gallery
2a : an arched covered passageway or avenue (as between shops)
b chiefly British : a building that includes many shops A job fair … today will introduce locals to the details of the 250 jobs that a new shopping arcade will bring when its doors open this autumn. — The Journal (Newcastle, England)
3 : a series of arches with their columns or piers
4 : an amusement center having coin-operated games
== UNQUOTE ==
You sure he was talking about the fence initially?
He said 'arcade'... only the white curved structure - not the fence -
could fit that word usage. And behind that white curved structure is the
TSBD - from his position on the knoll. The knoll fence is in front of the
white arcade structure from his position.
Hank
Cute, but I could counter by saying that he mean penny arcade.
You'd have to be a mind-reader to know that. And there weren't any in the
vicinity in any case. The word arcade fits only the pergola area in Dealey
Plaza. And he said initially that the shots came from behind that. And
from his position on the overpass, the Depository is behind the
pergola.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I think it is obvious that none of the witnesses knew the word pergola.
Search all the testimonies and statements and let me know how many
people used the word PERGOLA."
But you overlook the fact that Holland walked Mark Lane over to the
exact spot where he thought the shot came from.
How many months later did this transpire? And what happened before then
that you didn't see?

Mark Lane explained just how he could manipulate the interviewee in a _CITIZEN'S
DISSENT_ (although he was arguing about the CBS special broadcast in
1964, it applies equally to his own movie with Emile de Antonio as well)

"When a witness says something that challenges the script, that portion of
the interview was snipped away and thus turned into an out-take. ...the
interview might be halted and then begun again. What was said during the
respite was not recorded... and remains... an enigma. When the filming
resumed, the witness might say that, while at the time he thought the
shots originated from the knoll area, he now that believed the evidence
showed the shots came from the Depository. When asked to repeat his
conclusion as to where the shots originated, he might say, "Well, from the
Book Depository." CBS would then present just that last fragment as the
interviewee's answer."

You cite those filmed interviews by Lane as if they couldn't have been
manipulated. But Lane was clearly familiar enough with that editing and
manipulation technique to walk us through it step-by-step.

Can you say he never employed that technique in his own interviews?

Hank
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-24 13:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
You mean this statement where he doesn't mention a stockade fence?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hollan1.htm
Where he says the shots came from the direction of 'the arcade' behind the
trees?
== QUOTE ==
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D.
1963 personally appeared S. M. Holland Address 1119 Lucille, Irving, Texas
Age 57 , Phone No. BL3-2185
I am a signal supervisor for the Union Terminal and I was inspecting
signal and switches and stopped to watch the parade. I was standing on top
of the triple underpass and the President's Car was coming down Elm Street
and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the
moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard
three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke
I saw. I immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade and
did not see anyone running from there. But the puff of smoke I saw
definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees. After the first
shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and tried to
get over in the back seat to him and then the second shot rang out. After
the first shot the secret service man raised up in the seat with a machine
gun and then dropped back down in the seat. And they immediately sped off.
Everything is spinning in my head and if I remember anything else later I
will come back and tell Bill.
/s/ S M Holland
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963
/s/ Aleen Davis
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== UNQUOTE ==
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arcade
== QUOTE ==
Definition of arcade
1 : a long arched building or gallery
2a : an arched covered passageway or avenue (as between shops)
b chiefly British : a building that includes many shops A job fair ??? today will introduce locals to the details of the 250 jobs that a new shopping arcade will bring when its doors open this autumn. ??? The Journal (Newcastle, England)
3 : a series of arches with their columns or piers
4 : an amusement center having coin-operated games
== UNQUOTE ==
You sure he was talking about the fence initially?
He said 'arcade'... only the white curved structure - not the fence -
could fit that word usage. And behind that white curved structure is the
TSBD - from his position on the knoll. The knoll fence is in front of the
white arcade structure from his position.
Hank
Cute, but I could counter by saying that he mean penny arcade.
You'd have to be a mind-reader to know that. And there weren't any in the
No. I'd jus use your tricks and play the sophist.
Again, answer the damn questions.
Did anyone that day call it the PERGOLA?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
vicinity in any case. The word arcade fits only the pergola area in Dealey
Plaza. And he said initially that the shots came from behind that. And
from his position on the overpass, the Depository is behind the
pergola.
Pf course, but you are plying the Sophist.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
I think it is obvious that none of the witnesses knew the word pergola.
Search all the testimonies and statements and let me know how many
people used the word PERGOLA."
But you overlook the fact that Holland walked Mark Lane over to the
exact spot where he thought the shot came from.
How many months later did this transpire? And what happened before then
that you didn't see?
Years. So what? No one else went down there and asked Holland to walk to
where the shot came from. That would be like actual research.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Mark Lane explained just how he could manipulate the interviewee in a _CITIZEN'S
DISSENT_ (although he was arguing about the CBS special broadcast in
1964, it applies equally to his own movie with Emile de Antonio as well)
False. Calling someone else a liar does not prove that YOU must be right.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
"When a witness says something that challenges the script, that portion of
the interview was snipped away and thus turned into an out-take. ...the
interview might be halted and then begun again. What was said during the
respite was not recorded... and remains... an enigma. When the filming
resumed, the witness might say that, while at the time he thought the
shots originated from the knoll area, he now that believed the evidence
showed the shots came from the Depository. When asked to repeat his
conclusion as to where the shots originated, he might say, "Well, from the
Book Depository." CBS would then present just that last fragment as the
interviewee's answer."
So you know nothing about film making, How many hours long do YOU think
the film would have been if they included the full-length interviews?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
You cite those filmed interviews by Lane as if they couldn't have been
manipulated. But Lane was clearly familiar enough with that editing and
manipulation technique to walk us through it step-by-step.
Did he twist thier arms? Bully them? Bribe them? Threaten them?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Can you say he never employed that technique in his own interviews?
Yes. I knew him. You did not.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Hank
donald willis
2019-03-25 00:28:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
You mean this statement where he doesn't mention a stockade fence?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hollan1.htm
Where he says the shots came from the direction of 'the arcade' behind the
trees?
== QUOTE ==
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D.
1963 personally appeared S. M. Holland Address 1119 Lucille, Irving, Texas
Age 57 , Phone No. BL3-2185
I am a signal supervisor for the Union Terminal and I was inspecting
signal and switches and stopped to watch the parade. I was standing on top
of the triple underpass and the President's Car was coming down Elm Street
and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the
moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard
three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke
I saw. I immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade and
did not see anyone running from there. But the puff of smoke I saw
definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees. After the first
shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and tried to
get over in the back seat to him and then the second shot rang out. After
the first shot the secret service man raised up in the seat with a machine
gun and then dropped back down in the seat. And they immediately sped off.
Everything is spinning in my head and if I remember anything else later I
will come back and tell Bill.
/s/ S M Holland
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963
/s/ Aleen Davis
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== UNQUOTE ==
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arcade
== QUOTE ==
Definition of arcade
1 : a long arched building or gallery
2a : an arched covered passageway or avenue (as between shops)
b chiefly British : a building that includes many shops A job fair … today will introduce locals to the details of the 250 jobs that a new shopping arcade will bring when its doors open this autumn. — The Journal (Newcastle, England)
3 : a series of arches with their columns or piers
4 : an amusement center having coin-operated games
== UNQUOTE ==
You sure he was talking about the fence initially?
He said 'arcade'... only the white curved structure - not the fence -
could fit that word usage. And behind that white curved structure is the
TSBD - from his position on the knoll. The knoll fence is in front of the
white arcade structure from his position.
Hank
Cute, but I could counter by saying that he mean penny arcade.
You'd have to be a mind-reader to know that. And there weren't any in the
vicinity in any case. The word arcade fits only the pergola area in Dealey
Plaza. And he said initially that the shots came from behind that. And
from his position on the overpass, the Depository is behind the
pergola.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I think it is obvious that none of the witnesses knew the word pergola.
Search all the testimonies and statements and let me know how many
people used the word PERGOLA."
But you overlook the fact that Holland walked Mark Lane over to the
exact spot where he thought the shot came from.
How many months later did this transpire? And what happened before then
that you didn't see?
Ah! Hank is now depending on witness manipulation. What happened, say,
between the time that two reporters on the scene reported that Euins said
the shooter was a "colored man" and the time he filled out an affidavit
saying nothing of the sort? You didn't see, did you?

dcw
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-03-26 18:34:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
You mean this statement where he doesn't mention a stockade fence?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hollan1.htm
Where he says the shots came from the direction of 'the arcade' behind the
trees?
== QUOTE ==
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D.
1963 personally appeared S. M. Holland Address 1119 Lucille, Irving, Texas
Age 57 , Phone No. BL3-2185
I am a signal supervisor for the Union Terminal and I was inspecting
signal and switches and stopped to watch the parade. I was standing on top
of the triple underpass and the President's Car was coming down Elm Street
and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the
moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked toward the
arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard
three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke
I saw. I immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade and
did not see anyone running from there. But the puff of smoke I saw
definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees. After the first
shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and tried to
get over in the back seat to him and then the second shot rang out. After
the first shot the secret service man raised up in the seat with a machine
gun and then dropped back down in the seat. And they immediately sped off.
Everything is spinning in my head and if I remember anything else later I
will come back and tell Bill.
/s/ S M Holland
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963
/s/ Aleen Davis
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== UNQUOTE ==
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arcade
== QUOTE ==
Definition of arcade
1 : a long arched building or gallery
2a : an arched covered passageway or avenue (as between shops)
b chiefly British : a building that includes many shops A job fair … today will introduce locals to the details of the 250 jobs that a new shopping arcade will bring when its doors open this autumn. — The Journal (Newcastle, England)
3 : a series of arches with their columns or piers
4 : an amusement center having coin-operated games
== UNQUOTE ==
You sure he was talking about the fence initially?
He said 'arcade'... only the white curved structure - not the fence -
could fit that word usage. And behind that white curved structure is the
TSBD - from his position on the knoll. The knoll fence is in front of the
white arcade structure from his position.
Hank
Cute, but I could counter by saying that he mean penny arcade.
You'd have to be a mind-reader to know that. And there weren't any in the
vicinity in any case. The word arcade fits only the pergola area in Dealey
Plaza. And he said initially that the shots came from behind that. And
from his position on the overpass, the Depository is behind the
pergola.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I think it is obvious that none of the witnesses knew the word pergola.
Search all the testimonies and statements and let me know how many
people used the word PERGOLA."
But you overlook the fact that Holland walked Mark Lane over to the
exact spot where he thought the shot came from.
How many months later did this transpire? And what happened before then
that you didn't see?
Ah! Hank is now depending on witness manipulation. What happened, say,
between the time that two reporters on the scene reported that Euins said
the shooter was a "colored man" and the time he filled out an affidavit
saying nothing of the sort? You didn't see, did you?
dcw
No, you're changing the subject from what Holland said on 11/22/63 in his
signed statement vs what Holland said to Mark Lane months later (Mark Lane
himself explained how witnesses could be manipulated) to Amos Euins, and
by changing the subject, you're invoking two logical fallacies, that of a
red herring, and that of 'two wrongs make a right'.

Hank
donald willis
2019-03-27 19:39:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 9:23:57 AM UTC- CUT ly the pergola area in Dealey
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Plaza. And he said initially that the shots came from behind that. And
from his position on the overpass, the Depository is behind the
pergola.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I think it is obvious that none of the witnesses knew the word pergola.
Search all the testimonies and statements and let me know how many
people used the word PERGOLA."
But you overlook the fact that Holland walked Mark Lane over to the
exact spot where he thought the shot came from.
How many months later did this transpire? And what happened before then
that you didn't see?
Ah! Hank is now depending on witness manipulation. What happened, say,
between the time that two reporters on the scene reported that Euins said
the shooter was a "colored man" and the time he filled out an affidavit
saying nothing of the sort? You didn't see, did you?
dcw
No, you're changing the subject from what Holland said on 11/22/63 in his
signed statement vs what Holland said to Mark Lane months later (Mark Lane
himself explained how witnesses could be manipulated) to Amos Euins, and
by changing the subject, you're invoking two logical fallacies, that of a
red herring, and that of 'two wrongs make a right'.
Hank
You invoke "witness manipulation" ("what happened... that you didn't
see?)j, I invoke "witness manipulation". Works both ways, but you can't
admit it.

In fact, the Lane/Holland walk simply illustrated what Holland had been
saying. I don't think it's a matter of something "you didn't see". You
saw it in his affidavit....

dcw
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-04-02 20:45:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 9:23:57 AM UTC- CUT ly the pergola area in Dealey
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Plaza. And he said initially that the shots came from behind that. And
from his position on the overpass, the Depository is behind the
pergola.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I think it is obvious that none of the witnesses knew the word pergola.
Search all the testimonies and statements and let me know how many
people used the word PERGOLA."
But you overlook the fact that Holland walked Mark Lane over to the
exact spot where he thought the shot came from.
How many months later did this transpire? And what happened before then
that you didn't see?
Ah! Hank is now depending on witness manipulation. What happened, say,
between the time that two reporters on the scene reported that Euins said
the shooter was a "colored man" and the time he filled out an affidavit
saying nothing of the sort? You didn't see, did you?
dcw
No, you're changing the subject from what Holland said on 11/22/63 in his
signed statement vs what Holland said to Mark Lane months later (Mark Lane
himself explained how witnesses could be manipulated) to Amos Euins, and
by changing the subject, you're invoking two logical fallacies, that of a
red herring, and that of 'two wrongs make a right'.
Hank
You invoke "witness manipulation" ("what happened... that you didn't
see?)j, I invoke "witness manipulation". Works both ways, but you can't
admit it.
Let's go back to his own signed statement. Where did he place the smoke?

Behind the arcade.
Post by donald willis
In fact, the Lane/Holland walk simply illustrated what Holland had been
saying. I don't think it's a matter of something "you didn't see". You
saw it in his affidavit....
What I see in the affidavit is Holland saying the smoke came from behind
the arcade. Behind the arcade from his position on the overpass is the
Depository.
Post by donald willis
dcw
Hank
k***@gmail.com
2019-03-22 02:59:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
And why are you quoting the hearsay (not admissible, not evidence) instead
of his direct statement (which is admissible and is evidence). Hmmm?

Hank
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-23 01:11:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
And why are you quoting the hearsay (not admissible, not evidence) instead
of his direct statement (which is admissible and is evidence). Hmmm?
Hank
Often it is more important to look for the earliest statement of a
witness before he has been told what to say.
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-03-23 16:22:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
And why are you quoting the hearsay (not admissible, not evidence) instead
of his direct statement (which is admissible and is evidence). Hmmm?
Hank
Often it is more important to look for the earliest statement of a
witness before he has been told what to say.
Yes, exactly my point. The earliest statement of the witness is Holland's
11/22/63 signed statement given in the Dallas Sheriff's Office on the
afternoon of the assassination. The McCurley statement is hearsay, and not
the statement of Holland. It's hearsay from McCurley.

Hank
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-24 13:59:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
And why are you quoting the hearsay (not admissible, not evidence) instead
of his direct statement (which is admissible and is evidence). Hmmm?
Hank
Often it is more important to look for the earliest statement of a
witness before he has been told what to say.
Yes, exactly my point. The earliest statement of the witness is Holland's
11/22/63 signed statement given in the Dallas Sheriff's Office on the
afternoon of the assassination. The McCurley statement is hearsay, and not
the statement of Holland. It's hearsay from McCurley.
Did *I* cite McCurley?
Do you understand how a thread works?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Hank
donald willis
2019-03-23 01:11:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
And why are you quoting the hearsay (not admissible, not evidence) instead
of his direct statement (which is admissible and is evidence). Hmmm?
Hank
Why not? Hmmm...
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-03-23 16:22:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
And why are you quoting the hearsay (not admissible, not evidence) instead
of his direct statement (which is admissible and is evidence). Hmmm?
Hank
Why not? Hmmm...
"Why not?" is not an adequate response.

Already answered that above. It's hearsay. It's not evidence. Hearsay is
not admissible in court except under specific exceptions to the rules
against hearsay. His earliest own statement, not the paraphrased words of
someone else, is much preferred. And is evidence. Yet you avoid it, and
quote some hearsay. Why?

Hank
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-24 13:59:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
And why are you quoting the hearsay (not admissible, not evidence) instead
of his direct statement (which is admissible and is evidence). Hmmm?
Hank
Why not? Hmmm...
"Why not?" is not an adequate response.
Why not? He's asking you to explain yourself.
Can you do that?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Already answered that above. It's hearsay. It's not evidence. Hearsay is
But hearsay can be valuable. what if a witness gives hearsay and then the
Mob kills him or here before they can testify? You think the murderer
should go free? Isn's that the goal of the killer?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
not admissible in court except under specific exceptions to the rules
against hearsay. His earliest own statement, not the paraphrased words of
someone else, is much preferred. And is evidence. Yet you avoid it, and
quote some hearsay. Why?
Always quote the earliest statements, but do not rely on them.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Hank
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-03-27 03:36:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
And why are you quoting the hearsay (not admissible, not evidence) instead
of his direct statement (which is admissible and is evidence). Hmmm?
Hank
Why not? Hmmm...
"Why not?" is not an adequate response.
Why not? He's asking you to explain yourself.
Can you do that?
Already did. I quoted the witness. He quoted the hearsay. Hearsay is not
allowed in court except in special circumstances. He's ignoring what the
witness signed his name to (evidence) and quoting hearsay from someone
else (not evidence).
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Already answered that above. It's hearsay. It's not evidence. Hearsay is
But hearsay can be valuable. what if a witness gives hearsay and then the
Mob kills him or here before they can testify? You think the murderer
should go free? Isn's that the goal of the killer?
Your argument is awfully confused.

If they were an actual witness, their statements wouldn't be hearsay. But
you're claiming they are both a witness and offering hearsay.

The murderer of the non-witness or witness should be tried based on the
evidence against the murderer of the witness. Not based on what the
witness or non-witness said someone else said before he or she was
murdered.

Can you clarify your point?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
not admissible in court except under specific exceptions to the rules
against hearsay. His earliest own statement, not the paraphrased words of
someone else, is much preferred. And is evidence. Yet you avoid it, and
quote some hearsay. Why?
Always quote the earliest statements, but do not rely on them.
Exactly. I have hard evidence like a rifle and shells, and bullet
fragments and a nearly whole bullet, and a paper bag. All pointing back to
one man shooting the President from behind. The statement of Sam Holland
says the shots came from the trees behind the arcade. And the pergola is
the only structure that could fit that word. And behind the pergola, from
his position is the Depository.

Not relying on his earliest statement. But it sure seems to reinforce the
hard evidence.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Hank
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-28 14:42:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
And why are you quoting the hearsay (not admissible, not evidence) instead
of his direct statement (which is admissible and is evidence). Hmmm?
Hank
Why not? Hmmm...
"Why not?" is not an adequate response.
Why not? He's asking you to explain yourself.
Can you do that?
Already did. I quoted the witness. He quoted the hearsay. Hearsay is not
allowed in court except in special circumstances. He's ignoring what the
witness signed his name to (evidence) and quoting hearsay from someone
else (not evidence).
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Already answered that above. It's hearsay. It's not evidence. Hearsay is
But hearsay can be valuable. what if a witness gives hearsay and then the
Mob kills him or here before they can testify? You think the murderer
should go free? Isn's that the goal of the killer?
Your argument is awfully confused.
You miss the point. If a witness gives a statement to the police and then
is killed before he can testify or there is no trial, his original
statement may still be valuable.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
If they were an actual witness, their statements wouldn't be hearsay. But
you're claiming they are both a witness and offering hearsay.
It could still be hearsay. Because it wasn't under oath. If it was a
statement under oath it wouldn't be hearsay.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
The murderer of the non-witness or witness should be tried based on the
evidence against the murderer of the witness. Not based on what the
witness or non-witness said someone else said before he or she was
murdered.
Can you clarify your point?
People who murder want to witnesses sometimes.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
not admissible in court except under specific exceptions to the rules
against hearsay. His earliest own statement, not the paraphrased words of
someone else, is much preferred. And is evidence. Yet you avoid it, and
quote some hearsay. Why?
Always quote the earliest statements, but do not rely on them.
Exactly. I have hard evidence like a rifle and shells, and bullet
fragments and a nearly whole bullet, and a paper bag. All pointing back to
one man shooting the President from behind. The statement of Sam Holland
All pointing back to Oswald, but they could have been planted.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
says the shots came from the trees behind the arcade. And the pergola is
We know that from the acoustical evidence.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
the only structure that could fit that word. And behind the pergola, from
his position is the Depository.
Who said BEHIND the pergola?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Not relying on his earliest statement. But it sure seems to reinforce the
hard evidence.
No. Holland indicates a shot from in front of the limo.
Why in Hell would you like that?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Hank
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-04-14 22:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
No hole in the back of the head and no shooter on the grassy knoll.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. I see a photo of the skull with a
note saying "HSCA entry (near cowlick)". Looks like the back of the
skull. But maybe you're saying it's the back of the top of the skull, eh,
guys???
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
And why are you quoting the hearsay (not admissible, not evidence) instead
of his direct statement (which is admissible and is evidence). Hmmm?
Hank
Why not? Hmmm...
"Why not?" is not an adequate response.
Why not? He's asking you to explain yourself.
Can you do that?
Already did. I quoted the witness. He quoted the hearsay. Hearsay is not
allowed in court except in special circumstances. He's ignoring what the
witness signed his name to (evidence) and quoting hearsay from someone
else (not evidence).
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Already answered that above. It's hearsay. It's not evidence. Hearsay is
But hearsay can be valuable. what if a witness gives hearsay and then the
Mob kills him or here before they can testify? You think the murderer
should go free? Isn's that the goal of the killer?
Your argument is awfully confused.
You miss the point. If a witness gives a statement to the police and then
is killed before he can testify or there is no trial, his original
statement may still be valuable.
Holland gave testimony and statements. Donald Willis cited the statement
of another man entirely... a hearsay statement about what Holland
supposedly said. I cited the same day signed statement of the witness -
Sam Holland. Your scenario is not a very good defense of what Willis did.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
If they were an actual witness, their statements wouldn't be hearsay. But
you're claiming they are both a witness and offering hearsay.
It could still be hearsay. Because it wasn't under oath. If it was a
statement under oath it wouldn't be hearsay.
Holland gave testimony and statements. Donald Willis cited the statement
of another man entirely... a hearsay statement about what Holland
supposedly said. I cited the same day signed statement of the witness -
Sam Holland. Your scenario is not a very good defense of what Willis did.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
The murderer of the non-witness or witness should be tried based on the
evidence against the murderer of the witness. Not based on what the
witness or non-witness said someone else said before he or she was
murdered.
Can you clarify your point?
People who murder want to witnesses sometimes.
That makes no sense. Can you clarify your point?

And Holland wasn't murdered. Try to at least stick somewhere in the same
zip code of the point, even if you can't stick to the point. See below for
where you go outside the zip code of the point.

Hank
donald willis
2019-03-25 00:27:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 10:42:27 PM UTC-4, d
Post by donald willis
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
And why are you quoting the hearsay (not admissible, not evidence) instead
of his direct statement (which is admissible and is evidence). Hmmm?
Hank
Why not? Hmmm...
"Why not?" is not an adequate response.
Already answered that above. It's hearsay. It's not evidence. Hearsay is
not admissible in court except under specific exceptions to the rules
against hearsay. His earliest own statement, not the paraphrased words of
someone else, is much preferred. And is evidence. Yet you avoid it, and
quote some hearsay. Why?
Hank
Here you go: "I looked over to the arcade and trees and saw a puff of
smoke come from the trees...." (11/22/63 affidavit)

"From the trees", not from the top of the depository....

dcw
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-04-14 22:14:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 10:42:27 PM UTC-4, d
Post by donald willis
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
And why are you quoting the hearsay (not admissible, not evidence) instead
of his direct statement (which is admissible and is evidence). Hmmm?
Hank
Why not? Hmmm...
"Why not?" is not an adequate response.
Already answered that above. It's hearsay. It's not evidence. Hearsay is
not admissible in court except under specific exceptions to the rules
against hearsay. His earliest own statement, not the paraphrased words of
someone else, is much preferred. And is evidence. Yet you avoid it, and
quote some hearsay. Why?
Hank
Here you go: "I looked over to the arcade and trees and saw a puff of
smoke come from the trees...." (11/22/63 affidavit)
"From the trees", not from the top of the depository....
dcw
Did Holland ever suggest there was a shooter in the trees at any time? No.

There are trees in front of the Depository, are there not?

And he was more specific than just the trees, wasn't he? Why'd you stop
the quote right there? What else did he say?

Oh, that's right. He placed that puff of smoke more specifically: "But the
puff of smoke I saw definitely came from behind the arcade through the
trees."

Behind the arcade from his viewpoint is the Depository. The Knoll fence
would be in front of the arcade from his viewpoint.

Additionally, do you think his testimony is accurate? Do you think only
the first shot came from the knoll?

Hank
donald willis
2019-04-15 19:57:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 10:42:27 PM UTC-4, d
Post by donald willis
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
And why are you quoting the hearsay (not admissible, not evidence) instead
of his direct statement (which is admissible and is evidence). Hmmm?
Hank
Why not? Hmmm...
"Why not?" is not an adequate response.
Already answered that above. It's hearsay. It's not evidence. Hearsay is
not admissible in court except under specific exceptions to the rules
against hearsay. His earliest own statement, not the paraphrased words of
someone else, is much preferred. And is evidence. Yet you avoid it, and
quote some hearsay. Why?
Hank
Here you go: "I looked over to the arcade and trees and saw a puff of
smoke come from the trees...." (11/22/63 affidavit)
"From the trees", not from the top of the depository....
dcw
Did Holland ever suggest there was a shooter in the trees at any time? No.
There are trees in front of the Depository, are there not?
He said he looked over to the arcade and trees. What trees are closest to
the arcade?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
And he was more specific than just the trees, wasn't he? Why'd you stop
the quote right there? What else did he say?
Oh, that's right. He placed that puff of smoke more specifically: "But the
puff of smoke I saw definitely came from behind the arcade through the
trees."
Behind the arcade from his viewpoint is the Depository. The Knoll fence
would be in front of the arcade from his viewpoint.
In your previous post, you suggested you were open to other
interpretations of Holland's affidavit. But you keep coming back to the
same one re "behind".

dcw
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-16 16:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 10:42:27 PM UTC-4, d
Post by donald willis
"He believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a
stockade fence..." (11/22/63 report)....
dcw
And why are you quoting the hearsay (not admissible, not evidence) instead
of his direct statement (which is admissible and is evidence). Hmmm?
Hank
Why not? Hmmm...
"Why not?" is not an adequate response.
Already answered that above. It's hearsay. It's not evidence. Hearsay is
not admissible in court except under specific exceptions to the rules
against hearsay. His earliest own statement, not the paraphrased words of
someone else, is much preferred. And is evidence. Yet you avoid it, and
quote some hearsay. Why?
Hank
Here you go: "I looked over to the arcade and trees and saw a puff of
smoke come from the trees...." (11/22/63 affidavit)
"From the trees", not from the top of the depository....
dcw
Did Holland ever suggest there was a shooter in the trees at any time? No.
THE smoke came from the trees. The way rifles work, the bullet comes out
of the muzzle, but the shooter is a couple of feet behind that and the
smoke is blown several feet in front of the barrel.

Holland actually walked Mark Lane to the spot behind the fence where he
thought the shooter was. Why didn't the WC do that? Because they were not
interested in the truth.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
There are trees in front of the Depository, are there not?
Silly. Were there trees on the sixth floor? Did Hollannd call the TSBD
an arcade? You are being obtuse just to mislead people.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
And he was more specific than just the trees, wasn't he? Why'd you stop
the quote right there? What else did he say?
Which trees?
The ones that he showed Mark Lane.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Oh, that's right. He placed that puff of smoke more specifically: "But the
puff of smoke I saw definitely came from behind the arcade through the
trees."
Behind the arcade from his viewpoint is the Depository. The Knoll fence
False.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
would be in front of the arcade from his viewpoint.
He showed Mark Lane exactly where the shot came from.
YOU are being obtuse to mislead people.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Additionally, do you think his testimony is accurate? Do you think only
the first shot came from the knoll?
Accurate? Not 100%. It is called a Pergola not an Arcade.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Hank
donald willis
2019-03-19 18:52:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
Maybe none of them had ever seen an explosive bullet before.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
Silly. The entrance hole in the forehead was just slightly bigger than a
Carcano bullet diameter.
He's talking about the back of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
What entry hole? There was no entry hole on the back of the skull.
His theory does not work.
What was the hole on the back of the skull?
There was no hole on the back of the skull. You're holding the photo
wrong.
Huh??
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
After entry the bullet exploded into hundreds of pieces.
Yes, apparently it would have.
dcw
bigdog
2019-03-16 16:54:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
It's always a red flag for me one someone quotes a phrase like "a couple
of fragments" out of context. I always wonder why they want to hide the
context in order to hide the true meaning of the phrase. In this case I
suspect Bugliosi was speaking of fragments that could be matched to the
Carcano. There were two of those. I also know as thoroughly as Bugliosi
researched this case, he was fully aware that there were more than those
two fragments found in the limo. If you want credibility on this, why
don't you quote the entire paragraph and identify your source for the
quote.
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-17 03:04:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
It's always a red flag for me one someone quotes a phrase like "a couple
of fragments" out of context. I always wonder why they want to hide the
context in order to hide the true meaning of the phrase. In this case I
suspect Bugliosi was speaking of fragments that could be matched to the
Carcano. There were two of those. I also know as thoroughly as Bugliosi
He is speaking only of the 2 LARGE fragments. They could be matched to
Oswald's rifle. The smaller fragments were only lead core piece, but
their antimony levels are consistent with Oswald's ammunition.
Post by bigdog
researched this case, he was fully aware that there were more than those
two fragments found in the limo. If you want credibility on this, why
don't you quote the entire paragraph and identify your source for the
quote.
BT George
2019-03-19 18:47:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
That misunderstands the mechanism that causes the failure. The bullet
will often penetrate as a whole, but in the process the metal jacket will
tear off or become compromised. The result is that the (much softer) lead
core is exposed, and the bullet begins to both fragment and parts of it
even disintegrate.
donald willis
2019-03-20 21:24:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by BT George
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
That misunderstands the mechanism that causes the failure. The bullet
will often penetrate as a whole, but in the process the metal jacket will
tear off or become compromised. The result is that the (much softer) lead
core is exposed, and the bullet begins to both fragment and parts of it
even disintegrate.
Still, there's no evidence of "mushrooming" as the bullet entered, which
means that a Western cartridge-type bullet was not involved.

dcw
BT George
2019-03-22 16:18:35 UTC
Permalink
Donald Willis said:

Still, there's no evidence of "mushrooming" as the bullet entered, which
means that a Western cartridge-type bullet was not involved.

dcw


BT George response:


Ammunition doesn’t perform precisely the same way in every
scenario. Bullets may differ slightly in their molecular makeup (the NAA
work certainly indicated WCC Carcano rounds lacked heterogeneity across
wider samples) and so can impact angles and the exact type and density of
bone struck.

The WC had the Edgewood Arsenal shoot at various skulls in an attempt to
replicate the headshot. They found the bullets and skulls performed in
ways very similar to, though not necessarily identical with, the 312/313
shot.
donald willis
2019-03-23 01:23:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Still, there's no evidence of "mushrooming" as the bullet entered, which
means that a Western cartridge-type bullet was not involved.
dcw
Ammunition doesn’t perform precisely the same way in every
scenario. Bullets may differ slightly in their molecular makeup (the NAA
work certainly indicated WCC Carcano rounds lacked heterogeneity across
wider samples) and so can impact angles
Blenner went into angles. Check his post on this very newsgroup, circa
2002.

dcw
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-03-24 03:30:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Still, there's no evidence of "mushrooming" as the bullet entered, which
means that a Western cartridge-type bullet was not involved.
dcw
Ammunition doesn’t perform precisely the same way in every
scenario. Bullets may differ slightly in their molecular makeup (the NAA
work certainly indicated WCC Carcano rounds lacked heterogeneity across
wider samples) and so can impact angles
Blenner went into angles. Check his post on this very newsgroup, circa
2002.
dcw
Why? Is Blenner a qualified expert? Has he ever testified in court? Did he
reach his conclusions after conducting his own tests using Oswald's rifle
and the same type bullets and human cadaver skulls? Or is he just another
conspiracy theorist criticizing the evidence he doesn't like that points
to Oswald?

Nevermind. We both know the answers to all the above. I withdraw the
questions.

Hank
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-25 21:22:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Still, there's no evidence of "mushrooming" as the bullet entered, which
means that a Western cartridge-type bullet was not involved.
dcw
Ammunition doesn’t perform precisely the same way in every
scenario. Bullets may differ slightly in their molecular makeup (the NAA
work certainly indicated WCC Carcano rounds lacked heterogeneity across
wider samples) and so can impact angles
Blenner went into angles. Check his post on this very newsgroup, circa
2002.
dcw
Why? Is Blenner a qualified expert? Has he ever testified in court? Did he
reach his conclusions after conducting his own tests using Oswald's rifle
and the same type bullets and human cadaver skulls? Or is he just another
conspiracy theorist criticizing the evidence he doesn't like that points
to Oswald?
ayou don't like the evidence tha points to the grassy knoll.
How could Oswald have fired that shot? ricochet? U-Turn bullets?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Nevermind. We both know the answers to all the above. I withdraw the
questions.
Hank
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-03-27 03:34:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Still, there's no evidence of "mushrooming" as the bullet entered, which
means that a Western cartridge-type bullet was not involved.
dcw
Ammunition doesn’t perform precisely the same way in every
scenario. Bullets may differ slightly in their molecular makeup (the NAA
work certainly indicated WCC Carcano rounds lacked heterogeneity across
wider samples) and so can impact angles
Blenner went into angles. Check his post on this very newsgroup, circa
2002.
dcw
Why? Is Blenner a qualified expert? Has he ever testified in court? Did he
reach his conclusions after conducting his own tests using Oswald's rifle
and the same type bullets and human cadaver skulls? Or is he just another
conspiracy theorist criticizing the evidence he doesn't like that points
to Oswald?
ayou don't like the evidence tha points to the grassy knoll.
How could Oswald have fired that shot? ricochet? U-Turn bullets?
What evidence? You have none.

The only weapon seen that day was seen in the Depository.
The only weapon recovered that day was recovered from the Depository.

The only bullets or shells or fragments of bullets that were large enough
to be ballistically matched to a weapon were matched to the weapon in the
Depository.

The autopsists determined all the damage to JFK was caused by two bullets
fired from above and behind the level of the deceased.

You have no solid evidence of a shot from the knoll.

Nobody is suggesting U-Turn bullets because there is no evidence of a
bullet striking JFK from the front.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Nevermind. We both know the answers to all the above. I withdraw the
questions.
Hank
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-28 14:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Still, there's no evidence of "mushrooming" as the bullet entered, which
means that a Western cartridge-type bullet was not involved.
dcw
Ammunition doesn???t perform precisely the same way in every
scenario. Bullets may differ slightly in their molecular makeup (the NAA
work certainly indicated WCC Carcano rounds lacked heterogeneity across
wider samples) and so can impact angles
Blenner went into angles. Check his post on this very newsgroup, circa
2002.
dcw
Why? Is Blenner a qualified expert? Has he ever testified in court? Did he
reach his conclusions after conducting his own tests using Oswald's rifle
and the same type bullets and human cadaver skulls? Or is he just another
conspiracy theorist criticizing the evidence he doesn't like that points
to Oswald?
ayou don't like the evidence tha points to the grassy knoll.
How could Oswald have fired that shot? ricochet? U-Turn bullets?
What evidence? You have none.
You don't understand how a thread works.
I asked you a quesion now you answer it.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
The only weapon seen that day was seen in the Depository.
Not much, Barely seen by EUins who said pipe.

Barely seen by Brennan. But the acoustical evidence proves there was a
rifle there shooting.

What about the other witnesses who saw a rifle and a different man or
two men? Jus kill them. Never admit any fact.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
The only weapon recovered that day was recovered from the Depository.
Some of them thought they recovered a Mauser.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
The only bullets or shells or fragments of bullets that were large enough
to be ballistically matched to a weapon were matched to the weapon in the
Depository.
I don't get your point. We have enough bullets znd fragments recovered
that were fired from Oswald's rifle. Show me the bullet that missed. Show
me the bullet that caused the hole in JFK's forehead.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
The autopsists determined all the damage to JFK was caused by two bullets
fired from above and behind the level of the deceased.
The autopsists were unqualified even to give a physical.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
You have no solid evidence of a shot from the knoll.
Are you blind?
How come the HSCA said the bullet hole was in the cowlick? Which do you
believe?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Nobody is suggesting U-Turn bullets because there is no evidence of a
bullet striking JFK from the front.
That's is the only way to get the bullet from the TSBD into JFK's
forehead.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Nevermind. We both know the answers to all the above. I withdraw the
questions.
Hank
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-04-01 02:14:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Still, there's no evidence of "mushrooming" as the bullet entered, which
means that a Western cartridge-type bullet was not involved.
dcw
Ammunition doesn???t perform precisely the same way in every
scenario. Bullets may differ slightly in their molecular makeup (the NAA
work certainly indicated WCC Carcano rounds lacked heterogeneity across
wider samples) and so can impact angles
Blenner went into angles. Check his post on this very newsgroup, circa
2002.
dcw
Why? Is Blenner a qualified expert? Has he ever testified in court? Did he
reach his conclusions after conducting his own tests using Oswald's rifle
and the same type bullets and human cadaver skulls? Or is he just another
conspiracy theorist criticizing the evidence he doesn't like that points
to Oswald?
ayou don't like the evidence tha points to the grassy knoll.
How could Oswald have fired that shot? ricochet? U-Turn bullets?
What evidence? You have none.
You don't understand how a thread works.
I asked you a quesion now you answer it.
You asked a question that imbedded your belief in the question -- it's the
logical fallacy of begging the question (AKA a loaded question).

Before we can debate a grassy knoll shot, it's incumbent on you to provide
the evidence of a grassy knoll shot. What evidence points to a grassy
knoll shot? You have none.

Furthermore, you're attempting once more to change the subject -- from
Olivier's conclusions about what Oswald's bullets could do to some
supposed other shot from some supposed other shooter. That's a red
herring. Fallacy #2.

I pointed out that Blenner - who Don Willis was citing - was not an
authority on bullets. You ignored my point and ran down a rabbit hole. I'm
not obligated to chase you through every rabbit hole you run down.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
The only weapon seen that day was seen in the Depository.
Not much, Barely seen by EUins who said pipe.
Still, a rifle. Right?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Barely seen by Brennan.
Still, a rifle. Right?




But the acoustical evidence proves there was a
Post by Anthony Marsh
rifle there shooting.
What about the other witnesses who saw a rifle ...
Yes. Thank you for proving my point. Others besides Euins and Brennan saw
a weapon in one of the upper floors of the Depository. That's what I said.
Post by Anthony Marsh
... and a different man or
two men? Jus kill them. Never admit any fact.
What fact? That the only weapon seen was seen in the Depository? That
fact?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
The only weapon recovered that day was recovered from the Depository.
Some of them thought they recovered a Mauser.
Hilarious. You don't want to go there. We both know you're now desperately
flinging mud against the wall, hoping to deflect and divert from the
points already made. Desperate to change the subject.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
The only bullets or shells or fragments of bullets that were large enough
to be ballistically matched to a weapon were matched to the weapon in the
Depository.
I don't get your point. We have enough bullets znd fragments recovered
that were fired from Oswald's rifle.
That's all we have. Every recovered piece of ballistic evidence that could
be matched to a weapon was matched to Oswald's rifle. That's the three
shells from the sixth floor, the two large fragments recovered from the
limo, and the nearly whole bullet recovered from Parkland. There is
nothing else.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Show me the bullet that missed.
Hilarious. What part of "never recovered" don't you understand?

You're asking for something you know doesn't exist to deflect from the
points already made and to attempt to change the subject. Your desperation
is showing.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Show
me the bullet that caused the hole in JFK's forehead.
Bunk. Show me the evidence of a hole in JFK's forehead.

Now, to be clear, I'm not asking you for a photo and your interpretation
of the photo. You have no standing as a photo analyst. To be clear, I am
asking for the testimony of the original pathologists and / or the
testimony of any other experts like the forensic pathologists who reviewed
the extant autopsy materials and concluded there was a hole in JFK's
forehead.

We both know you don't have squat.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
The autopsists determined all the damage to JFK was caused by two bullets
fired from above and behind the level of the deceased.
The autopsists were unqualified even to give a physical.
False. Every forensic pathologist who has reviewed the extant autopsy
materials has concluded the original pathologists reached the right
conclusions. Two shots, both from behind, both exiting the body.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
You have no solid evidence of a shot from the knoll.
Are you blind?
How come the HSCA said the bullet hole was in the cowlick? Which do you
believe?
That[s evidence of a knoll shot? I said you have no solid evidence of a
shot from the knoll, and you want to talk about something else entirely?
You're funny.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Nobody is suggesting U-Turn bullets because there is no evidence of a
bullet striking JFK from the front.
That's is the only way to get the bullet from the TSBD into JFK's
forehead.
And we're back to the logical fallacy of begging the question.

Prove the shot to the forehead.

You won't, because you have no evidence of that. And we both know it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Nevermind. We both know the answers to all the above. I withdraw the
questions.
Hank
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-28 14:45:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Still, there's no evidence of "mushrooming" as the bullet entered, which
means that a Western cartridge-type bullet was not involved.
dcw
Ammunition doesn???t perform precisely the same way in every
scenario. Bullets may differ slightly in their molecular makeup (the NAA
work certainly indicated WCC Carcano rounds lacked heterogeneity across
wider samples) and so can impact angles
Blenner went into angles. Check his post on this very newsgroup, circa
2002.
dcw
Why? Is Blenner a qualified expert? Has he ever testified in court? Did he
reach his conclusions after conducting his own tests using Oswald's rifle
and the same type bullets and human cadaver skulls? Or is he just another
conspiracy theorist criticizing the evidence he doesn't like that points
to Oswald?
ayou don't like the evidence tha points to the grassy knoll.
How could Oswald have fired that shot? ricochet? U-Turn bullets?
What evidence? You have none.
WWhat? Are tou blind? The hole in the forehead. How do you explain that?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
The only weapon seen that day was seen in the Depository.
The only weapon recovered that day was recovered from the Depository.
The only bullets or shells or fragments of bullets that were large enough
to be ballistically matched to a weapon were matched to the weapon in the
Depository.
The autopsists determined all the damage to JFK was caused by two bullets
fired from above and behind the level of the deceased.
You have no solid evidence of a shot from the knoll.
Nobody is suggesting U-Turn bullets because there is no evidence of a
bullet striking JFK from the front.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Nevermind. We both know the answers to all the above. I withdraw the
questions.
Hank
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-04-01 02:11:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Still, there's no evidence of "mushrooming" as the bullet entered, which
means that a Western cartridge-type bullet was not involved.
dcw
Ammunition doesn???t perform precisely the same way in every
scenario. Bullets may differ slightly in their molecular makeup (the NAA
work certainly indicated WCC Carcano rounds lacked heterogeneity across
wider samples) and so can impact angles
Blenner went into angles. Check his post on this very newsgroup, circa
2002.
dcw
Why? Is Blenner a qualified expert? Has he ever testified in court? Did he
reach his conclusions after conducting his own tests using Oswald's rifle
and the same type bullets and human cadaver skulls? Or is he just another
conspiracy theorist criticizing the evidence he doesn't like that points
to Oswald?
ayou don't like the evidence tha points to the grassy knoll.
How could Oswald have fired that shot? ricochet? U-Turn bullets?
What evidence? You have none.
WWhat? Are tou blind? The hole in the forehead. How do you explain that?
I'm sorry.

Quote to me the expert or experts forensic pathologists who found an entry
wound in the forehead. Also, if you could be so kind, please cite their
qualifications to render that opinion and provide a link to their
testimony.

What's that? You have NONE of the above?

I thought as much.

You don't get to just make stuff up and expect me to disprove it, do you?
That would be shifting the burden of proof, and we both know conspiracy
theorists would never even think of committing a logical fallacy.

Hank
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-24 13:59:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Still, there's no evidence of "mushrooming" as the bullet entered, which
means that a Western cartridge-type bullet was not involved.
dcw
Ammunition doesn’t perform precisely the same way in every
scenario. Bullets may differ slightly in their molecular makeup (the NAA
work certainly indicated WCC Carcano rounds lacked heterogeneity across
wider samples) and so can impact angles and the exact type and density of
bone struck.
The WC had the Edgewood Arsenal shoot at various skulls in an attempt to
replicate the headshot. They found the bullets and skulls performed in
ways very similar to, though not necessarily identical with, the 312/313
shot.
No. And you are afraid to show us.
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-03-27 03:34:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Still, there's no evidence of "mushrooming" as the bullet entered, which
means that a Western cartridge-type bullet was not involved.
dcw
Ammunition doesn’t perform precisely the same way in every
scenario. Bullets may differ slightly in their molecular makeup (the NAA
work certainly indicated WCC Carcano rounds lacked heterogeneity across
wider samples) and so can impact angles and the exact type and density of
bone struck.
The WC had the Edgewood Arsenal shoot at various skulls in an attempt to
replicate the headshot. They found the bullets and skulls performed in
ways very similar to, though not necessarily identical with, the 312/313
shot.
No. And you are afraid to show us.
The damage to the head: REPLICATED.
== QUOTE ==
Mr. SPECTER. And at what distance were these tests performed?
Dr. OLIVIER. These tests were performed at a distance of 90 yards.
Mr. SPECTER. And what gun was used?
Dr. OLIVIER. It was a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano that was marked Commission
Exhibit 139.
Mr. SPECTER. What bullets were used?
Dr. OLIVIER. It was the 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano Western
ammunition lot 6,000.
Mr. SPECTER. What did that examination or test, rather, disclose?
Dr. OLIVIER. It disclosed that the type of head wounds that the President
received could be done by this type of bullet.
== UNQUOTE ==

The fragments left in the brain: REPLICATED.
== QUOTE ==
Dr. OLIVIER. There are some smaller fragments in here that were obtained
from the gelatin within the cranial cavity after the experiment. We melted
the gelatin out and recovered the smallest fragments from within the cranial
cavity.
== UNQUOTE ==

The two large fragments recovered from the limo: REPLICATED.
== QUOTE ==
Dr. OLIVIER. There were, the two larger fragments were recovered outside
of the skull in the cotton waste we were using to catch the fragments
without deforming them.
== UNQUOTE ==

You've been shown. You're just afraid to see.

Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away.
Neither does averting your eyes from the evidence.

Hank
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-29 03:10:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Still, there's no evidence of "mushrooming" as the bullet entered, which
means that a Western cartridge-type bullet was not involved.
dcw
Ammunition doesn’t perform precisely the same way in every
scenario. Bullets may differ slightly in their molecular makeup (the NAA
work certainly indicated WCC Carcano rounds lacked heterogeneity across
wider samples) and so can impact angles and the exact type and density of
bone struck.
The WC had the Edgewood Arsenal shoot at various skulls in an attempt to
replicate the headshot. They found the bullets and skulls performed in
ways very similar to, though not necessarily identical with, the 312/313
shot.
No. And you are afraid to show us.
The damage to the head: REPLICATED.
== QUOTE ==
Mr. SPECTER. And at what distance were these tests performed?
Dr. OLIVIER. These tests were performed at a distance of 90 yards.
Mr. SPECTER. And what gun was used?
Dr. OLIVIER. It was a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano that was marked Commission
Exhibit 139.
Mr. SPECTER. What bullets were used?
Dr. OLIVIER. It was the 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano Western
ammunition lot 6,000.
Mr. SPECTER. What did that examination or test, rather, disclose?
Dr. OLIVIER. It disclosed that the type of head wounds that the President
received could be done by this type of bullet.
== UNQUOTE ==
The fragments left in the brain: REPLICATED.
== QUOTE ==
Dr. OLIVIER. There are some smaller fragments in here that were obtained
from the gelatin within the cranial cavity after the experiment. We melted
the gelatin out and recovered the smallest fragments from within the cranial
cavity.
== UNQUOTE ==
The two large fragments recovered from the limo: REPLICATED.
== QUOTE ==
Dr. OLIVIER. There were, the two larger fragments were recovered outside
of the skull in the cotton waste we were using to catch the fragments
without deforming them.
== UNQUOTE ==
You've been shown. You're just afraid to see.
Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away.
Neither does averting your eyes from the evidence.
Hank
You are misusing the word eplicated. They are similar.
You can\'t show them side by side and say they look the same.
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-04-02 02:18:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Still, there's no evidence of "mushrooming" as the bullet entered, which
means that a Western cartridge-type bullet was not involved.
dcw
Ammunition doesn’t perform precisely the same way in every
scenario. Bullets may differ slightly in their molecular makeup (the NAA
work certainly indicated WCC Carcano rounds lacked heterogeneity across
wider samples) and so can impact angles and the exact type and density of
bone struck.
The WC had the Edgewood Arsenal shoot at various skulls in an attempt to
replicate the headshot. They found the bullets and skulls performed in
ways very similar to, though not necessarily identical with, the 312/313
shot.
No. And you are afraid to show us.
The damage to the head: REPLICATED.
== QUOTE ==
Mr. SPECTER. And at what distance were these tests performed?
Dr. OLIVIER. These tests were performed at a distance of 90 yards.
Mr. SPECTER. And what gun was used?
Dr. OLIVIER. It was a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano that was marked Commission
Exhibit 139.
Mr. SPECTER. What bullets were used?
Dr. OLIVIER. It was the 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano Western
ammunition lot 6,000.
Mr. SPECTER. What did that examination or test, rather, disclose?
Dr. OLIVIER. It disclosed that the type of head wounds that the President
received could be done by this type of bullet.
== UNQUOTE ==
The fragments left in the brain: REPLICATED.
== QUOTE ==
Dr. OLIVIER. There are some smaller fragments in here that were obtained
from the gelatin within the cranial cavity after the experiment. We melted
the gelatin out and recovered the smallest fragments from within the cranial
cavity.
== UNQUOTE ==
The two large fragments recovered from the limo: REPLICATED.
== QUOTE ==
Dr. OLIVIER. There were, the two larger fragments were recovered outside
of the skull in the cotton waste we were using to catch the fragments
without deforming them.
== UNQUOTE ==
You've been shown. You're just afraid to see.
Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away.
Neither does averting your eyes from the evidence.
Hank
You are misusing the word eplicated. They are similar.
You can\'t show them side by side and say they look the same.
Now you're admitting the damage to the test skulls and test bullets was,
in the view of the expert, Dr. Olivier, similar in all aspects to the head
wound JFK suffered and the bullet fragments found in the car and the
bullet fragments found in the brain of the President.

Previously you were arguing that the bullet fragments in the brain implied
an explosive bullet hitting JFK in the forehead and leaving a snowstorm of
fragments.

Now, Oswald's bullets can cause similar damage and no explosive bullet is
needed to reproduce the wound.

Thank you for that admission.

And replicate doesn't mean an exact copy. A carbon copy or a microfilm
copy is acceptable as a replication of the typed original, but neither of
those are precisely the same as the original typed document in all
aspects.

Olivier's tests replicated the damage to JFK's head and to the bullet in
three ways, according to Olivier, and he testified to this:
1. It caused a similar large exit wound
2. It caused the bullet to split in two, leaving two large fragments that
exited the skull
3. It left small fragments in the brain simulant.

That's what Olivier testified to.

"This particular skull blew out the right side in a manner very similar to
the wounds of the President... They [the large test fragments] are quite
similar... There are some smaller fragments in here that were obtained
from the gelatin within the cranial cavity after the experiment."

Oswald's bullets could do that damage described by the autopsists.
Contrary to Donald Willis claims that Oswald's bullets couldn't create
that damage.

Hank
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-03-24 03:29:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by BT George
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
That misunderstands the mechanism that causes the failure. The bullet
will often penetrate as a whole, but in the process the metal jacket will
tear off or become compromised. The result is that the (much softer) lead
core is exposed, and the bullet begins to both fragment and parts of it
even disintegrate.
Still, there's no evidence of "mushrooming" as the bullet entered, which
means that a Western cartridge-type bullet was not involved.
You tested with actual Carcano ammo and human skulls and determined this
when when and where?

Can you tell us when some tests were actually conducted and what
conclusions those tests lead to?

Your conclusions are based on what expertise in ballistics, exactly?

Can you cite the conclusions of any actual experts in the appropriate
field?

Do those experts agree with your conclusions or disagree with your
conclusions?

Can you tell us why we should accept the conclusions you reached without
any testing or expertise and why we should ignore the conclusions of the
actual expert who performed actual tests?
Post by donald willis
dcw
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-03-21 00:48:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
Ah.. the old standby of a logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma

There are other possibilities you're not listing, like you're
misunderstanding Dr. Russell Fisher, the source you're citing
misunderstood Russell Fisher, or Russell Fisher was speaking of only the
portions of the bullet that remained in the head, when he said it
'completely disintegrated'. Forcing a choice between two and only two
possibilities, when there are more, is a logical fallacy.

Don't resort to those. If you want to limit it to two possibilities, first
consider all possibilities and then eliminate those using real reasons and
factual data. Don't just ignore all but two possibilities and pretend
those are the only two.
Post by donald willis
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
No, again with the false dilemma. More of the bullet could have
disintegrated, but also left the skull, for example. Humes is above
talking solely about the minute fragments still within the head.

We know for example James Tague was struck on the cheek with a flying
piece of lead - determined by analyzing the curb that this piece of lead
struck before it struck Tague. We also know the two large fragments
recovered were primarily the copper exterior of a 6.5mm bullet like was
found in Oswald's rifle after the assassination. That means the bulk of
the lead core wasn't recovered. It's entirely possible - if not likely -
the bulk of the lead core exited the head in one or several pieces, and
one of those pieces travelled to hit the curb and then Tague.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
Nobody cares what Herbert Blenner thinks. He's not a qualified expert.

You know who was? Dr. Olivier!

And you know what he did that Herbert Blenner didn't do?

He took Oswald's rifle, and using the same 6.5mm-type copper jacketed
bullets, fired shots into human cadaver skulls at a distance of 90
yards... Approximately the same distance that a shot from the sixth floor
window would travel to strike JFK in the head at Z-frame 313. These skulls
were filled with ballistic gelatin to replicate the brain and fluids
within the skull, covered with ballistic gelatin to replicate the flesh
between the skin and the skull, and then covered with goat skin on the
back of the head to replicate the skin.

Actual tests! With Oswald's rifle!

What did Dr. Olivier conclude?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/olivier.htm

Read it and weep:

Mr. SPECTER. Did you formulate any other conclusions or opinions based on
the tests on firing at the skull?
Dr. OLIVIER. Well, let's see. We found that this bullet could do
exactly--could make the type of wound that the President received.
Also, that the recovered fragments were very similar to the ones recovered
on the front seat and on the floor of the car.
This, to me, indicates that those fragments did come from the bullet that
wounded the President in the head.

Your logical fallacies don't stand a chance when we look at the actual
expert testimony.

Feel free to misinterpret everything above that I said if you can't explain
it otherwise.

You know, employ the logical fallacy of a straw man argument.
Post by donald willis
dcw
Hank
donald willis
2019-03-22 03:06:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
Ah.. the old standby of a logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma
There are other possibilities you're not listing, like you're
misunderstanding Dr. Russell Fisher, the source you're citing
misunderstood Russell Fisher, or Russell Fisher was speaking of only the
portions of the bullet that remained in the head, when he said it
'completely disintegrated'. Forcing a choice between two and only two
possibilities, when there are more, is a logical fallacy.
Don't resort to those. If you want to limit it to two possibilities, first
consider all possibilities and then eliminate those using real reasons and
factual data. Don't just ignore all but two possibilities and pretend
those are the only two.
I could not find the source for the Fisher quote, thus could not amplify.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
No, again with the false dilemma. More of the bullet could have
disintegrated, but also left the skull, for example. Humes is above
talking solely about the minute fragments still within the head.
We know for example James Tague was struck on the cheek with a flying
piece of lead - determined by analyzing the curb that this piece of lead
struck before it struck Tague. We also know the two large fragments
recovered were primarily the copper exterior of a 6.5mm bullet like was
found in Oswald's rifle after the assassination. That means the bulk of
the lead core wasn't recovered. It's entirely possible - if not likely -
the bulk of the lead core exited the head in one or several pieces, and
one of those pieces travelled to hit the curb and then Tague.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
Nobody cares what Herbert Blenner thinks. He's not a qualified expert.
You know who was? Dr. Olivier!
And you know what he did that Herbert Blenner didn't do?
He took Oswald's rifle, and using the same 6.5mm-type copper jacketed
bullets, fired shots into human cadaver skulls at a distance of 90
yards... Approximately the same distance that a shot from the sixth floor
window would travel to strike JFK in the head at Z-frame 313. These skulls
were filled with ballistic gelatin to replicate the brain and fluids
within the skull, covered with ballistic gelatin to replicate the flesh
between the skin and the skull, and then covered with goat skin on the
back of the head to replicate the skin.
Actual tests! With Oswald's rifle!
What did Dr. Olivier conclude?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/olivier.htm
Mr. SPECTER. Did you formulate any other conclusions or opinions based on
the tests on firing at the skull?
Dr. OLIVIER. Well, let's see. We found that this bullet could do
exactly--could make the type of wound that the President received.
Also, that the recovered fragments were very similar to the ones recovered
on the front seat and on the floor of the car.
This, to me, indicates that those fragments did come from the bullet that
wounded the President in the head.
Olivier limits his conclusion to one possibility--a practice which you
condemned, above. His experiments show only that the fragments came from
a Carcano/Western bullet, not necessarily one which hit JFK in the head.
They could have come from the first, missed shot, from a bullet which
fragmented upon hitting concrete.

dcw
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-03-23 16:28:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
Ah.. the old standby of a logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma
There are other possibilities you're not listing, like you're
misunderstanding Dr. Russell Fisher, the source you're citing
misunderstood Russell Fisher, or Russell Fisher was speaking of only the
portions of the bullet that remained in the head, when he said it
'completely disintegrated'. Forcing a choice between two and only two
possibilities, when there are more, is a logical fallacy.
Don't resort to those. If you want to limit it to two possibilities, first
consider all possibilities and then eliminate those using real reasons and
factual data. Don't just ignore all but two possibilities and pretend
those are the only two.
I could not find the source for the Fisher quote, thus could not amplify.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
No, again with the false dilemma. More of the bullet could have
disintegrated, but also left the skull, for example. Humes is above
talking solely about the minute fragments still within the head.
We know for example James Tague was struck on the cheek with a flying
piece of lead - determined by analyzing the curb that this piece of lead
struck before it struck Tague. We also know the two large fragments
recovered were primarily the copper exterior of a 6.5mm bullet like was
found in Oswald's rifle after the assassination. That means the bulk of
the lead core wasn't recovered. It's entirely possible - if not likely -
the bulk of the lead core exited the head in one or several pieces, and
one of those pieces travelled to hit the curb and then Tague.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
Nobody cares what Herbert Blenner thinks. He's not a qualified expert.
You know who was? Dr. Olivier!
And you know what he did that Herbert Blenner didn't do?
He took Oswald's rifle, and using the same 6.5mm-type copper jacketed
bullets, fired shots into human cadaver skulls at a distance of 90
yards... Approximately the same distance that a shot from the sixth floor
window would travel to strike JFK in the head at Z-frame 313. These skulls
were filled with ballistic gelatin to replicate the brain and fluids
within the skull, covered with ballistic gelatin to replicate the flesh
between the skin and the skull, and then covered with goat skin on the
back of the head to replicate the skin.
Actual tests! With Oswald's rifle!
What did Dr. Olivier conclude?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/olivier.htm
Mr. SPECTER. Did you formulate any other conclusions or opinions based on
the tests on firing at the skull?
Dr. OLIVIER. Well, let's see. We found that this bullet could do
exactly--could make the type of wound that the President received.
Also, that the recovered fragments were very similar to the ones recovered
on the front seat and on the floor of the car.
This, to me, indicates that those fragments did come from the bullet that
wounded the President in the head.
Olivier limits his conclusion to one possibility--a practice which you
condemned, above.
His conclusion is that Oswald's bullets could cause the very same damage
to JFK's head that JFK suffered in the assassination in Dallas. And that
the bullet that did the damage would leave minute fragments in the head
and large fragments outside the head. He reached that conclusion by using
Oswald's own rifle and the same type of bullets and shooting human cadaver
skulls with that rifle and those bullets.

He reached all those conclusions by performing actual tests.
Post by donald willis
His experiments show only that the fragments came from
a Carcano/Western bullet, not necessarily one which hit JFK in the head.
No, his experiments show that if you shoot human cadaver skulls with the
same type of bullets using Oswald's rifle, you get the same type of
results seen in the assassination.

Including, but not limited to:
1. A massive exit wound
2. Small fragments remaining in the brain
3. Large fragments exiting the skull

His tests, according to his own testimony, replicated very nicely what we
understand happened to JFK from the autopsy and other evidence.
Post by donald willis
They could have come from the first, missed shot, from a bullet which
fragmented upon hitting concrete.
Now you're just making stuff up. Show me the tests that established that
if you hit concrete with a bullet of the same type as Oswald's, using
Oswald's rifle, it would fragment, leave two large fragments in an open
limousine nearby, and more, smaller fragments in the victim's head.

I'd really love to see the results of those tests. Did you conduct them
yourself? Or are just making stuff up? Which shot hit JFK in the head?
Where'd it come from? The autopsy determined it came from above and behind
the level of the deceased. You're going to argue with that as well, aren't
you?

Hank
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-24 14:00:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
Ah.. the old standby of a logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma
There are other possibilities you're not listing, like you're
misunderstanding Dr. Russell Fisher, the source you're citing
misunderstood Russell Fisher, or Russell Fisher was speaking of only the
portions of the bullet that remained in the head, when he said it
'completely disintegrated'. Forcing a choice between two and only two
possibilities, when there are more, is a logical fallacy.
Don't resort to those. If you want to limit it to two possibilities, first
consider all possibilities and then eliminate those using real reasons and
factual data. Don't just ignore all but two possibilities and pretend
those are the only two.
I could not find the source for the Fisher quote, thus could not amplify.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
No, again with the false dilemma. More of the bullet could have
disintegrated, but also left the skull, for example. Humes is above
talking solely about the minute fragments still within the head.
We know for example James Tague was struck on the cheek with a flying
piece of lead - determined by analyzing the curb that this piece of lead
struck before it struck Tague. We also know the two large fragments
recovered were primarily the copper exterior of a 6.5mm bullet like was
found in Oswald's rifle after the assassination. That means the bulk of
the lead core wasn't recovered. It's entirely possible - if not likely -
the bulk of the lead core exited the head in one or several pieces, and
one of those pieces travelled to hit the curb and then Tague.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
Nobody cares what Herbert Blenner thinks. He's not a qualified expert.
You know who was? Dr. Olivier!
And you know what he did that Herbert Blenner didn't do?
He took Oswald's rifle, and using the same 6.5mm-type copper jacketed
bullets, fired shots into human cadaver skulls at a distance of 90
yards... Approximately the same distance that a shot from the sixth floor
window would travel to strike JFK in the head at Z-frame 313. These skulls
were filled with ballistic gelatin to replicate the brain and fluids
within the skull, covered with ballistic gelatin to replicate the flesh
between the skin and the skull, and then covered with goat skin on the
back of the head to replicate the skin.
Actual tests! With Oswald's rifle!
What did Dr. Olivier conclude?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/olivier.htm
Mr. SPECTER. Did you formulate any other conclusions or opinions based on
the tests on firing at the skull?
Dr. OLIVIER. Well, let's see. We found that this bullet could do
exactly--could make the type of wound that the President received.
Also, that the recovered fragments were very similar to the ones recovered
on the front seat and on the floor of the car.
This, to me, indicates that those fragments did come from the bullet that
wounded the President in the head.
Olivier limits his conclusion to one possibility--a practice which you
condemned, above.
His conclusion is that Oswald's bullets could cause the very same damage
to JFK's head that JFK suffered in the assassination in Dallas. And that
Almost. He could not get a bullet to leave a snowstorm of fragments.
Can you? I believe explosive bullets are illegal now.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
the bullet that did the damage would leave minute fragments in the head
and large fragments outside the head. He reached that conclusion by using
OK, I like that. How many minute fragments? The same as the autopsy
doctors saw in JFK's head?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Oswald's own rifle and the same type of bullets and shooting human cadaver
skulls with that rifle and those bullets.
He reached all those conclusions by performing actual tests.
Post by donald willis
His experiments show only that the fragments came from
a Carcano/Western bullet, not necessarily one which hit JFK in the head.
No, his experiments show that if you shoot human cadaver skulls with the
same type of bullets using Oswald's rifle, you get the same type of
results seen in the assassination.
1. A massive exit wound
2. Small fragments remaining in the brain
3. Large fragments exiting the skull
His tests, according to his own testimony, replicated very nicely what we
understand happened to JFK from the autopsy and other evidence.
Not quite.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
They could have come from the first, missed shot, from a bullet which
fragmented upon hitting concrete.
Now you're just making stuff up. Show me the tests that established that
if you hit concrete with a bullet of the same type as Oswald's, using
Oswald's rifle, it would fragment, leave two large fragments in an open
limousine nearby, and more, smaller fragments in the victim's head.
Who had that theory?
Did anyone test it?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
I'd really love to see the results of those tests. Did you conduct them
yourself? Or are just making stuff up? Which shot hit JFK in the head?
Where'd it come from? The autopsy determined it came from above and behind
the level of the deceased. You're going to argue with that as well, aren't
you?
I think they have a web page and maybe video.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Hank
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-03-27 03:20:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
Ah.. the old standby of a logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma
There are other possibilities you're not listing, like you're
misunderstanding Dr. Russell Fisher, the source you're citing
misunderstood Russell Fisher, or Russell Fisher was speaking of only the
portions of the bullet that remained in the head, when he said it
'completely disintegrated'. Forcing a choice between two and only two
possibilities, when there are more, is a logical fallacy.
Don't resort to those. If you want to limit it to two possibilities, first
consider all possibilities and then eliminate those using real reasons and
factual data. Don't just ignore all but two possibilities and pretend
those are the only two.
I could not find the source for the Fisher quote, thus could not amplify.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
No, again with the false dilemma. More of the bullet could have
disintegrated, but also left the skull, for example. Humes is above
talking solely about the minute fragments still within the head.
We know for example James Tague was struck on the cheek with a flying
piece of lead - determined by analyzing the curb that this piece of lead
struck before it struck Tague. We also know the two large fragments
recovered were primarily the copper exterior of a 6.5mm bullet like was
found in Oswald's rifle after the assassination. That means the bulk of
the lead core wasn't recovered. It's entirely possible - if not likely -
the bulk of the lead core exited the head in one or several pieces, and
one of those pieces travelled to hit the curb and then Tague.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
Nobody cares what Herbert Blenner thinks. He's not a qualified expert.
You know who was? Dr. Olivier!
And you know what he did that Herbert Blenner didn't do?
He took Oswald's rifle, and using the same 6.5mm-type copper jacketed
bullets, fired shots into human cadaver skulls at a distance of 90
yards... Approximately the same distance that a shot from the sixth floor
window would travel to strike JFK in the head at Z-frame 313. These skulls
were filled with ballistic gelatin to replicate the brain and fluids
within the skull, covered with ballistic gelatin to replicate the flesh
between the skin and the skull, and then covered with goat skin on the
back of the head to replicate the skin.
Actual tests! With Oswald's rifle!
What did Dr. Olivier conclude?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/olivier.htm
Mr. SPECTER. Did you formulate any other conclusions or opinions based on
the tests on firing at the skull?
Dr. OLIVIER. Well, let's see. We found that this bullet could do
exactly--could make the type of wound that the President received.
Also, that the recovered fragments were very similar to the ones recovered
on the front seat and on the floor of the car.
This, to me, indicates that those fragments did come from the bullet that
wounded the President in the head.
Olivier limits his conclusion to one possibility--a practice which you
condemned, above.
His conclusion is that Oswald's bullets could cause the very same damage
to JFK's head that JFK suffered in the assassination in Dallas. And that
Almost. He could not get a bullet to leave a snowstorm of fragments.
Can you? I believe explosive bullets are illegal now.
Snowstorm of bullet fragments? What kind of snow do you get where you live?

I remind you that the expert testimony is contrary to yours. Olivier found that Oswald's rifle and Oswald's ammo could cause the same damage to the skull and the bullet would look remarkably like the two large fragments found in the limo.

== QUOTE ==
Mr. SPECTER. Did you formulate any other conclusions or opinions based on
the tests on firing at the skull?
Dr. OLIVIER. Well, let's see. We found that this bullet could do
exactly--could make the type of wound that the President received.
Also, that the recovered fragments were very similar to the ones recovered
on the front seat and on the floor of the car.
This, to me, indicates that those fragments did come from the bullet that
wounded the President in the head.
== UNQUOTE ==
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
the bullet that did the damage would leave minute fragments in the head
and large fragments outside the head. He reached that conclusion by using
OK, I like that. How many minute fragments? The same as the autopsy
doctors saw in JFK's head?
As I pointed out to Don Willis, CTs are apparently never satisfied with
the evidence if it points to Oswald. So you're reduced to quibbling over
the precise number of minute fragments seen in the radiographs of JFKs
head versus the precise number of minute fragments recovered from the
ballistic gelation.

If they don't match precisely in number and weight, then the argument
you're advancing here is what? That the tests Olivier conducted are
invalid and prove nothing?

Nope. You're wrong. Olivier's the expert, not you. He testified the tests
establish that Oswald's weapon and ammo could cause the damage to JFK's
skull and to the bullet as seen in the radiographs and the two large
fragments as well as small fragments left behind in the gelatin.

You still lose. You got nothing.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Oswald's own rifle and the same type of bullets and shooting human cadaver
skulls with that rifle and those bullets.
He reached all those conclusions by performing actual tests.
Post by donald willis
His experiments show only that the fragments came from
a Carcano/Western bullet, not necessarily one which hit JFK in the head.
No, his experiments show that if you shoot human cadaver skulls with the
same type of bullets using Oswald's rifle, you get the same type of
results seen in the assassination.
1. A massive exit wound
2. Small fragments remaining in the brain
3. Large fragments exiting the skull
His tests, according to his own testimony, replicated very nicely what we
understand happened to JFK from the autopsy and other evidence.
Not quite.
Not Olivier's opinion. As a qualified expert, he's allowed to voice his
opinion in a court of law.

You're not a qualified expert, and your opinion of the tests don't matter
a whit.

Here's what Olivier testified to, again:

== QUOTE ==
Dr. OLIVIER. This particular [test] skull blew out the right side in a
manner very similar to the wounds of the President, and if I remember
correctly, it was very close to the point at which we aimed.
...
Mr. SPECTER. And what does that show as to damage done to the skull?
Dr. OLIVIER. It blew the whole side of the cranial cavity away.
Mr. SPECTER. How does that compare, then, with the damage inflicted on
President Kennedy?
Dr. OLIVIER. Very similar. I think they stated the length of the defect,
the missing skull was 13 centimeters if I remember correctly. This in this
case it is greater, but you don't have the limiting scalp holding the pieces
in so you would expect it to fly a little more but it is essentially a
similar type wound.
...

Mr. SPECTER. Did you formulate any other conclusions or opinions based on
the tests on firing at the skull?
Dr. OLIVIER. Well, let's see. We found that this bullet could do
exactly--could make the type of wound that the President received.
Also, that the recovered fragments were very similar to the ones recovered
on the front seat and on the floor of the car.
This, to me, indicates that those fragments did come from the bullet that
wounded the President in the head.
== UNQUOTE ==

His opinion: Valuable
Your opinion: Worthless.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
They could have come from the first, missed shot, from a bullet which
fragmented upon hitting concrete.
Now you're just making stuff up. Show me the tests that established that
if you hit concrete with a bullet of the same type as Oswald's, using
Oswald's rifle, it would fragment, leave two large fragments in an open
limousine nearby, and more, smaller fragments in the victim's head.
Who had that theory?
Don Willis introduced it here (above).
Post by Anthony Marsh
Did anyone test it?
Don's responsible for supporting his arguments. I'm not responsible for
disproving them.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
I'd really love to see the results of those tests. Did you conduct them
yourself? Or are just making stuff up? Which shot hit JFK in the head?
Where'd it come from? The autopsy determined it came from above and behind
the level of the deceased. You're going to argue with that as well, aren't
you?
I think they have a web page and maybe video.
Web pages are not evidence. Do you have any evidence you want to discuss.
Feel free to cite it.

Hank
BT George
2019-03-28 02:21:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
Ah.. the old standby of a logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma
There are other possibilities you're not listing, like you're
misunderstanding Dr. Russell Fisher, the source you're citing
misunderstood Russell Fisher, or Russell Fisher was speaking of only the
portions of the bullet that remained in the head, when he said it
'completely disintegrated'. Forcing a choice between two and only two
possibilities, when there are more, is a logical fallacy.
Don't resort to those. If you want to limit it to two possibilities, first
consider all possibilities and then eliminate those using real reasons and
factual data. Don't just ignore all but two possibilities and pretend
those are the only two.
I could not find the source for the Fisher quote, thus could not amplify.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
No, again with the false dilemma. More of the bullet could have
disintegrated, but also left the skull, for example. Humes is above
talking solely about the minute fragments still within the head.
We know for example James Tague was struck on the cheek with a flying
piece of lead - determined by analyzing the curb that this piece of lead
struck before it struck Tague. We also know the two large fragments
recovered were primarily the copper exterior of a 6.5mm bullet like was
found in Oswald's rifle after the assassination. That means the bulk of
the lead core wasn't recovered. It's entirely possible - if not likely -
the bulk of the lead core exited the head in one or several pieces, and
one of those pieces travelled to hit the curb and then Tague.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
Nobody cares what Herbert Blenner thinks. He's not a qualified expert.
You know who was? Dr. Olivier!
And you know what he did that Herbert Blenner didn't do?
He took Oswald's rifle, and using the same 6.5mm-type copper jacketed
bullets, fired shots into human cadaver skulls at a distance of 90
yards... Approximately the same distance that a shot from the sixth floor
window would travel to strike JFK in the head at Z-frame 313. These skulls
were filled with ballistic gelatin to replicate the brain and fluids
within the skull, covered with ballistic gelatin to replicate the flesh
between the skin and the skull, and then covered with goat skin on the
back of the head to replicate the skin.
Actual tests! With Oswald's rifle!
What did Dr. Olivier conclude?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/olivier.htm
Mr. SPECTER. Did you formulate any other conclusions or opinions based on
the tests on firing at the skull?
Dr. OLIVIER. Well, let's see. We found that this bullet could do
exactly--could make the type of wound that the President received.
Also, that the recovered fragments were very similar to the ones recovered
on the front seat and on the floor of the car.
This, to me, indicates that those fragments did come from the bullet that
wounded the President in the head.
Olivier limits his conclusion to one possibility--a practice which you
condemned, above.
His conclusion is that Oswald's bullets could cause the very same damage
to JFK's head that JFK suffered in the assassination in Dallas. And that
Almost. He could not get a bullet to leave a snowstorm of fragments.
Can you? I believe explosive bullets are illegal now.
Snowstorm of bullet fragments? What kind of snow do you get where you live?
I remind you that the expert testimony is contrary to yours. Olivier found that Oswald's rifle and Oswald's ammo could cause the same damage to the skull and the bullet would look remarkably like the two large fragments found in the limo.
== QUOTE ==
Mr. SPECTER. Did you formulate any other conclusions or opinions based on
the tests on firing at the skull?
Dr. OLIVIER. Well, let's see. We found that this bullet could do
exactly--could make the type of wound that the President received.
Also, that the recovered fragments were very similar to the ones recovered
on the front seat and on the floor of the car.
This, to me, indicates that those fragments did come from the bullet that
wounded the President in the head.
== UNQUOTE ==
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
the bullet that did the damage would leave minute fragments in the head
and large fragments outside the head. He reached that conclusion by using
OK, I like that. How many minute fragments? The same as the autopsy
doctors saw in JFK's head?
As I pointed out to Don Willis, CTs are apparently never satisfied with
the evidence if it points to Oswald. So you're reduced to quibbling over
the precise number of minute fragments seen in the radiographs of JFKs
head versus the precise number of minute fragments recovered from the
ballistic gelation.
If they don't match precisely in number and weight, then the argument
you're advancing here is what? That the tests Olivier conducted are
invalid and prove nothing?
Nope. You're wrong. Olivier's the expert, not you. He testified the tests
establish that Oswald's weapon and ammo could cause the damage to JFK's
skull and to the bullet as seen in the radiographs and the two large
fragments as well as small fragments left behind in the gelatin.
You still lose. You got nothing.
Hank, this is an excellent point. You should consider chiming in on the
threads where Claviger and Grizzlie Antagonist are defending Donahue's
silly theory. Much of it relied on the supposed inability for the Carcano
bullet to fail so completely it left a so-called lead snowstorm.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Oswald's own rifle and the same type of bullets and shooting human cadaver
skulls with that rifle and those bullets.
He reached all those conclusions by performing actual tests.
Post by donald willis
His experiments show only that the fragments came from
a Carcano/Western bullet, not necessarily one which hit JFK in the head.
No, his experiments show that if you shoot human cadaver skulls with the
same type of bullets using Oswald's rifle, you get the same type of
results seen in the assassination.
1. A massive exit wound
2. Small fragments remaining in the brain
3. Large fragments exiting the skull
His tests, according to his own testimony, replicated very nicely what we
understand happened to JFK from the autopsy and other evidence.
Not quite.
Not Olivier's opinion. As a qualified expert, he's allowed to voice his
opinion in a court of law.
You're not a qualified expert, and your opinion of the tests don't matter
a whit.
== QUOTE ==
Dr. OLIVIER. This particular [test] skull blew out the right side in a
manner very similar to the wounds of the President, and if I remember
correctly, it was very close to the point at which we aimed.
...
Mr. SPECTER. And what does that show as to damage done to the skull?
Dr. OLIVIER. It blew the whole side of the cranial cavity away.
Mr. SPECTER. How does that compare, then, with the damage inflicted on
President Kennedy?
Dr. OLIVIER. Very similar. I think they stated the length of the defect,
the missing skull was 13 centimeters if I remember correctly. This in this
case it is greater, but you don't have the limiting scalp holding the pieces
in so you would expect it to fly a little more but it is essentially a
similar type wound.
...
Mr. SPECTER. Did you formulate any other conclusions or opinions based on
the tests on firing at the skull?
Dr. OLIVIER. Well, let's see. We found that this bullet could do
exactly--could make the type of wound that the President received.
Also, that the recovered fragments were very similar to the ones recovered
on the front seat and on the floor of the car.
This, to me, indicates that those fragments did come from the bullet that
wounded the President in the head.
== UNQUOTE ==
His opinion: Valuable
Your opinion: Worthless.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
They could have come from the first, missed shot, from a bullet which
fragmented upon hitting concrete.
Now you're just making stuff up. Show me the tests that established that
if you hit concrete with a bullet of the same type as Oswald's, using
Oswald's rifle, it would fragment, leave two large fragments in an open
limousine nearby, and more, smaller fragments in the victim's head.
Who had that theory?
Don Willis introduced it here (above).
Post by Anthony Marsh
Did anyone test it?
Don's responsible for supporting his arguments. I'm not responsible for
disproving them.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
I'd really love to see the results of those tests. Did you conduct them
yourself? Or are just making stuff up? Which shot hit JFK in the head?
Where'd it come from? The autopsy determined it came from above and behind
the level of the deceased. You're going to argue with that as well, aren't
you?
I think they have a web page and maybe video.
Web pages are not evidence. Do you have any evidence you want to discuss.
Feel free to cite it.
Hank
donald willis
2019-03-25 00:31:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
Ah.. the old standby of a logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma
There are other possibilities you're not listing, like you're
misunderstanding Dr. Russell Fisher, the source you're citing
misunderstood Russell Fisher, or Russell Fisher was speaking of only the
portions of the bullet that remained in the head, when he said it
'completely disintegrated'. Forcing a choice between two and only two
possibilities, when there are more, is a logical fallacy.
Don't resort to those. If you want to limit it to two possibilities, first
consider all possibilities and then eliminate those using real reasons and
factual data. Don't just ignore all but two possibilities and pretend
those are the only two.
I could not find the source for the Fisher quote, thus could not amplify.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
No, again with the false dilemma. More of the bullet could have
disintegrated, but also left the skull, for example. Humes is above
talking solely about the minute fragments still within the head.
We know for example James Tague was struck on the cheek with a flying
piece of lead - determined by analyzing the curb that this piece of lead
struck before it struck Tague. We also know the two large fragments
recovered were primarily the copper exterior of a 6.5mm bullet like was
found in Oswald's rifle after the assassination. That means the bulk of
the lead core wasn't recovered. It's entirely possible - if not likely -
the bulk of the lead core exited the head in one or several pieces, and
one of those pieces travelled to hit the curb and then Tague.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
Nobody cares what Herbert Blenner thinks. He's not a qualified expert.
You know who was? Dr. Olivier!
And you know what he did that Herbert Blenner didn't do?
He took Oswald's rifle, and using the same 6.5mm-type copper jacketed
bullets, fired shots into human cadaver skulls at a distance of 90
yards... Approximately the same distance that a shot from the sixth floor
window would travel to strike JFK in the head at Z-frame 313. These skulls
were filled with ballistic gelatin to replicate the brain and fluids
within the skull, covered with ballistic gelatin to replicate the flesh
between the skin and the skull, and then covered with goat skin on the
back of the head to replicate the skin.
Actual tests! With Oswald's rifle!
What did Dr. Olivier conclude?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/olivier.htm
Mr. SPECTER. Did you formulate any other conclusions or opinions based on
the tests on firing at the skull?
Dr. OLIVIER. Well, let's see. We found that this bullet could do
exactly--could make the type of wound that the President received.
Also, that the recovered fragments were very similar to the ones recovered
on the front seat and on the floor of the car.
This, to me, indicates that those fragments did come from the bullet that
wounded the President in the head.
Olivier limits his conclusion to one possibility--a practice which you
condemned, above.
His conclusion is that Oswald's bullets could cause the very same damage
to JFK's head that JFK suffered in the assassination in Dallas. And that
the bullet that did the damage would leave minute fragments in the head
and large fragments outside the head. He reached that conclusion by using
Oswald's own rifle and the same type of bullets and shooting human cadaver
skulls with that rifle and those bullets.
He reached all those conclusions by performing actual tests.
He went a step too far: "Those fragments did come from the bullet that wounded the President in the head". He only showed that such fragments came from a Carcano, not that it was necessarily from the head shot.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
His experiments show only that the fragments came from
a Carcano/Western bullet, not necessarily one which hit JFK in the head.
No, his experiments show that if you shoot human cadaver skulls with the
same type of bullets using Oswald's rifle, you get the same type of
results seen in the assassination.
1. A massive exit wound
2. Small fragments remaining in the brain
3. Large fragments exiting the skull
Again, the fragments in the limo are not necessarily from the head
wound....
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
His tests, according to his own testimony, replicated very nicely what we
understand happened to JFK from the autopsy and other evidence.
Post by donald willis
They could have come from the first, missed shot, from a bullet which
fragmented upon hitting concrete.
Now you're just making stuff up. Show me the tests that established that
if you hit concrete with a bullet of the same type as Oswald's, using
Oswald's rifle, it would fragment, leave two large fragments in an open
limousine nearby, and more, smaller fragments in the victim's head.
Who the hell said anything about a bullet from the concrete leaving
fragments "in the victim's head". I doubt anyone has ever said THAT.

dcw
bigdog
2019-03-26 18:33:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Again, the fragments in the limo are not necessarily from the head
wound....
Unless you apply common sense.
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-03-27 03:23:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
Ah.. the old standby of a logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma
There are other possibilities you're not listing, like you're
misunderstanding Dr. Russell Fisher, the source you're citing
misunderstood Russell Fisher, or Russell Fisher was speaking of only the
portions of the bullet that remained in the head, when he said it
'completely disintegrated'. Forcing a choice between two and only two
possibilities, when there are more, is a logical fallacy.
Don't resort to those. If you want to limit it to two possibilities, first
consider all possibilities and then eliminate those using real reasons and
factual data. Don't just ignore all but two possibilities and pretend
those are the only two.
I could not find the source for the Fisher quote, thus could not amplify.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
No, again with the false dilemma. More of the bullet could have
disintegrated, but also left the skull, for example. Humes is above
talking solely about the minute fragments still within the head.
We know for example James Tague was struck on the cheek with a flying
piece of lead - determined by analyzing the curb that this piece of lead
struck before it struck Tague. We also know the two large fragments
recovered were primarily the copper exterior of a 6.5mm bullet like was
found in Oswald's rifle after the assassination. That means the bulk of
the lead core wasn't recovered. It's entirely possible - if not likely -
the bulk of the lead core exited the head in one or several pieces, and
one of those pieces travelled to hit the curb and then Tague.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
Nobody cares what Herbert Blenner thinks. He's not a qualified expert.
You know who was? Dr. Olivier!
And you know what he did that Herbert Blenner didn't do?
He took Oswald's rifle, and using the same 6.5mm-type copper jacketed
bullets, fired shots into human cadaver skulls at a distance of 90
yards... Approximately the same distance that a shot from the sixth floor
window would travel to strike JFK in the head at Z-frame 313. These skulls
were filled with ballistic gelatin to replicate the brain and fluids
within the skull, covered with ballistic gelatin to replicate the flesh
between the skin and the skull, and then covered with goat skin on the
back of the head to replicate the skin.
Actual tests! With Oswald's rifle!
What did Dr. Olivier conclude?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/olivier.htm
Mr. SPECTER. Did you formulate any other conclusions or opinions based on
the tests on firing at the skull?
Dr. OLIVIER. Well, let's see. We found that this bullet could do
exactly--could make the type of wound that the President received.
Also, that the recovered fragments were very similar to the ones recovered
on the front seat and on the floor of the car.
This, to me, indicates that those fragments did come from the bullet that
wounded the President in the head.
Olivier limits his conclusion to one possibility--a practice which you
condemned, above.
His conclusion is that Oswald's bullets could cause the very same damage
to JFK's head that JFK suffered in the assassination in Dallas. And that
the bullet that did the damage would leave minute fragments in the head
and large fragments outside the head. He reached that conclusion by using
Oswald's own rifle and the same type of bullets and shooting human cadaver
skulls with that rifle and those bullets.
He reached all those conclusions by performing actual tests.
He went a step too far: "Those fragments did come from the bullet that wounded the President in the head". He only showed that such fragments came from a Carcano, not that it was necessarily from the head shot.
There is no other possibility. Process of elimination. The tests establish
that bullets striking the test skulls will cause damage to the skulls
similar to that suffered by the President, and cause damage to the bullet
similar to that seen in the post-mortem radiographs (small fragments in
the brain) and similar to the two large fragments found in the limo.

== QUOTE ==

Dr. OLIVIER. It disclosed that the type of head wounds that the President
received could be done by this type of bullet. This surprised me very much,
because this type of a stable bullet I didn't think would cause a massive
head wound, I thought it would go through making a small entrance and exit,
but the bones of the skull are enough to deform the end of this bullet causing
it to expend a lot of energy and blowing out the side of the skull or
blowing out fragments of the skull.
...

Dr. OLIVIER. There were, the two larger fragments were recovered outside of
the skull in the cotton waste we were using to catch the fragments without
deforming them. There are some smaller fragments in here that were obtained
from the gelatin within the cranial cavity after the experiment. We melted
the gelatin out and recovered the smallest fragments from within the
cranial cavity.
== UNQUOTE ==

Your opinion of his tests is worthless. You're not qualified to
comment.
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
His experiments show only that the fragments came from
a Carcano/Western bullet, not necessarily one which hit JFK in the head.
No, his experiments show that if you shoot human cadaver skulls with the
same type of bullets using Oswald's rifle, you get the same type of
results seen in the assassination.
1. A massive exit wound
2. Small fragments remaining in the brain
3. Large fragments exiting the skull
Again, the fragments in the limo are not necessarily from the head
wound....
Not what Olivier thought.

If you have a different suggestion, I'd love to hear it. Provided, of
course, you have evidence to support your belief of how those large
fragments wound up in the limo.
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
His tests, according to his own testimony, replicated very nicely what we
understand happened to JFK from the autopsy and other evidence.
Post by donald willis
They could have come from the first, missed shot, from a bullet which
fragmented upon hitting concrete.
Now you're just making stuff up. Show me the tests that established that
if you hit concrete with a bullet of the same type as Oswald's, using
Oswald's rifle, it would fragment, leave two large fragments in an open
limousine nearby, and more, smaller fragments in the victim's head.
Who the hell said anything about a bullet from the concrete leaving
fragments "in the victim's head". I doubt anyone has ever said THAT.
YOU DID! You suggested a shot hitting concrete could replicate the damage
to JFK's head.

I wrote: "His tests, according to his own testimony, replicated very
nicely what we understand happened to JFK from the autopsy and other
evidence."

You responded: "They could have come from the first, missed shot, from a
bullet which fragmented upon hitting concrete.."

You switched from talking about the damage to JFK to the damage to the
bullet. But you ignored entirely the damage to the skull of JFK. I am
reminding you that there was more damage than your bullet striking
concrete accounts for.

And also reminding you Olivier's tests account for it all:

The damage to the skull? Check.
The damage to the bullet? Check.
The minute fragments left in the brain? Check.

Those tests weren't good enough for you because they point to Oswald, so
you found bogus reasons to disregard them. And you substitute supposition
and guesswork about a bullet hitting concrete and leaving two fragments in
the limo somehow.

Sorry, no.

Hank
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-03-24 03:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
Ah.. the old standby of a logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma
There are other possibilities you're not listing, like you're
misunderstanding Dr. Russell Fisher, the source you're citing
misunderstood Russell Fisher, or Russell Fisher was speaking of only the
portions of the bullet that remained in the head, when he said it
'completely disintegrated'. Forcing a choice between two and only two
possibilities, when there are more, is a logical fallacy.
Don't resort to those. If you want to limit it to two possibilities, first
consider all possibilities and then eliminate those using real reasons and
factual data. Don't just ignore all but two possibilities and pretend
those are the only two.
I could not find the source for the Fisher quote, thus could not amplify.
So you can't support your initial claims about the supposed contradiction
between a bullet "disintegrating completely" and some of it emerging
intact if we allow for more than the two possibilities you list. And you
can't eliminate the other possibilities. I thought as much.

Hank
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-26 18:28:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
Ah.. the old standby of a logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma
There are other possibilities you're not listing, like you're
misunderstanding Dr. Russell Fisher, the source you're citing
misunderstood Russell Fisher, or Russell Fisher was speaking of only the
portions of the bullet that remained in the head, when he said it
'completely disintegrated'. Forcing a choice between two and only two
possibilities, when there are more, is a logical fallacy.
Don't resort to those. If you want to limit it to two possibilities, first
consider all possibilities and then eliminate those using real reasons and
factual data. Don't just ignore all but two possibilities and pretend
those are the only two.
I could not find the source for the Fisher quote, thus could not amplify.
So you can't support your initial claims about the supposed contradiction
between a bullet "disintegrating completely" and some of it emerging
intact if we allow for more than the two possibilities you list. And you
can't eliminate the other possibilities. I thought as much.
Hank
Say what? Explain the snowstorm of minute lead fragments in the head.
I knew you couldn't.
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-03-29 03:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
Ah.. the old standby of a logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma
There are other possibilities you're not listing, like you're
misunderstanding Dr. Russell Fisher, the source you're citing
misunderstood Russell Fisher, or Russell Fisher was speaking of only the
portions of the bullet that remained in the head, when he said it
'completely disintegrated'. Forcing a choice between two and only two
possibilities, when there are more, is a logical fallacy.
Don't resort to those. If you want to limit it to two possibilities, first
consider all possibilities and then eliminate those using real reasons and
factual data. Don't just ignore all but two possibilities and pretend
those are the only two.
I could not find the source for the Fisher quote, thus could not amplify.
So you can't support your initial claims about the supposed contradiction
between a bullet "disintegrating completely" and some of it emerging
intact if we allow for more than the two possibilities you list. And you
can't eliminate the other possibilities. I thought as much.
Hank
Say what? Explain the snowstorm of minute lead fragments in the head.
I knew you couldn't.
Objection! Asked and answered.

Right here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/dfqW_Kx_VFM/xc00qHGVAwAJ

Hank
donald willis
2019-03-25 21:19:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
Ah.. the old standby of a logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma
There are other possibilities you're not listing, like you're
misunderstanding Dr. Russell Fisher, the source you're citing
misunderstood Russell Fisher, or Russell Fisher was speaking of only the
portions of the bullet that remained in the head, when he said it
'completely disintegrated'. Forcing a choice between two and only two
possibilities, when there are more, is a logical fallacy.
Don't resort to those. If you want to limit it to two possibilities, first
consider all possibilities and then eliminate those using real reasons and
factual data. Don't just ignore all but two possibilities and pretend
those are the only two.
Post by donald willis
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
No, again with the false dilemma. More of the bullet could have
disintegrated, but also left the skull, for example. Humes is above
talking solely about the minute fragments still within the head.
We know for example James Tague was struck on the cheek with a flying
piece of lead - determined by analyzing the curb that this piece of lead
struck before it struck Tague. We also know the two large fragments
recovered were primarily the copper exterior of a 6.5mm bullet like was
found in Oswald's rifle after the assassination. That means the bulk of
the lead core wasn't recovered. It's entirely possible - if not likely -
the bulk of the lead core exited the head in one or several pieces, and
one of those pieces travelled to hit the curb and then Tague.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
Nobody cares what Herbert Blenner thinks. He's not a qualified expert.
You know who was? Dr. Olivier!
And you know what he did that Herbert Blenner didn't do?
He took Oswald's rifle, and using the same 6.5mm-type copper jacketed
bullets, fired shots into human cadaver skulls at a distance of 90
yards... Approximately the same distance that a shot from the sixth floor
window would travel to strike JFK in the head at Z-frame 313. These skulls
were filled with ballistic gelatin to replicate the brain and fluids
within the skull, covered with ballistic gelatin to replicate the flesh
between the skin and the skull, and then covered with goat skin on the
back of the head to replicate the skin.
Actual tests! With Oswald's rifle!
Olivier of course could not perfectly replicate the details of the head
shot. He used skulls filled with Jell-O!--okay, "20 percent gelatin"--to
approximate "body tissues" (v5p87). But approximation is not
replication. And, as Bugliosi notes, "The precise location of this
entrance wound [to the head] as stated by the autopsy surgeons in the
autopsy report...has been established as being incorrect by every
pathologist who has subsequently studied the autopsy photographs and
X-rays" (RH p395). So Olivier was basing his tests on approximation and
outright error.

dcw
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-26 18:28:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
Ah.. the old standby of a logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma
There are other possibilities you're not listing, like you're
misunderstanding Dr. Russell Fisher, the source you're citing
misunderstood Russell Fisher, or Russell Fisher was speaking of only the
portions of the bullet that remained in the head, when he said it
'completely disintegrated'. Forcing a choice between two and only two
possibilities, when there are more, is a logical fallacy.
Don't resort to those. If you want to limit it to two possibilities, first
consider all possibilities and then eliminate those using real reasons and
factual data. Don't just ignore all but two possibilities and pretend
those are the only two.
Post by donald willis
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
No, again with the false dilemma. More of the bullet could have
disintegrated, but also left the skull, for example. Humes is above
talking solely about the minute fragments still within the head.
We know for example James Tague was struck on the cheek with a flying
piece of lead - determined by analyzing the curb that this piece of lead
struck before it struck Tague. We also know the two large fragments
recovered were primarily the copper exterior of a 6.5mm bullet like was
found in Oswald's rifle after the assassination. That means the bulk of
the lead core wasn't recovered. It's entirely possible - if not likely -
the bulk of the lead core exited the head in one or several pieces, and
one of those pieces travelled to hit the curb and then Tague.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
Nobody cares what Herbert Blenner thinks. He's not a qualified expert.
You know who was? Dr. Olivier!
And you know what he did that Herbert Blenner didn't do?
He took Oswald's rifle, and using the same 6.5mm-type copper jacketed
bullets, fired shots into human cadaver skulls at a distance of 90
yards... Approximately the same distance that a shot from the sixth floor
window would travel to strike JFK in the head at Z-frame 313. These skulls
were filled with ballistic gelatin to replicate the brain and fluids
within the skull, covered with ballistic gelatin to replicate the flesh
between the skin and the skull, and then covered with goat skin on the
back of the head to replicate the skin.
Actual tests! With Oswald's rifle!
Olivier of course could not perfectly replicate the details of the head
shot. He used skulls filled with Jell-O!--okay, "20 percent gelatin"--to
approximate "body tissues" (v5p87). But approximation is not
Close enough for government work.
Which flavor? But I don't think they caall brain matter body tissue.
Post by donald willis
replication. And, as Bugliosi notes, "The precise location of this
entrance wound [to the head] as stated by the autopsy surgeons in the
autopsy report...has been established as being incorrect by every
pathologist who has subsequently studied the autopsy photographs and
X-rays" (RH p395). So Olivier was basing his tests on approximation and
outright error.
dcw
Mark
2019-03-26 18:31:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
Ah.. the old standby of a logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma
There are other possibilities you're not listing, like you're
misunderstanding Dr. Russell Fisher, the source you're citing
misunderstood Russell Fisher, or Russell Fisher was speaking of only the
portions of the bullet that remained in the head, when he said it
'completely disintegrated'. Forcing a choice between two and only two
possibilities, when there are more, is a logical fallacy.
Don't resort to those. If you want to limit it to two possibilities, first
consider all possibilities and then eliminate those using real reasons and
factual data. Don't just ignore all but two possibilities and pretend
those are the only two.
Post by donald willis
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
No, again with the false dilemma. More of the bullet could have
disintegrated, but also left the skull, for example. Humes is above
talking solely about the minute fragments still within the head.
We know for example James Tague was struck on the cheek with a flying
piece of lead - determined by analyzing the curb that this piece of lead
struck before it struck Tague. We also know the two large fragments
recovered were primarily the copper exterior of a 6.5mm bullet like was
found in Oswald's rifle after the assassination. That means the bulk of
the lead core wasn't recovered. It's entirely possible - if not likely -
the bulk of the lead core exited the head in one or several pieces, and
one of those pieces travelled to hit the curb and then Tague.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
Nobody cares what Herbert Blenner thinks. He's not a qualified expert.
You know who was? Dr. Olivier!
And you know what he did that Herbert Blenner didn't do?
He took Oswald's rifle, and using the same 6.5mm-type copper jacketed
bullets, fired shots into human cadaver skulls at a distance of 90
yards... Approximately the same distance that a shot from the sixth floor
window would travel to strike JFK in the head at Z-frame 313. These skulls
were filled with ballistic gelatin to replicate the brain and fluids
within the skull, covered with ballistic gelatin to replicate the flesh
between the skin and the skull, and then covered with goat skin on the
back of the head to replicate the skin.
Actual tests! With Oswald's rifle!
Olivier of course could not perfectly replicate the details of the head
shot. He used skulls filled with Jell-O!--okay, "20 percent gelatin"--to
approximate "body tissues" (v5p87). But approximation is not
replication. And, as Bugliosi notes, "The precise location of this
entrance wound [to the head] as stated by the autopsy surgeons in the
autopsy report...has been established as being incorrect by every
pathologist who has subsequently studied the autopsy photographs and
X-rays" (RH p395). So Olivier was basing his tests on approximation and
outright error.
Bugliosi is correct, and I admire how you cite him so soon after trashing
him. Mark
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-03-27 03:17:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
Ah.. the old standby of a logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma
There are other possibilities you're not listing, like you're
misunderstanding Dr. Russell Fisher, the source you're citing
misunderstood Russell Fisher, or Russell Fisher was speaking of only the
portions of the bullet that remained in the head, when he said it
'completely disintegrated'. Forcing a choice between two and only two
possibilities, when there are more, is a logical fallacy.
Don't resort to those. If you want to limit it to two possibilities, first
consider all possibilities and then eliminate those using real reasons and
factual data. Don't just ignore all but two possibilities and pretend
those are the only two.
Post by donald willis
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
No, again with the false dilemma. More of the bullet could have
disintegrated, but also left the skull, for example. Humes is above
talking solely about the minute fragments still within the head.
We know for example James Tague was struck on the cheek with a flying
piece of lead - determined by analyzing the curb that this piece of lead
struck before it struck Tague. We also know the two large fragments
recovered were primarily the copper exterior of a 6.5mm bullet like was
found in Oswald's rifle after the assassination. That means the bulk of
the lead core wasn't recovered. It's entirely possible - if not likely -
the bulk of the lead core exited the head in one or several pieces, and
one of those pieces travelled to hit the curb and then Tague.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
Nobody cares what Herbert Blenner thinks. He's not a qualified expert.
You know who was? Dr. Olivier!
And you know what he did that Herbert Blenner didn't do?
He took Oswald's rifle, and using the same 6.5mm-type copper jacketed
bullets, fired shots into human cadaver skulls at a distance of 90
yards... Approximately the same distance that a shot from the sixth floor
window would travel to strike JFK in the head at Z-frame 313. These skulls
were filled with ballistic gelatin to replicate the brain and fluids
within the skull, covered with ballistic gelatin to replicate the flesh
between the skin and the skull, and then covered with goat skin on the
back of the head to replicate the skin.
Actual tests! With Oswald's rifle!
Olivier of course could not perfectly replicate the details of the head
shot.
Well, yeah, because Kennedy was already dead, and Johnson suggested
Olivier do something that wouldn't accomplish the replication when Olivier
asked if Johnson minded riding through Dealey Plaza while they had someone
shoot at Johnson with Oswald's rifle.

That's the problem with you guys (CTs in general). Anything that points to
Oswald is never good enough. If it points to a conspiracy, anything is
good enough.

So let's compare and contrast what you offer us versus what you reject:

* On the one hand, you suggest a hearsay statement about what a witness
said is sufficient to indicate the knoll as the source of one or more
shots. Why? It points to conspiracy.

* On the other hand, you reject scientific tests designed by a weapons
expert who determined that Oswald's rifle and ammo could cause the
damage that JFK suffered, and cause the damage the bullet suffered. Why?
Because it points to Oswald.

Your belief in a conspiracy overrides the science. That's not reason.
That's faith.

Hank





He used skulls filled with Jell-O!--okay, "20 percent gelatin"--to
Post by donald willis
approximate "body tissues" (v5p87). But approximation is not
replication.
It's called ballistic gelatin and it replicates human tissue in terms of
the density. It's a commonly used and widely accepted substitute in all
kinds of bullet tests. Of course, it's not good enough for YOU. We need to
shoot actual presidents in the actual limo being driven through Dealey
Plaza to get a sufficiently close enough replication for you to accept,
apparently. Otherwise, you're quibbling over established science because
you got nowhere else to go.
Post by donald willis
And, as Bugliosi notes, "The precise location of this
entrance wound [to the head] as stated by the autopsy surgeons in the
autopsy report...has been established as being incorrect by every
pathologist who has subsequently studied the autopsy photographs and
X-rays" (RH p395). So Olivier was basing his tests on approximation and
outright error.
The test bullets struck the skull very close to the spot that was
identified as the location of the entry wound. It caused - in Olivier's
opinion, contrary to what he thought prior to the tests - damage to the
skull and damage to the bullets consistent with the damage described by
the autopsists and consistent with the two large fragments found in the
limo.

Do you have tests that establish this wouldn't happen if the entry wound
was higher on the back of the head, so you're arguing from a position of
knowledge?

No? I thought not. You're just quibbling with the test results because you
don't like the test results.

Your quibbles don't overturn the science, the tests, and the expert
testimony.

Learn to accept that you cannot change.

Hank
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-29 03:14:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
Ah.. the old standby of a logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma
There are other possibilities you're not listing, like you're
misunderstanding Dr. Russell Fisher, the source you're citing
misunderstood Russell Fisher, or Russell Fisher was speaking of only the
portions of the bullet that remained in the head, when he said it
'completely disintegrated'. Forcing a choice between two and only two
possibilities, when there are more, is a logical fallacy.
Don't resort to those. If you want to limit it to two possibilities, first
consider all possibilities and then eliminate those using real reasons and
factual data. Don't just ignore all but two possibilities and pretend
those are the only two.
Post by donald willis
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
No, again with the false dilemma. More of the bullet could have
disintegrated, but also left the skull, for example. Humes is above
talking solely about the minute fragments still within the head.
We know for example James Tague was struck on the cheek with a flying
piece of lead - determined by analyzing the curb that this piece of lead
struck before it struck Tague. We also know the two large fragments
recovered were primarily the copper exterior of a 6.5mm bullet like was
found in Oswald's rifle after the assassination. That means the bulk of
the lead core wasn't recovered. It's entirely possible - if not likely -
the bulk of the lead core exited the head in one or several pieces, and
one of those pieces travelled to hit the curb and then Tague.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
Nobody cares what Herbert Blenner thinks. He's not a qualified expert.
You know who was? Dr. Olivier!
And you know what he did that Herbert Blenner didn't do?
He took Oswald's rifle, and using the same 6.5mm-type copper jacketed
bullets, fired shots into human cadaver skulls at a distance of 90
yards... Approximately the same distance that a shot from the sixth floor
window would travel to strike JFK in the head at Z-frame 313. These skulls
were filled with ballistic gelatin to replicate the brain and fluids
within the skull, covered with ballistic gelatin to replicate the flesh
between the skin and the skull, and then covered with goat skin on the
back of the head to replicate the skin.
Actual tests! With Oswald's rifle!
Olivier of course could not perfectly replicate the details of the head
shot.
Well, yeah, because Kennedy was already dead, and Johnson suggested
Olivier do something that wouldn't accomplish the replication when Olivier
asked if Johnson minded riding through Dealey Plaza while they had someone
shoot at Johnson with Oswald's rifle.
That's the problem with you guys (CTs in general). Anything that points to
Oswald is never good enough. If it points to a conspiracy, anything is
good enough.
* On the one hand, you suggest a hearsay statement about what a witness
said is sufficient to indicate the knoll as the source of one or more
shots. Why? It points to conspiracy.
* On the other hand, you reject scientific tests designed by a weapons
expert who determined that Oswald's rifle and ammo could cause the
damage that JFK suffered, and cause the damage the bullet suffered. Why?
Because it points to Oswald.
Your belief in a conspiracy overrides the science. That's not reason.
That's faith.
Hank
He used skulls filled with Jell-O!--okay, "20 percent gelatin"--to
Post by donald willis
approximate "body tissues" (v5p87). But approximation is not
replication.
It's called ballistic gelatin and it replicates human tissue in terms of
the density. It's a commonly used and widely accepted substitute in all
kinds of bullet tests. Of course, it's not good enough for YOU. We need to
shoot actual presidents in the actual limo being driven through Dealey
Plaza to get a sufficiently close enough replication for you to accept,
apparently. Otherwise, you're quibbling over established science because
you got nowhere else to go.
Post by donald willis
And, as Bugliosi notes, "The precise location of this
entrance wound [to the head] as stated by the autopsy surgeons in the
autopsy report...has been established as being incorrect by every
pathologist who has subsequently studied the autopsy photographs and
X-rays" (RH p395). So Olivier was basing his tests on approximation and
outright error.
The test bullets struck the skull very close to the spot that was
identified as the location of the entry wound. It caused - in Olivier's
Where WHO identified an entrance wound? Show me.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
opinion, contrary to what he thought prior to the tests - damage to the
skull and damage to the bullets consistent with the damage described by
the autopsists and consistent with the two large fragments found in the
limo.
Do you have tests that establish this wouldn't happen if the entry wound
was higher on the back of the head, so you're arguing from a position of
knowledge?
What entrance wound higher? Show me. And show me the trajectory.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
No? I thought not. You're just quibbling with the test results because you
don't like the test results.
Your quibbles don't overturn the science, the tests, and the expert
testimony.
Learn to accept that you cannot change.
Hank
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-03-31 21:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
Ah.. the old standby of a logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma
There are other possibilities you're not listing, like you're
misunderstanding Dr. Russell Fisher, the source you're citing
misunderstood Russell Fisher, or Russell Fisher was speaking of only the
portions of the bullet that remained in the head, when he said it
'completely disintegrated'. Forcing a choice between two and only two
possibilities, when there are more, is a logical fallacy.
Don't resort to those. If you want to limit it to two possibilities, first
consider all possibilities and then eliminate those using real reasons and
factual data. Don't just ignore all but two possibilities and pretend
those are the only two.
Post by donald willis
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
No, again with the false dilemma. More of the bullet could have
disintegrated, but also left the skull, for example. Humes is above
talking solely about the minute fragments still within the head.
We know for example James Tague was struck on the cheek with a flying
piece of lead - determined by analyzing the curb that this piece of lead
struck before it struck Tague. We also know the two large fragments
recovered were primarily the copper exterior of a 6.5mm bullet like was
found in Oswald's rifle after the assassination. That means the bulk of
the lead core wasn't recovered. It's entirely possible - if not likely -
the bulk of the lead core exited the head in one or several pieces, and
one of those pieces travelled to hit the curb and then Tague.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
Nobody cares what Herbert Blenner thinks. He's not a qualified expert.
You know who was? Dr. Olivier!
And you know what he did that Herbert Blenner didn't do?
He took Oswald's rifle, and using the same 6.5mm-type copper jacketed
bullets, fired shots into human cadaver skulls at a distance of 90
yards... Approximately the same distance that a shot from the sixth floor
window would travel to strike JFK in the head at Z-frame 313. These skulls
were filled with ballistic gelatin to replicate the brain and fluids
within the skull, covered with ballistic gelatin to replicate the flesh
between the skin and the skull, and then covered with goat skin on the
back of the head to replicate the skin.
Actual tests! With Oswald's rifle!
Olivier of course could not perfectly replicate the details of the head
shot.
Well, yeah, because Kennedy was already dead, and Johnson suggested
Olivier do something that wouldn't accomplish the replication when Olivier
asked if Johnson minded riding through Dealey Plaza while they had someone
shoot at Johnson with Oswald's rifle.
That's the problem with you guys (CTs in general). Anything that points to
Oswald is never good enough. If it points to a conspiracy, anything is
good enough.
* On the one hand, you suggest a hearsay statement about what a witness
said is sufficient to indicate the knoll as the source of one or more
shots. Why? It points to conspiracy.
* On the other hand, you reject scientific tests designed by a weapons
expert who determined that Oswald's rifle and ammo could cause the
damage that JFK suffered, and cause the damage the bullet suffered. Why?
Because it points to Oswald.
Your belief in a conspiracy overrides the science. That's not reason.
That's faith.
Hank
He used skulls filled with Jell-O!--okay, "20 percent gelatin"--to
Post by donald willis
approximate "body tissues" (v5p87). But approximation is not
replication.
It's called ballistic gelatin and it replicates human tissue in terms of
the density. It's a commonly used and widely accepted substitute in all
kinds of bullet tests. Of course, it's not good enough for YOU. We need to
shoot actual presidents in the actual limo being driven through Dealey
Plaza to get a sufficiently close enough replication for you to accept,
apparently. Otherwise, you're quibbling over established science because
you got nowhere else to go.
Post by donald willis
And, as Bugliosi notes, "The precise location of this
entrance wound [to the head] as stated by the autopsy surgeons in the
autopsy report...has been established as being incorrect by every
pathologist who has subsequently studied the autopsy photographs and
X-rays" (RH p395). So Olivier was basing his tests on approximation and
outright error.
The test bullets struck the skull very close to the spot that was
identified as the location of the entry wound. It caused - in Olivier's
Where WHO identified an entrance wound? Show me.
The HSCA Panel and other panels vs. the original autopsists. Olivier was
using the original autopsists entry wound location.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
opinion, contrary to what he thought prior to the tests - damage to the
skull and damage to the bullets consistent with the damage described by
the autopsists and consistent with the two large fragments found in the
limo.
Do you have tests that establish this wouldn't happen if the entry wound
was higher on the back of the head, so you're arguing from a position of
knowledge?
What entrance wound higher? Show me. And show me the trajectory.
This is another in a long line of conspiracy deflections. When you answer
a question, they just change the subject and ask another - entirely
different - question. Apparently we're not concerned with the tests by
Olivier now, and what Olivier testified they establish (Oswald's weapon
and bullets could cause the damage JFK suffered). Or even the same-day
signed statement by Holland either, and where Holland placed the source of
the smoke he saw (behind the pergola / arcade).

No, now we've got a complete change of subject and I've got to establish
exactly where the head wound was and show the precise trajectory...
despite the fact the HSCA experts did all that back in 1978 (41 years
ago!). No, that's not sufficient. Of course not. Anything that points to
Oswald never is.

We're on to these games you play.

Hank
donald willis
2019-03-29 14:38:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 1:11:40 PM UTC-5, donald willis wr CUT
Actual tests! With Oswald's rifle!
Olivier of course could not perfectly replicate the details of the head
shot.
Well, yeah, because Kennedy was already dead, and Johnson suggested
Olivier do something that wouldn't accomplish the replication when Olivier
asked if Johnson minded riding through Dealey Plaza while they had someone
shoot at Johnson with Oswald's rifle.
That's the problem with you guys (CTs in general). Anything that points to
Oswald is never good enough.
Then why do I think now that Oswald was probably a shooter?

If it points to a conspiracy, anything is
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
good enough.
* On the one hand, you suggest a hearsay statement about what a witness
said is sufficient to indicate the knoll as the source of one or more
shots. Why? It points to conspiracy.
Deputy McCurley was not a conspiracist.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
* On the other hand, you reject scientific tests designed by a weapons
expert who determined that Oswald's rifle and ammo could cause the
damage that JFK suffered, and cause the damage the bullet suffered. Why?
Because it points to Oswald.
Your belief in a conspiracy overrides the science. That's not reason.
That's faith.
Hank
He used skulls filled with Jell-O!--okay, "20 percent gelatin"--to
Post by donald willis
approximate "body tissues" (v5p87). But approximation is not
replication.
It's called ballistic gelatin and it replicates human tissue in terms of
the density. It's a commonly used and widely accepted substitute in all
kinds of bullet tests. Of course, it's not good enough for YOU. We need to
shoot actual presidents in the actual limo being driven through Dealey
Plaza to get a sufficiently close enough replication for you to accept,
apparently. Otherwise, you're quibbling over established science because
you got nowhere else to go.
Both sides here have their experts and scientists.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
And, as Bugliosi notes, "The precise location of this
entrance wound [to the head] as stated by the autopsy surgeons in the
autopsy report...has been established as being incorrect by every
pathologist who has subsequently studied the autopsy photographs and
X-rays" (RH p395). So Olivier was basing his tests on approximation and
outright error.
The test bullets struck the skull very close to the spot that was
identified as the location of the entry wound. It caused - in Olivier's
opinion, contrary to what he thought prior to the tests - damage to the
skull and damage to the bullets consistent with the damage described by
the autopsists and consistent with the two large fragments found in the
limo.
So he was wrong re what he thought beforehand? Why did he originally
think that such damage could not have been caused by a Carcano? He seems
to be pretty unreliable.

And as Donahue noted, JFK's head was struck with considerable force. Why
didn't Olivier's skulls all fall off the table? Only one did.

dcw
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-03-31 21:25:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 1:11:40 PM UTC-5, donald willis wr CUT
Actual tests! With Oswald's rifle!
Olivier of course could not perfectly replicate the details of the head
shot.
Well, yeah, because Kennedy was already dead, and Johnson suggested
Olivier do something that wouldn't accomplish the replication when Olivier
asked if Johnson minded riding through Dealey Plaza while they had someone
shoot at Johnson with Oswald's rifle.
That's the problem with you guys (CTs in general). Anything that points to
Oswald is never good enough.
Then why do I think now that Oswald was probably a shooter?
Wait, what? A few weeks ago you were arguing the shooter was on the fifth
floor. Suddenly you're conceding Oswald shot the President? When did that
conversion happen?
Post by donald willis
If it points to a conspiracy, anything is
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
good enough.
* On the one hand, you suggest a hearsay statement about what a witness
said is sufficient to indicate the knoll as the source of one or more
shots. Why? It points to conspiracy.
Deputy McCurley was not a conspiracist.
But you are. And you cited the hearsay report by McCurley.

And ignored initially the actual same-day signed statement by the witness
in question.
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
* On the other hand, you reject scientific tests designed by a weapons
expert who determined that Oswald's rifle and ammo could cause the
damage that JFK suffered, and cause the damage the bullet suffered. Why?
Because it points to Oswald.
Your belief in a conspiracy overrides the science. That's not reason.
That's faith.
Hank
He used skulls filled with Jell-O!--okay, "20 percent gelatin"--to
Post by donald willis
approximate "body tissues" (v5p87). But approximation is not
replication.
It's called ballistic gelatin and it replicates human tissue in terms of
the density. It's a commonly used and widely accepted substitute in all
kinds of bullet tests. Of course, it's not good enough for YOU. We need to
shoot actual presidents in the actual limo being driven through Dealey
Plaza to get a sufficiently close enough replication for you to accept,
apparently. Otherwise, you're quibbling over established science because
you got nowhere else to go.
Both sides here have their experts and scientists.
Nonsense. Name the one expert who performed tests on human skulls with
Oswald's rifle (or even an identical model) and concluded that Oswald's
bullets couldn't do the damage seen in the autopsy photos and x-rays, and
fragment like Oswald's bullet did, and leave behind small pieces of the
bullet within the brain.

Go ahead. Also, cite his testimony in this regard.
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
And, as Bugliosi notes, "The precise location of this
entrance wound [to the head] as stated by the autopsy surgeons in the
autopsy report...has been established as being incorrect by every
pathologist who has subsequently studied the autopsy photographs and
X-rays" (RH p395). So Olivier was basing his tests on approximation and
outright error.
The test bullets struck the skull very close to the spot that was
identified as the location of the entry wound. It caused - in Olivier's
opinion, contrary to what he thought prior to the tests - damage to the
skull and damage to the bullets consistent with the damage described by
the autopsists and consistent with the two large fragments found in the
limo.
So he was wrong re what he thought beforehand? Why did he originally
think that such damage could not have been caused by a Carcano?
He explained that in his testimony:
== QUOTE ==

Dr. OLIVIER. It disclosed that the type of head wounds that the President
received could be done by this type of bullet. This surprised me very
much, because this type of a stable bullet I didn't think would cause a
massive head wound, I thought it would go through making a small entrance
and exit, but the bones of the skull are enough to deform the end of this
bullet causing it to expend a lot of energy and blowing out the side of
the skull or blowing out fragments of the skull.

== UNQUOTE ==
Post by donald willis
He seems
to be pretty unreliable.
Why, because when confronted with evidence his original opinion was wrong,
he changed his opinion to conform to what the evidence showed?

HILARIOUS. Seriously. HILARIOUS.
Post by donald willis
And as Donahue noted, JFK's head was struck with considerable force. Why
didn't Olivier's skulls all fall off the table? Only one did.
I don't see any of that in Olivier's testimony. I searched for the word
'table' and only found it within the word 'stable' (as in 'stable
bullet').

Where did Olivier note that one of the skulls fell off the table. Olivier
noted that the bullet exerted considerable force on the test skulls: "...
I thought it would go through making a small entrance and exit, but the
bones of the skull are enough to deform the end of this bullet causing it
to expend a lot of energy..."

Expend a lot of energy... considerable force. Close enough.
Post by donald willis
dcw
Hank
donald willis
2019-04-02 02:16:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 1:11:40 PM UTC-5, donald willis wr CUT
Actual tests! With Oswald's rifle!
Olivier of course could not perfectly replicate the details of the head
shot.
Well, yeah, because Kennedy was already dead, and Johnson suggested
Olivier do something that wouldn't accomplish the replication when Olivier
asked if Johnson minded riding through Dealey Plaza while they had someone
shoot at Johnson with Oswald's rifle.
That's the problem with you guys (CTs in general). Anything that points to
Oswald is never good enough.
Then why do I think now that Oswald was probably a shooter?
Wait, what? A few weeks ago you were arguing the shooter was on the fifth
floor. Suddenly you're conceding Oswald shot the President? When did that
conversion happen?
You're jumping to concussions. You were out when I laid out the Oswald
scenario. This was it:

The Omnipresent Oswald
Lee Harvey Oswald seemed to be everywhere just after 12:30pm, Nov. 22, 1963. Depository front entrance (Harry Holmes, as per Oswald). Small room on the ground floor (Ochus Campbell). First floor (reporter Kent Biffle, as apparently per Roy Truly). First floor lunch room (Homicide Capt. Fritz, as per Oswald). Second floor (Officer Marrion Baker & Truly). Third or fourth floor (Baker's initial affidavit). Fourth floor (DPD Det. Marvin Johnson, as per Baker, in the Homicide Bureau).
I have to vote for Johnson. (Although the Biffle-Truly connection is still tantalizing.) If Baker and Truly did not run into Oswald before reaching the fourth floor, then it follows that Oswald was in no hurry to get out of the building, and he was supposed to have been. He was, after all, an employee there. And--more importantly--he had assurances that he could not be fingered. He was safe--or felt that he was safe.
The key: The baffling, pre-assassination antics of the sniper. Witnesses Ron Fischer, Carolyn Walther, and Howard Brennan all described a man behaving very strangely for someone who was about to shoot the President. Fischer could even see his "sport shirt and slacks" and said that he was "laying down there or in a funny position anyway"; Brennan said that the man "sat sideways", at one point, "on the window sill"; Mrs. Walther said that the man was "leaning out the window with both his hands extended outside the window ledge". The shooter-in-waiting not only found himself in the public eye--he seemed to seek it out. Why was he not, instead, doing his best to conceal himself?
Answer: Because the Dallas Police would, a short time later, need an APB re a slender white male. And they were not going to get a witness description to that effect either during or immediately after the shooting--when the gun could be pinpointed and gunfire could be returned--when the man would all but disappear into the shadows. The APB material would have to be gathered BEFORE the shooting. And it could come from no one and nowhere else. Yes, the key to the assassination of President Kennedy lay in the minute or two before the assassination. And that minute or two of performance art betrays coordination, coordination between this high-wire artist and, at least, the Dallas Police. No performance, no Fischer, Walther, and Brennan, no basis for the APB, even in retrospect.
Best to ignore the photos of the depository facade prepared expessly, I maintain, for the Warren Commisson. Trust more to belatedly pubished material like the Powell slide. And note, here, that Brennan (counsel David Belin's star witness) testified that he did not see anyone in the fifth-floor end window, the window which purported witness Harold Norman was supposed to have occupied. The Powell reflects Brennan's testimony; the Dillard telephoto shot does not. Then, note that, although Brennan came to think that he saw the shooter on the sixth floor, he maintained that that window was open wide, "just like the windows on the fifth floor, immediately below". Fischer echoed Brennan when he testified that he could not have seen as much of the man if the window were not fully open.
Norman's striking absence from the end window on the fifth floor--in testimony (Brennan) photography (the Powell slide), and Norman's own account (at least until the next Tuesday, Nov. 26th; before that, he seems not to have made any statement at all about the fifth floor)--Norman's absence leaves a vacancy. A suspect at a wide-open end window--described in the respective testimonies of Brennan, Fischer, and Bob Edwards--handily fills that vacancy.
It had to happen on the fifth floor. The man who was acting, before 12:30, like he hadn't a care in the world, could do so because he knew that he was far enough above the crowd to avoid positive IDs, and because any photograph taken of either him or his rifle would have to be suppressed: The infamous "sniper's nest", on the sixth floor, would absorb the world's attention. A photo of a rifle on the fifth floor would have to be squelched, or there might seem to be TWO "sniper's nests". The sniper's pre-12:30 antics in the window rule out the sixth floor--no assurances there for a shooter, whose window-sill antics could have been photographed, and the photographs published--no problem, at least for the assassination organizers.
I find myself forced, finally, to reject all first-floor sightings of Oswald circa 12:31. (If it could be proved that Truly was indeed Biffle's source, I might have to reconsider.) All he had to do--in that situation--in order to latch onto an alibi, was to step outside (as maintained elsewhere) or maybe create a little scene, at 12:31, like he did in Capt. Fritz's office, later. Or, rushing out, he might happen run into a cop--or someone looking for a restroom--at the front door, rushing in. In fact, the cop was apparently Oswald's alibi, as per Holmes. The conspirators absolutely could not allow for such chance encounters.
In order, then, to be a perfect patsy, Oswald would also had to have been the fifth-floor shooter, and model for the police apb. It was a prerequisite.
In a near-surreal incident that day, Oswald all but admitted that he was the assassin. But Warren Report believers and skeptics alike are uncomfortable with the admission, because it offers much to both sides. According to bus driver Cecil McWatters' same-day affidavit, at about 12:45, a man on his bus who resembled Oswald said that the "president was shot in the temple". McWatters later recanted and named one Roy Milton Jones as the man. However, Jones told the FBI that he was on a bus which was boarded by police and held up for an hour--it was not McWatters' 12:45 bus, then, which he was on. In fact, Jones told the FBI that no one on his bus said anything about anyone being "shot in the temple", while the phrase was spoken at least twice on McWatters' bus, first by Oswald, then by McWatters himself. Goodbye, Jones; hello, again, Oswald.
The "temple" speaker, then, was, after all, Oswald, whom McWatters ID'd in a lineup 11/22/63. At 12:45, very few people could have said what he said. But this incriminating witness evidence was also--in another part of the forest--exculpating evidence: If Oswald was on McWatters' bus as far as Marsalis, in Oak Cliff--and, in his affidavit, McWatters said that he was--then he could not have gotten there in time to shoot Officer J.D. Tippit. Guilty on one count, innocent on the other. Cold comfort for skeptics and believers alike.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
If it points to a conspiracy, anything is
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
good enough.
* On the one hand, you suggest a hearsay statement about what a witness
said is sufficient to indicate the knoll as the source of one or more
shots. Why? It points to conspiracy.
Deputy McCurley was not a conspiracist.
But you are. And you cited the hearsay report by McCurley.
And ignored initially the actual same-day signed statement by the witness
in question.
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
* On the other hand, you reject scientific tests designed by a weapons
expert who determined that Oswald's rifle and ammo could cause the
damage that JFK suffered, and cause the damage the bullet suffered. Why?
Because it points to Oswald.
Your belief in a conspiracy overrides the science. That's not reason.
That's faith.
Hank
He used skulls filled with Jell-O!--okay, "20 percent gelatin"--to
Post by donald willis
approximate "body tissues" (v5p87). But approximation is not
replication.
It's called ballistic gelatin and it replicates human tissue in terms of
the density. It's a commonly used and widely accepted substitute in all
kinds of bullet tests. Of course, it's not good enough for YOU. We need to
shoot actual presidents in the actual limo being driven through Dealey
Plaza to get a sufficiently close enough replication for you to accept,
apparently. Otherwise, you're quibbling over established science because
you got nowhere else to go.
Both sides here have their experts and scientists.
Nonsense. Name the one expert who performed tests on human skulls with
Oswald's rifle (or even an identical model) and concluded that Oswald's
bullets couldn't do the damage seen in the autopsy photos and x-rays, and
fragment like Oswald's bullet did, and leave behind small pieces of the
bullet within the brain.
Go ahead. Also, cite his testimony in this regard.
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
And, as Bugliosi notes, "The precise location of this
entrance wound [to the head] as stated by the autopsy surgeons in the
autopsy report...has been established as being incorrect by every
pathologist who has subsequently studied the autopsy photographs and
X-rays" (RH p395). So Olivier was basing his tests on approximation and
outright error.
The test bullets struck the skull very close to the spot that was
identified as the location of the entry wound. It caused - in Olivier's
opinion, contrary to what he thought prior to the tests - damage to the
skull and damage to the bullets consistent with the damage described by
the autopsists and consistent with the two large fragments found in the
limo.
So he was wrong re what he thought beforehand? Why did he originally
think that such damage could not have been caused by a Carcano?
== QUOTE ==
Dr. OLIVIER. It disclosed that the type of head wounds that the President
received could be done by this type of bullet. This surprised me very
much, because this type of a stable bullet I didn't think would cause a
massive head wound, I thought it would go through making a small entrance
and exit, but the bones of the skull are enough to deform the end of this
bullet causing it to expend a lot of energy and blowing out the side of
the skull or blowing out fragments of the skull.
== UNQUOTE ==
Post by donald willis
He seems
to be pretty unreliable.
Why, because when confronted with evidence his original opinion was wrong,
he changed his opinion to conform to what the evidence showed?
HILARIOUS. Seriously. HILARIOUS.
Post by donald willis
And as Donahue noted, JFK's head was struck with considerable force. Why
didn't Olivier's skulls all fall off the table? Only one did.
I don't see any of that in Olivier's testimony. I searched for the word
'table' and only found it within the word 'stable' (as in 'stable
bullet').
Where did Olivier note that one of the skulls fell off the table.
When he talked with Donahue, as recorded in "Mortal Error".

dcw
BT George
2019-04-03 20:38:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 1:11:40 PM UTC-5, donald willis wr CUT
Actual tests! With Oswald's rifle!
Olivier of course could not perfectly replicate the details of the head
shot.
Well, yeah, because Kennedy was already dead, and Johnson suggested
Olivier do something that wouldn't accomplish the replication when Olivier
asked if Johnson minded riding through Dealey Plaza while they had someone
shoot at Johnson with Oswald's rifle.
That's the problem with you guys (CTs in general). Anything that points to
Oswald is never good enough.
Then why do I think now that Oswald was probably a shooter?
Wait, what? A few weeks ago you were arguing the shooter was on the fifth
floor. Suddenly you're conceding Oswald shot the President? When did that
conversion happen?
You're jumping to concussions. You were out when I laid out the Oswald
Concussions? ...Well I suppose if he jumped far enough, one might ensue.
:-)
Post by donald willis
The Omnipresent Oswald
Lee Harvey Oswald seemed to be everywhere just after 12:30pm, Nov. 22, 1963. Depository front entrance (Harry Holmes, as per Oswald). Small room on the ground floor (Ochus Campbell). First floor (reporter Kent Biffle, as apparently per Roy Truly). First floor lunch room (Homicide Capt. Fritz, as per Oswald). Second floor (Officer Marrion Baker & Truly). Third or fourth floor (Baker's initial affidavit). Fourth floor (DPD Det. Marvin Johnson, as per Baker, in the Homicide Bureau).
I have to vote for Johnson. (Although the Biffle-Truly connection is still tantalizing.) If Baker and Truly did not run into Oswald before reaching the fourth floor, then it follows that Oswald was in no hurry to get out of the building, and he was supposed to have been. He was, after all, an employee there. And--more importantly--he had assurances that he could not be fingered. He was safe--or felt that he was safe.
The key: The baffling, pre-assassination antics of the sniper. Witnesses Ron Fischer, Carolyn Walther, and Howard Brennan all described a man behaving very strangely for someone who was about to shoot the President. Fischer could even see his "sport shirt and slacks" and said that he was "laying down there or in a funny position anyway"; Brennan said that the man "sat sideways", at one point, "on the window sill"; Mrs. Walther said that the man was "leaning out the window with both his hands extended outside the window ledge". The shooter-in-waiting not only found himself in the public eye--he seemed to seek it out. Why was he not, instead, doing his best to conceal himself?
Answer: Because the Dallas Police would, a short time later, need an APB re a slender white male. And they were not going to get a witness description to that effect either during or immediately after the shooting--when the gun could be pinpointed and gunfire could be returned--when the man would all but disappear into the shadows. The APB material would have to be gathered BEFORE the shooting. And it could come from no one and nowhere else. Yes, the key to the assassination of President Kennedy lay in the minute or two before the assassination. And that minute or two of performance art betrays coordination, coordination between this high-wire artist and, at least, the Dallas Police. No performance, no Fischer, Walther, and Brennan, no basis for the APB, even in retrospect.
Best to ignore the photos of the depository facade prepared expessly, I maintain, for the Warren Commisson. Trust more to belatedly pubished material like the Powell slide. And note, here, that Brennan (counsel David Belin's star witness) testified that he did not see anyone in the fifth-floor end window, the window which purported witness Harold Norman was supposed to have occupied. The Powell reflects Brennan's testimony; the Dillard telephoto shot does not. Then, note that, although Brennan came to think that he saw the shooter on the sixth floor, he maintained that that window was open wide, "just like the windows on the fifth floor, immediately below". Fischer echoed Brennan when he testified that he could not have seen as much of the man if the window were not fully open.
Norman's striking absence from the end window on the fifth floor--in testimony (Brennan) photography (the Powell slide), and Norman's own account (at least until the next Tuesday, Nov. 26th; before that, he seems not to have made any statement at all about the fifth floor)--Norman's absence leaves a vacancy. A suspect at a wide-open end window--described in the respective testimonies of Brennan, Fischer, and Bob Edwards--handily fills that vacancy.
It had to happen on the fifth floor. The man who was acting, before 12:30, like he hadn't a care in the world, could do so because he knew that he was far enough above the crowd to avoid positive IDs, and because any photograph taken of either him or his rifle would have to be suppressed: The infamous "sniper's nest", on the sixth floor, would absorb the world's attention. A photo of a rifle on the fifth floor would have to be squelched, or there might seem to be TWO "sniper's nests". The sniper's pre-12:30 antics in the window rule out the sixth floor--no assurances there for a shooter, whose window-sill antics could have been photographed, and the photographs published--no problem, at least for the assassination organizers.
I find myself forced, finally, to reject all first-floor sightings of Oswald circa 12:31. (If it could be proved that Truly was indeed Biffle's source, I might have to reconsider.) All he had to do--in that situation--in order to latch onto an alibi, was to step outside (as maintained elsewhere) or maybe create a little scene, at 12:31, like he did in Capt. Fritz's office, later. Or, rushing out, he might happen run into a cop--or someone looking for a restroom--at the front door, rushing in. In fact, the cop was apparently Oswald's alibi, as per Holmes. The conspirators absolutely could not allow for such chance encounters.
In order, then, to be a perfect patsy, Oswald would also had to have been the fifth-floor shooter, and model for the police apb. It was a prerequisite.
In a near-surreal incident that day, Oswald all but admitted that he was the assassin. But Warren Report believers and skeptics alike are uncomfortable with the admission, because it offers much to both sides. According to bus driver Cecil McWatters' same-day affidavit, at about 12:45, a man on his bus who resembled Oswald said that the "president was shot in the temple". McWatters later recanted and named one Roy Milton Jones as the man. However, Jones told the FBI that he was on a bus which was boarded by police and held up for an hour--it was not McWatters' 12:45 bus, then, which he was on. In fact, Jones told the FBI that no one on his bus said anything about anyone being "shot in the temple", while the phrase was spoken at least twice on McWatters' bus, first by Oswald, then by McWatters himself. Goodbye, Jones; hello, again, Oswald.
The "temple" speaker, then, was, after all, Oswald, whom McWatters ID'd in a lineup 11/22/63. At 12:45, very few people could have said what he said. But this incriminating witness evidence was also--in another part of the forest--exculpating evidence: If Oswald was on McWatters' bus as far as Marsalis, in Oak Cliff--and, in his affidavit, McWatters said that he was--then he could not have gotten there in time to shoot Officer J.D. Tippit. Guilty on one count, innocent on the other. Cold comfort for skeptics and believers alike.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
If it points to a conspiracy, anything is
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
good enough.
* On the one hand, you suggest a hearsay statement about what a witness
said is sufficient to indicate the knoll as the source of one or more
shots. Why? It points to conspiracy.
Deputy McCurley was not a conspiracist.
But you are. And you cited the hearsay report by McCurley.
And ignored initially the actual same-day signed statement by the witness
in question.
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
* On the other hand, you reject scientific tests designed by a weapons
expert who determined that Oswald's rifle and ammo could cause the
damage that JFK suffered, and cause the damage the bullet suffered. Why?
Because it points to Oswald.
Your belief in a conspiracy overrides the science. That's not reason.
That's faith.
Hank
He used skulls filled with Jell-O!--okay, "20 percent gelatin"--to
Post by donald willis
approximate "body tissues" (v5p87). But approximation is not
replication.
It's called ballistic gelatin and it replicates human tissue in terms of
the density. It's a commonly used and widely accepted substitute in all
kinds of bullet tests. Of course, it's not good enough for YOU. We need to
shoot actual presidents in the actual limo being driven through Dealey
Plaza to get a sufficiently close enough replication for you to accept,
apparently. Otherwise, you're quibbling over established science because
you got nowhere else to go.
Both sides here have their experts and scientists.
Nonsense. Name the one expert who performed tests on human skulls with
Oswald's rifle (or even an identical model) and concluded that Oswald's
bullets couldn't do the damage seen in the autopsy photos and x-rays, and
fragment like Oswald's bullet did, and leave behind small pieces of the
bullet within the brain.
Go ahead. Also, cite his testimony in this regard.
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
And, as Bugliosi notes, "The precise location of this
entrance wound [to the head] as stated by the autopsy surgeons in the
autopsy report...has been established as being incorrect by every
pathologist who has subsequently studied the autopsy photographs and
X-rays" (RH p395). So Olivier was basing his tests on approximation and
outright error.
The test bullets struck the skull very close to the spot that was
identified as the location of the entry wound. It caused - in Olivier's
opinion, contrary to what he thought prior to the tests - damage to the
skull and damage to the bullets consistent with the damage described by
the autopsists and consistent with the two large fragments found in the
limo.
So he was wrong re what he thought beforehand? Why did he originally
think that such damage could not have been caused by a Carcano?
== QUOTE ==
Dr. OLIVIER. It disclosed that the type of head wounds that the President
received could be done by this type of bullet. This surprised me very
much, because this type of a stable bullet I didn't think would cause a
massive head wound, I thought it would go through making a small entrance
and exit, but the bones of the skull are enough to deform the end of this
bullet causing it to expend a lot of energy and blowing out the side of
the skull or blowing out fragments of the skull.
== UNQUOTE ==
Post by donald willis
He seems
to be pretty unreliable.
Why, because when confronted with evidence his original opinion was wrong,
he changed his opinion to conform to what the evidence showed?
HILARIOUS. Seriously. HILARIOUS.
Post by donald willis
And as Donahue noted, JFK's head was struck with considerable force. Why
didn't Olivier's skulls all fall off the table? Only one did.
I don't see any of that in Olivier's testimony. I searched for the word
'table' and only found it within the word 'stable' (as in 'stable
bullet').
Where did Olivier note that one of the skulls fell off the table.
When he talked with Donahue, as recorded in "Mortal Error".
dcw
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-30 03:26:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
Ah.. the old standby of a logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma
There are other possibilities you're not listing, like you're
misunderstanding Dr. Russell Fisher, the source you're citing
misunderstood Russell Fisher, or Russell Fisher was speaking of only the
portions of the bullet that remained in the head, when he said it
'completely disintegrated'. Forcing a choice between two and only two
possibilities, when there are more, is a logical fallacy.
Don't resort to those. If you want to limit it to two possibilities, first
consider all possibilities and then eliminate those using real reasons and
factual data. Don't just ignore all but two possibilities and pretend
those are the only two.
Post by donald willis
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
No, again with the false dilemma. More of the bullet could have
disintegrated, but also left the skull, for example. Humes is above
talking solely about the minute fragments still within the head.
We know for example James Tague was struck on the cheek with a flying
piece of lead - determined by analyzing the curb that this piece of lead
struck before it struck Tague. We also know the two large fragments
recovered were primarily the copper exterior of a 6.5mm bullet like was
found in Oswald's rifle after the assassination. That means the bulk of
the lead core wasn't recovered. It's entirely possible - if not likely -
the bulk of the lead core exited the head in one or several pieces, and
one of those pieces travelled to hit the curb and then Tague.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
Nobody cares what Herbert Blenner thinks. He's not a qualified expert.
You know who was? Dr. Olivier!
And you know what he did that Herbert Blenner didn't do?
He took Oswald's rifle, and using the same 6.5mm-type copper jacketed
bullets, fired shots into human cadaver skulls at a distance of 90
yards... Approximately the same distance that a shot from the sixth floor
window would travel to strike JFK in the head at Z-frame 313. These skulls
were filled with ballistic gelatin to replicate the brain and fluids
within the skull, covered with ballistic gelatin to replicate the flesh
between the skin and the skull, and then covered with goat skin on the
back of the head to replicate the skin.
Actual tests! With Oswald's rifle!
Olivier of course could not perfectly replicate the details of the head
shot.
Well, yeah, because Kennedy was already dead, and Johnson suggested
Olivier do something that wouldn't accomplish the replication when Olivier
asked if Johnson minded riding through Dealey Plaza while they had someone
shoot at Johnson with Oswald's rifle.
That's the problem with you guys (CTs in general). Anything that points to
Oswald is never good enough. If it points to a conspiracy, anything is
good enough.
* On the one hand, you suggest a hearsay statement about what a witness
said is sufficient to indicate the knoll as the source of one or more
shots. Why? It points to conspiracy.
* On the other hand, you reject scientific tests designed by a weapons
expert who determined that Oswald's rifle and ammo could cause the
damage that JFK suffered, and cause the damage the bullet suffered. Why?
Because it points to Oswald.
Your belief in a conspiracy overrides the science. That's not reason.
That's faith.
Hank
He used skulls filled with Jell-O!--okay, "20 percent gelatin"--to
Post by donald willis
approximate "body tissues" (v5p87). But approximation is not
replication.
It's called ballistic gelatin and it replicates human tissue in terms of
the density. It's a commonly used and widely accepted substitute in all
kinds of bullet tests. Of course, it's not good enough for YOU. We need to
shoot actual presidents in the actual limo being driven through Dealey
Plaza to get a sufficiently close enough replication for you to accept,
apparently. Otherwise, you're quibbling over established science because
you got nowhere else to go.
Post by donald willis
And, as Bugliosi notes, "The precise location of this
entrance wound [to the head] as stated by the autopsy surgeons in the
autopsy report...has been established as being incorrect by every
pathologist who has subsequently studied the autopsy photographs and
X-rays" (RH p395). So Olivier was basing his tests on approximation and
outright error.
The test bullets struck the skull very close to the spot that was
identified as the location of the entry wound. It caused - in Olivier's
opinion, contrary to what he thought prior to the tests - damage to the
skull and damage to the bullets consistent with the damage described by
the autopsists and consistent with the two large fragments found in the
limo.
Do you have tests that establish this wouldn't happen if the entry wound
was higher on the back of the head, so you're arguing from a position of
knowledge?
No? I thought not. You're just quibbling with the test results because you
don't like the test results.
Your quibbles don't overturn the science, the tests, and the expert
testimony.
Learn to accept that you cannot change.
Hank
None of those tests showed the same type of lead snowstorm as we see in
JFK's head. You continue to refuse to explain it because you can't. You
might accidentally admit conspiracy. Some type of bullet different than
Oswald's.
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-03-31 21:23:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
Ah.. the old standby of a logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma
There are other possibilities you're not listing, like you're
misunderstanding Dr. Russell Fisher, the source you're citing
misunderstood Russell Fisher, or Russell Fisher was speaking of only the
portions of the bullet that remained in the head, when he said it
'completely disintegrated'. Forcing a choice between two and only two
possibilities, when there are more, is a logical fallacy.
Don't resort to those. If you want to limit it to two possibilities, first
consider all possibilities and then eliminate those using real reasons and
factual data. Don't just ignore all but two possibilities and pretend
those are the only two.
Post by donald willis
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
No, again with the false dilemma. More of the bullet could have
disintegrated, but also left the skull, for example. Humes is above
talking solely about the minute fragments still within the head.
We know for example James Tague was struck on the cheek with a flying
piece of lead - determined by analyzing the curb that this piece of lead
struck before it struck Tague. We also know the two large fragments
recovered were primarily the copper exterior of a 6.5mm bullet like was
found in Oswald's rifle after the assassination. That means the bulk of
the lead core wasn't recovered. It's entirely possible - if not likely -
the bulk of the lead core exited the head in one or several pieces, and
one of those pieces travelled to hit the curb and then Tague.
Post by donald willis
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
Nobody cares what Herbert Blenner thinks. He's not a qualified expert.
You know who was? Dr. Olivier!
And you know what he did that Herbert Blenner didn't do?
He took Oswald's rifle, and using the same 6.5mm-type copper jacketed
bullets, fired shots into human cadaver skulls at a distance of 90
yards... Approximately the same distance that a shot from the sixth floor
window would travel to strike JFK in the head at Z-frame 313. These skulls
were filled with ballistic gelatin to replicate the brain and fluids
within the skull, covered with ballistic gelatin to replicate the flesh
between the skin and the skull, and then covered with goat skin on the
back of the head to replicate the skin.
Actual tests! With Oswald's rifle!
Olivier of course could not perfectly replicate the details of the head
shot.
Well, yeah, because Kennedy was already dead, and Johnson suggested
Olivier do something that wouldn't accomplish the replication when Olivier
asked if Johnson minded riding through Dealey Plaza while they had someone
shoot at Johnson with Oswald's rifle.
That's the problem with you guys (CTs in general). Anything that points to
Oswald is never good enough. If it points to a conspiracy, anything is
good enough.
* On the one hand, you suggest a hearsay statement about what a witness
said is sufficient to indicate the knoll as the source of one or more
shots. Why? It points to conspiracy.
* On the other hand, you reject scientific tests designed by a weapons
expert who determined that Oswald's rifle and ammo could cause the
damage that JFK suffered, and cause the damage the bullet suffered. Why?
Because it points to Oswald.
Your belief in a conspiracy overrides the science. That's not reason.
That's faith.
Hank
He used skulls filled with Jell-O!--okay, "20 percent gelatin"--to
Post by donald willis
approximate "body tissues" (v5p87). But approximation is not
replication.
It's called ballistic gelatin and it replicates human tissue in terms of
the density. It's a commonly used and widely accepted substitute in all
kinds of bullet tests. Of course, it's not good enough for YOU. We need to
shoot actual presidents in the actual limo being driven through Dealey
Plaza to get a sufficiently close enough replication for you to accept,
apparently. Otherwise, you're quibbling over established science because
you got nowhere else to go.
Post by donald willis
And, as Bugliosi notes, "The precise location of this
entrance wound [to the head] as stated by the autopsy surgeons in the
autopsy report...has been established as being incorrect by every
pathologist who has subsequently studied the autopsy photographs and
X-rays" (RH p395). So Olivier was basing his tests on approximation and
outright error.
The test bullets struck the skull very close to the spot that was
identified as the location of the entry wound. It caused - in Olivier's
opinion, contrary to what he thought prior to the tests - damage to the
skull and damage to the bullets consistent with the damage described by
the autopsists and consistent with the two large fragments found in the
limo.
Do you have tests that establish this wouldn't happen if the entry wound
was higher on the back of the head, so you're arguing from a position of
knowledge?
No? I thought not. You're just quibbling with the test results because you
don't like the test results.
Your quibbles don't overturn the science, the tests, and the expert
testimony.
Learn to accept that you cannot change.
Hank
None of those tests showed the same type of lead snowstorm as we see in
JFK's head. You continue to refuse to explain it because you can't. You
might accidentally admit conspiracy. Some type of bullet different than
Oswald's.
Objection! Asked and answered.

Right here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/dfqW_Kx_VFM/xc00qHGVAwAJ

And again here:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/dfqW_Kx_VFM/uEggQj-JAQAJ

Actually, I explained and cited Dr. Olivier's own words. More than once.
This is now the third time you brought this up, and the third time I'm
explaining it. Maybe if you ignored the response another ten or 15 times,
you can convince someone I ignored your point.

Olivier pointed out that small fragments of the bullet that left two large
fragments outside the cranial cavity were left behind in the gelatin that
served as the brain simulant:

== QUOTE ==

Dr. OLIVIER. There were, the two larger fragments were recovered outside
of the skull in the cotton waste we were using to catch the fragments
without deforming them. There are some smaller fragments in here that were
obtained from the gelatin within the cranial cavity after the experiment.
We melted the gelatin out and recovered the smallest fragments from within
the cranial cavity.

== UNQUOTE ==

Keep pretending I'm ignoring this point.

Everyone can see you're just ignoring the response and repeating your
original claim.

Hank
donald willis
2019-04-02 20:48:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
I have seen photos of some of the fragments from Olivier's tests. But
certainly he made a photographic record of the 90-yard shots. That might
be really interesting....

dcw
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2019-04-15 19:49:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Disintegration vs. Fragmentation--Olivier vs Blenner re the head shot (2)
The crux of the head-shot problem is not just terminology or trajectory.
As noted, even Bugliosi asserted, once at least, that the "bullet" found
in the Presidential limo was really "a couple of fragments". Those
fragments are half the problem. The other half: statements like that of
forensic pathology expert Dr. Russell Fisher: The bullet which hit
Kennedy in the head "disintegrated completely" (Menninger p64) (Dr.
Fisher was one of the pathologists cited approvingly by Vincent Bugliosi
as agreeing "100 percent with the conclusion of the autopsy surgeons" [RH
p394n]). How, that is can a bullet which "disintegrated completely" leave
behind "a couple of fragments"? Complete disintegration would seem to
preclude the existence of "two larger fragments... recovered outside of
the skull" (Olivier, WC testimony). Either the bullet did not really
disintegrate or the two fragments came from some other source.
The two fragments had been linked to Oswald's rifle. And, as noted in
"Wound Ballistics of 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition"
(Olivier-Dziemian), deformed bullets could result in "kinetic-energy
expenditures within the cranium." From Humes' testimony: "This bullet
was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place
[within the skull].... multiple minute fragments... less than 1/10 of the
total volume of the missile." That would mean that 9/10 of the bullet did
not disintegrate.
"Dr. Olivier concluded deformation of the ("stable...Western cartridge")
bullet caused the massive head wound. His reasoning was the skull bone
would flatten the small head of the bullet into a larger mushroom shape.
The deformed bullet would encounter more resistance in striking the skull
and cause catastrophic failure of the skull.... The description of the
smaller [entry] wound... clearly shows no signs of the mushroom effect.
So if the smaller wound is the entrance wound then the bullet entered the
cranial vault without any deformation. Herein lies the problem with Dr.
Olivier's conclusion: after entry the bullet had LESS ENERGY [italics
mine]... so he cannot explain how the less energetic collision deformed
the bullet." ("Decoding Dr. Olivier", Herbert Blenner, 2/11/2001,
alt.assassination.jfk)
dcw
I have seen photos of some of the fragments from Olivier's tests.
So no issue with Oswald's bullets being fully capable of creating the
damage to JFK seen at autopsy and being left in the shape the fragments
were found in the brain and in the limo? That's now resolved?
Post by donald willis
But
certainly he made a photographic record of the 90-yard shots. That might
be really interesting....
dcw
So again we see the standard CT 'rebuttal'... when one question is
resolved - simply raise another. Now it's "Where are the photos of the
head shots conducted by Olivier?" We seen this mode of argument for 55
years, Donald, and it's neither surprising nor meaningful.

Hank
Loading...