Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by donald willisPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by donald willisPost by k***@gmail.comPost by donald willisPost by BOZPost by Anthony MarshPost by donald willisPost by Anthony MarshPost by donald willisDisintegration 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 MarshPost by donald willisThe 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 willisPost by Anthony MarshPost by donald willissmaller [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 Marshzzi 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 MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by donald willisPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by donald willisLooking 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 willisSo 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 MarshPost 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 MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by donald willisPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by donald willisMcCurley 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 willisAnd 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 MarshPost 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 MarshHe 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 MarshPost 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 MarshPost 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 MarshPost 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 MarshPost 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 MarshIf 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 MarshPost 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 MarshPost 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