Lack Of Damage To CE-399

[Gary Craig]

Just to repeat the question; how does a bullet that is 3 cm in length create a hole that in 3 cm in length if not by entering fully sideon?

The wound that Olivier was asked to opine on was described to him as being 3 centimetres in its longest diameter. Whether 3 cm is accurate or not isn't relevant here. That's what Olivier was given to work with. Going with that description, he offered two possible causes for that wound. One was the bullet hitting while tilted from the perpendicular. The other was a tangential strike. That is , it was a tangential wound. An oblique, glancing wound.

If Olivier had viewed what Sturdivan did, he would have been able to offer the same concrete opinion. The wound described by Dr. Shaw had  to have been caused by a yawed bullet.

"The wound that Olivier was asked to opine on was described to him as being 3 centimetres in its longest diameter. Whether 3 cm is accurate or not isn't relevant here. That's what Olivier was given to work with."

It's not accurate.

Dr. Shaw testified the wound was 1.5cm.

It became 3cm when he trimmed the jagged edges of the wound before closing it.

Any conclusions reached using a 3cm measurement for the wound in JBC's back are wrong.

"If Olivier had viewed what Sturdivan did, he would have been able to offer the same concrete opinion. The wound described by Dr. Shaw had  to have been caused by a yawed bullet."

This folks is called WC apologist logic. I'm guessing Mr Nickerson cut his teeth at the Flat Earth Society.

[Tim Nickerson]

"The wound that Olivier was asked to opine on was described to him as being 3 centimetres in its longest diameter. Whether 3 cm is accurate or not isn't relevant here. That's what Olivier was given to work with."

It's not accurate.

Dr. Shaw testified the wound was 1.5cm.

It became 3cm when he trimmed the jagged edges of the wound before closing it.

Any conclusions reached using a 3cm measurement for the wound in JBC's back are wrong.

"If Olivier had viewed what Sturdivan did, he would have been able to offer the same concrete opinion. The wound described by Dr. Shaw had  to have been caused by a yawed bullet."

This folks is called WC apologist logic. I'm guessing Mr Nickerson cut his teeth at the Flat Earth Society.

I'm not currently arguing here that the wound was actually 3 cm long. I'm merely pointing out that Olivier was using that description of it when opining on it. Quit being so dense.

[Tim Nickerson]

Any conclusions reached using a 3cm measurement for the wound in JBC's back are wrong.

So, Andrew was wrong to use Olivier in the way he did?  OK.   

[Andrew Mason]

Just to repeat the question; how does a bullet that is 3 cm in length create a hole that in 3 cm in length if not by entering fully sideon?

The wound that Olivier was asked to opine on was described to him as being 3 centimetres in its longest diameter. Whether 3 cm is accurate or not isn't relevant here. That's what Olivier was given to work with. Going with that description, he offered two possible causes for that wound. One was the bullet hitting while tilted from the perpendicular. The other was a tangential strike. That is , it was a tangential wound. An oblique, glancing wound.

The "glancing" "non-penetrating" adjectives are yours not Dr. Olivier's.  Besides, no one said that the bullet wound looked like it entered side-on. That would make the bullet wound look like the shape of the bullet. In order to make an elliptical entry wound 3 cm long the bullet would just have to enter at an angle of 75 degrees (cos(75)= .25) from the perpendicular to the surface (15 degrees to the surface).

If Olivier had viewed what Sturdivan did, he would have been able to offer the same concrete opinion. The wound described by Dr. Shaw had  to have been caused by a yawed bullet.

Since you seem to be avoiding trying to answer it, perhaps Larry Sturdivan can explain how an elliptical entrance wound could be made by anything other than a pristine bullet striking at an angle from the perpendicular but, more importantly, why he thinks it wasn't.  He still has never explained why "elliptical" means to him "ovoid", "egg-shaped" or, as you are suggesting, bullet-shaped.

[Andrew Mason]

Does that look like the shape of a bullet?

It depends on what the bullet looked like and its dimensions and its condition.  It did not necessarily hit sideways.  If the bullet was large diameter and yawing it could have made that kind of entry wound - or if the bullet was deformed.  In the case of CE399 which is 2.8 cm long and undamaged, in order to make a 3 cm wound BC's back wound due to tumbling it would have to hit side-on.

I'm sorry but I don't see where you get 3 cm from. Yes, the Cosine of 75? is 0.25. Well, closer to 0.26 really. How are you applying that to get 3 cm?

A pristine bullet striking at an angle x to the perpendicular to the surface will make an elliptical entrance wound whose length to width is in proportion to:1/cos x.  The wound was described as roughly 1.5 cm long. If the width was roughly .75cm it was roughly twice as long as the width so it could be made by a bullet striking at an angle of 60 degrees. 3 cm is 4 times the width which makes the angle cos ^-1(.25) = 75 deg.  If we had accurate measurements we could be more accurate in the angle.

Sturdivan doesn't need to explain it. The above photo speaks for itself.  Also, "elliptical" and "ovoid" are synonymous with one another.

Synonyms for ovoid
Synonyms

elliptical (or elliptic), oval, ovate

An egg shape or ovoid shape is not symmetrical. An ellipse is.  If you don't care about being accurate you can use them any way you want. If you want to say that an egg is an ellipsoid or a sphere go ahead. But it is incorrect.

[Liam Kelly]

I appreciate the discussion....but....

I dont know why people still talk about this bullet.

The man who found it already has said the one in the archives is not the one he found
at the hospital and the Warren Commission itself didnt give the theory 'the thumbs up' either...

( It acknowledged that there was a "difference of opinion" among members of the Commission "as to this probability", but stated that the theory was not essential to its conclusions and that all members had no doubt that all shots were fired from the sixth-floor window of the Depository building. )

Why do people say its an official truth?
The Warren Commission didnt.

It's nothing of the kind.

[Andrew Mason]

I appreciate the discussion....but....

I dont know why people still talk about this bullet.

The man who found it already has said the one in the archives is not the one he found
at the hospital and the Warren Commission itself didnt give the theory 'the thumbs up' either...

( It acknowledged that there was a "difference of opinion" among members of the Commission "as to this probability", but stated that the theory was not essential to its conclusions and that all members had no doubt that all shots were fired from the sixth-floor window of the Depository building. )

Why do people say its an official truth?
The Warren Commission didnt.

It's nothing of the kind.

The reason it is still talked about is that in order to believe that it was not fired at the President's car one would have to believe in a broad conspiracy that involved someone who:
1. created the bullet by firing it with Oswald's gun before the assassination for a reason that is not readily apparent.
2. knew before hand that there would be a bullet that passed through at least one person without striking bone and that could not later be found
2. went to all the trouble of getting into Parkland Hospital and planting it in or near Gov. Connally's stretcher, for reasons that are not readily apparent
3. relied on someone to discover it in circumstances where it could be traced to Gov. Connally's stretcher, or not, for reasons not readily apparent

Since there is not only no evidence of the above but no rational theory whereby it even begins to make any sense, the possibility that it is not a bullet fired by the MC during the assassination is one that does not loom very large in the opinion of most reasonable people who have considered the evidence.

[Tim Nickerson]

I appreciate the discussion....but....

I dont know why people still talk about this bullet.

The man who found it already has said the one in the archives is not the one he found
at the hospital and the Warren Commission itself didnt give the theory 'the thumbs up' either...

( It acknowledged that there was a "difference of opinion" among members of the Commission "as to this probability", but stated that the theory was not essential to its conclusions and that all members had no doubt that all shots were fired from the sixth-floor window of the Depository building. )

Why do people say its an official truth?
The Warren Commission didnt.

It's nothing of the kind.

The man who found the bullet on Connally's stretcher did NOT say that the one in the archives is not the one he found.