Lack Of Damage To CE-399

[Bill Chapman]

This is getting a bit [out there for me]
Are we still discussing a bullet that appears to have no visible damage?

Are we still discussing a bullet that appears to have no visible damage?

Oh, so you were discussing a bullet that had no visible damage.
My bad, all along I thought the discussion was about CE 399

@Newbies: You'll never see any CTer post this image

[Jerry Organ]

Unfortunately many of the loons and kooks have gotten their impression of how a trial would have played out from the 1992 fantasy book by Walt Brown "The People Vs. Lee Harvey Oswald".



This one-sided treatment has the prosecutor caving and lost for words on every objection by the crack defense attorney. Evidence and proof are casually thrown out like the Big Mac wrappers at a Trump state dinner. Puff of smoke/gunpowder smell witnesses are taken at their word with nary a cross-examination from the in-awe prosecutors. It's like Fox News for conspiracy buffs. Just get a load of this:

    "In a brilliantly conceived but workmanlike courtroom drama built around
     the testimonies of more than 175 actual witnesses to the assassination ...
     [Oswald] goes on trial in late 1964 for the murder of the president and is
     acquitted. ... Oswald's fictive defense attorney, youthful Edward Barnes,
     the Minnesota kid, riddles holes in the flimsy case mounted by highstrung,
     50ish Texas prosecuting attorney Raymond Matthews ...
     the narrative, which may engage history and legal buffs, proceeds at the
     tedious pace of most actual trials."

Some poor deluded planks see it as American justice itself on trial.

[Tom Scully]

The bullet that Tomlinson found was on an unrelated stretcher and had a pointed tip.

How is this a "well established principle of law"?

If each piece of evidence individually doesn't meet a reasonable doubt standard, then how could they possibly meet it when combined?

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/B%20Disk/Bullet%20CE-399/Item%2006.pdf

[Steve Howsley]

Unfortunately many of the loons and kooks have gotten their impression of how a trial would have played out from the 1992 fantasy book by Walt Brown "The People Vs. Lee Harvey Oswald"    .......   Evidence and proof are casually thrown out like the Big Mac wrappers at a Trump state dinner.

Jerry, That is Champagne Comedy!!     

[Royell Storing]

Are we still discussing a bullet that appears to have no visible damage?

Oh, so you were discussing a bullet that had no visible damage.
My bad, all along I thought the discussion was about CE 399

@Newbies: You'll never see any CTer post this image

        That photo of CE 399 does Not display roughly 90% of the bullet. This is right in line with the JFK Autopsy Photo where a Dr is pulling JFK's hair Up & Over the Entire Back of his Head. Like the audience viewing a David Copperfield performance, this chicanery prompts everyone to ask themselves, "Just What is this guy trying to hide?"

[Walt Cakebread]

        That photo of CE 399 does Not display roughly 90% of the bullet. This is right in line with the JFK Autopsy Photo where a Dr is pulling JFK's hair Up & Over the Entire Back of his Head. Like the audience viewing a David Copperfield performance, this chicanery prompts everyone to ask themselves, "Just What is this guy trying to hide?"

Hi Royell.... It's funny that it never registered with my reasoning that there are probably some folks who wouldn't know that the photo is the END VIEW of a projectile and therefore they might believe that the photo shows a badly damaged bullet....

It seems bizarre to me .....But after reading the posts of some members of the forum......I guess it's possible.

[Jerry Freeman]

Are we still discussing a bullet that appears to have no visible damage?Oh, so you were discussing a bullet that had no visible damage. My bad, all along I thought the discussion was about CE 399@Newbies: You'll never see any CTer post this image

 
 If you fire a bullet [even though it is through the vacant head of the strawman that made reply #204] it will certainly cause explosive damage to the base. Something called a PRIMER  If you fire it through a real live body it will be seriously damaged. Go find a bullet that wasn't. I guess Chappo assumes that [newbies] are automatically idiots and do not know this.
   

[Bill Chapman]

 
 If you fire a bullet [even though it is through the vacant head of the strawman that made reply #204] it will certainly cause explosive damage to the base. Something called a PRIMER  If you fire it through a real live body it will be seriously damaged. Go find a bullet that wasn't. I guess Chappo assumes that [newbies] are automatically idiots and do not know this.

The problem is that you earlier claimed that CE399 had no visible damage. If a newbie never sees the butt-end view of CE399 (which CTers never post) he will be misled and your agenda to screw around with the facts will continue.

If you fire it through a real live body it will be seriously damaged. Go find a bullet that wasn't
Surely you are not talking about FMJ ammo

@Newbies
FMJ ammo is designed to resist damage while passing through flesh. FMJ ammunition was designed in the late 1800s for use in military rifles. Not long after this, the Hague Convention of 1899 made it illegal to use bullets that easily expand or flatten inside the body. The agreement held that the bullets used by the signatories could not open upon impact, such as hollow points. This is because full metal jacket rounds were likely to cause a "through and through" wound instead of mushrooming and causing a more grievous wound after impact

Again, here's the CE399 butt-end image that CTers never post