A time to receive and give (CE399)

[Joe Elliott]

And just because nobody said otherwise, that makes it true? Really?  Let me ask you this; if the Edgewood team didn't record their experiments on film, how did Jean Davison (and others) know what they did or did not do?

The same way historians always find out about events that were not recorded. Rely on questions.

We can rely on experiments that are recorded on film,

Really? Just not on the experiments recorded on video by a guy who fired through a skull and into water bottles, right? You keep saying that the Edgewood experiment is flawed but you haven't presented a shred of evidence for that claim.

We cannot rely on films by amateurs, using models which we have no idea replicate the same effects on bullets that real bullets. We cannot judge by the name of the company "Ballistic Dummy Lab" or a slick sales website with unsupported claims "The Most Realistic Ballistic Dummies on the Planet". Anyone can make that claim. Where do they specify the density of the "soft tissue" inside the dummies? Where do the specify the density of the "bone" inside the dummies? One needs to know this information before one can judge how realistic these dummies really are.

If these really are realistic dummies, then CTers have really been missing a trick. All they have to do is to point out that WCC/MC bullets do not fragment upon being fired into human heads. Not even at close range. That would disprove the claim of the Warren Commission, accepted by all LNers since then, and also by all or almost all CTers since then.

Question: If what you say is true, why don't CTers claim that WCC/MC bullets cannot fragment when fired into human heads?

Until you read a book on ballistics by a real expert, you will remain a ballistic dummy yourself. Maybe you should go work for "Ballistic Dummy Lab". You should fit in.

like that shown on the NOVA program with Luke and Michael Haag. But that is no good to you because it doesn't give the answer you want.

Where did I say any of this. I have been aware of the conclusions of Haag for some time. It's nothing new. In fact, it's just one opinion that means very little unless they used actual human bone. Because that needs to be used to get the right results, right? Well, did they?

No need to use human bones. Animal bones have about the same density as human bones. Human bones available for ballistic testing are in very short supply. Primarily do to questions of ethics of using human bodies, or even human bones, in ballistic tests. There is a strong feeling, not from me but from some, that using humans remains this way is an affront to human dignity.

By the way, using bones from recently deceased animals is better than using bones from humans who died a while back. Bones dry out over time and lose their density.

Professional ballistic experts know what to use as targets better than anyone else. Yes, using real living human subjects would be the most 'scientific method', but is not an option. And even using recently deceased bodies is usually not an option either because of some ethical concerns.

So you insist on using the Edgewood experiment, which resulted in greatly deformed bullets,

Did I say that? Where exactly? All I said is what Dolce said on video. But, let's stay accurate; it resulted in 100 greatly deformed bullets! Not a single bullet came even close to looking like CE399.

My understanding is that the Edgewood tests were very limited, due to number of human cadavers available. They may have been given 100 WCC/MC bullets.

Question: Where is the evidence that they actually fired 100 WCC/MC bullets into human remains?

I see in the film, Dr. Dolce says he was given 100 WCC/MC bullets. No where does he say they used all 100, or 20, or 10, or how many.

The limiting factor was not the number of bullets. It was the number of human cadavers.

Looking again at the film you provided of Dr. Dolce being interviewed, he says why he believes the bullet could not have struck a wrist bone. Because the tip was undamaged. The problem is that the Warren Commission, nor any LNer claims that CE-399 first struck bones with the tip. It struck with the side of the bullet. That is why the tip is undamaged but the side of the bullet is, with the sides of the bullet being deformed enough to make the cross section of the bullet no longer round.

Medical doctor Dolce should not have been looking only at the tip of the bullet, but at the sides as well. But not being a ballistic expert, he had no idea that bullets don't always travel point first.

Question: Can you give any evidence that Dr. Dolce was aware that bullets don't always travel through bodies point first?

but the details on those experiments are disputed,

Only by people like yourself, who don't like the result.

I never heard anyone, LNer or CTer, claim the Edgewood texts did not fire bullets directly into rib cages or wrists. Not even from you. You merely imply that perhaps they were not.

You sound like Trump saying that he 2020 elections result is disputed, when in fact he is the only one doing the disputing.

Lots of people have disputed the Edgewood tests, on the grounds that firing bullets directly into rib cages and wrists does not test the SBT properly.

[Joe Elliott]

CE 399 is still in John Connallys left thigh because as far as we know what's left of CE 399 was never removed from Connallys thigh . the conundrum of CE 399 is that there can't be " 2 " CE 399 bullets . Dr. Shaw at a press conference said that the bullet was still in John Connallys left thigh and would be removed later . We know there were some fragments in the wrist and of course the bullet broke ribs but it was still said that CE 399 was not damaged enough to have caused all this damage . Let's be honest , we have not seen the bullet that ended up in Connallys thigh because the bullet went with Connally to his grave .

Wow. Connally was involved in the ultimate coverup. Keeping one of the bullets covered up by his flesh.

The doctors never said they left an entire bullet in Connally's leg. That would be malpractice. They said that X-rays showed some small fragments of a bullet still in his thigh, As I recall, some fragments, from the wrist and/or thigh were removed but not all. Removing all fragments might not be worth it for a patient. But an entire bullet will be removed, except in rare exceptions, like a bullet lodged in a critical area of the brain.

Now, let's see if I have this straight. The CT side is that one bullet was planted. Another bullet came out of Connally, fell to the floor, and was put in the pocket of a nurse. And another bullet remained in his thigh for the rest of his life.

[John Iacoletti]

The problem is that the Warren Commission, nor any LNer claims that CE-399 first struck bones with the tip. It struck with the side of the bullet.

Like you could possibly know what, if anything, CE399 struck and where.

[John Iacoletti]

The doctors never said they left an entire bullet in Connally's leg.

“The bullet is in the leg. It hasn’t been removed.” — Dr. Robert Shaw.

[Bill Chapman]

Wow. Connally was involved in the ultimate coverup. Keeping one of the bullets covered up by his flesh.

The doctors never said they left an entire bullet in Connally's leg. That would be malpractice. They said that X-rays showed some small fragments of a bullet still in his thigh, As I recall, some fragments, from the wrist and/or thigh were removed but not all. Removing all fragments might not be worth it for a patient. But an entire bullet will be removed, except in rare exceptions, like a bullet lodged in a critical area of the brain.

Now, let's see if I have this straight. The CT side is that one bullet was planted. Another bullet came out of Connally, fell to the floor, and was put in the pocket of a nurse. And another bullet remained in his thigh for the rest of his life.

Oswald arse kissers are all living in a van down by the river
At least learn SNL lingo or get the fck out of town

[Martin Weidmann]

The same way historians always find out about events that were not recorded. Rely on questions.

We cannot rely on films by amateurs, using models which we have no idea replicate the same effects on bullets that real bullets. We cannot judge by the name of the company "Ballistic Dummy Lab" or a slick sales website with unsupported claims "The Most Realistic Ballistic Dummies on the Planet". Anyone can make that claim. Where do they specify the density of the "soft tissue" inside the dummies? Where do the specify the density of the "bone" inside the dummies? One needs to know this information before one can judge how realistic these dummies really are.

If these really are realistic dummies, then CTers have really been missing a trick. All they have to do is to point out that WCC/MC bullets do not fragment upon being fired into human heads. Not even at close range. That would disprove the claim of the Warren Commission, accepted by all LNers since then, and also by all or almost all CTers since then.

Question: If what you say is true, why don't CTers claim that WCC/MC bullets cannot fragment when fired into human heads?

Until you read a book on ballistics by a real expert, you will remain a ballistic dummy yourself. Maybe you should go work for "Ballistic Dummy Lab". You should fit in.


No need to use human bones. Animal bones have about the same density as human bones. Human bones available for ballistic testing are in very short supply. Primarily do to questions of ethics of using human bodies, or even human bones, in ballistic tests. There is a strong feeling, not from me but from some, that using humans remains this way is an affront to human dignity.

By the way, using bones from recently deceased animals is better than using bones from humans who died a while back. Bones dry out over time and lose their density.

Professional ballistic experts know what to use as targets better than anyone else. Yes, using real living human subjects would be the most 'scientific method', but is not an option. And even using recently deceased bodies is usually not an option either because of some ethical concerns.


My understanding is that the Edgewood tests were very limited, due to number of human cadavers available. They may have been given 100 WCC/MC bullets.

Question: Where is the evidence that they actually fired 100 WCC/MC bullets into human remains?

I see in the film, Dr. Dolce says he was given 100 WCC/MC bullets. No where does he say they used all 100, or 20, or 10, or how many.

The limiting factor was not the number of bullets. It was the number of human cadavers.

Looking again at the film you provided of Dr. Dolce being interviewed, he says why he believes the bullet could not have struck a wrist bone. Because the tip was undamaged. The problem is that the Warren Commission, nor any LNer claims that CE-399 first struck bones with the tip. It struck with the side of the bullet. That is why the tip is undamaged but the side of the bullet is, with the sides of the bullet being deformed enough to make the cross section of the bullet no longer round.

Medical doctor Dolce should not have been looking only at the tip of the bullet, but at the sides as well. But not being a ballistic expert, he had no idea that bullets don't always travel point first.

Question: Can you give any evidence that Dr. Dolce was aware that bullets don't always travel through bodies point first?

I never heard anyone, LNer or CTer, claim the Edgewood texts did not fire bullets directly into rib cages or wrists. Not even from you. You merely imply that perhaps they were not.

Lots of people have disputed the Edgewood tests, on the grounds that firing bullets directly into rib cages and wrists does not test the SBT properly.

The same way historians always find out about events that were not recorded. Rely on questions.

Hilarious! With all the files of the WC, including those regarding Joseph Dolce and his test, declared secret, and staying that way for more than a decade, who was Davison asking questions?
But what you are really saying is that Davison somehow collected opinions of others and - not restricting herself in any way by a total lack of first hand knowledge - based her conclusion on those opinions. Am I right?

No need to use human bones. Animal bones have about the same density as human bones.

That's why I said bones, human or otherwise, but you edited that out to somehow make some sort of weird point that goes nowhere.

Professional ballistic experts know what to use as targets better than anyone else.

On page 3 you did say this, right?

It is difficult, in a case like CE 399, but one can attempt this with ballistic gel targets.

From 63 yards away shoot through:

a six inch ballistic block
a second block three three away with an array of ribs bones
a third block with an array of wrist bones
a fourth block

Difficult because the exact path of the bullet is hard to predict. It generally won't be a perfectly straight line.

This kind of testing can indicate the conditions where a bullet will be greatly deform from striking a bone, like if it is fired almost directly into the bone, striking the bone at very high speed
and the conditions where this will not happen, like when a bullet hits a bone after being slowed by several inches of ballistic gel.

But Haas didn't use any bones at al and only used one gelatin block. Go figure.... by your logic he can't be a Professional ballistic experts, can he now?


I see in the film, Dr. Dolce says he was given 100 WCC/MC bullets. No where does he say they used all 100, or 20, or 10, or how many.

Actually they had more than 100 bullets. Olivier obtained 100 rounds from Remington at Bridgeport, Conn., and his colleague Dziemian obtained another 160 rounds from Winchester in New Haven, but they didn't use those.

Since they conducted all the tests they wanted to do, what difference does it make if they used 90 or 100 bullets. Is your next silly claim going to be that the test are not valid because they did not use all the bullets? Or is it perhaps that they performed the test at the wrong time of day or something else just as ludicrous? If that's the plan than don't bother, because it will only mean that I can't take anything you say seriously (I'm struggling to do so already) and it would end the conversation.

The limiting factor was not the number of bullets. It was the number of human cadavers.

This is what happens when you refuse to read his report. You start asking silly questions and say silly things out of pure ignorance.

If you had watched a little of the video (from 41.10) before they showed Dolce, you would have known that the Edgewood team used human and animal bones and, according to Alfred Olivier (who was part of the team) fired the bullets through two gelatin blocks.

Now isn't that something? Didn't you say earlier;

To win my respect, an "expert" has to run an experiment correctly. And he has to make it clear, on air in an interview or in writing, that he did so.

An expert who shows CE-399 is impossible because he fired a bullet almost directly into bone and the bullet fragment, cannot be taken seriously. No self respecting CTer should cite this guy as showing CE-399 could not have resulted from striking JFK and Connally.

An expert who shows CE-399 is possible because he fired a bullet through three feet of ballistic gel before first striking bone and the bullet came out pretty pristine, cannot be taken seriously. No self respecting LNer should cite this guy as showing CE-399 could have resulted from striking JFK and Connally.

You need someone who fires through about six inches of ballistic gel, before striking a second target, hitting bone almost immediate, and then checking the state of the bullet. That is the minimum qualification.

And then you asked this question;

Question: Does Dolce meet this minimum qualification?

to which the answer is a resounding YES!

Haas, on the other hand, did not use bones (human or otherwise) at all, so he doesn't meet your laughable "minimum qualification"

I guess you need to look for something else to throw at the wall and hope it will stick!

Lots of people have disputed the Edgewood tests, on the grounds that firing bullets directly into rib cages and wrists does not test the SBT properly.

With Alfred Olivier on record saying that Dolce's team fired the bullets through two gelatin blocks, your comment becomes insignificant and requires no reply.

Btw, who are these "lots of people" who have disputed the Edgewood tests. Name them!

[Mitch Todd]

How does anyone actually define a "ballistics expert" or a "wound ballistics expert?" The only person I would say for sure fits the description (at least as far as the arguments here are running) is Dr Martin L Fackler. Fackler had been a field surgeon in Da Nang during the Vietnam war, then spent the next 20 or so years investigating what they euphemistically call "terminal ballistics." He was interested in the treatment of GSWs, but also spent considerable amounts of time looking at how bullet design, construction, materials, and velocity affected deformation and wounding potential. He ultimately wanted to start a better conversation between weapons designers and physicians regarding what would be done to make weapons less needlessly mangle-y while preserving their effectiveness. He thought there was room for improvement. He also came to the conclusion that surgeons overtreated gunshot wounds. And he found that the NATO standard 20% gelatin solution did a poor job of simulating tissue, and advocated 10%-15% concentration as a replacement.

Whether or not he falls under anyone's definition of above, Dolce was ignorant of a number of important points. For instance, Dolce wrote that Dr Charles Gregory "has no wound ballistic experience." This isn't true. Gregory was had been presented with "the rather indigenous nature of such wounds in the main teaching hospital at Southwestern Medical School" Not only that, but he'd also "covered a tour of duty in the, Navy during World War II, and a considerably more active period of time in the Korean war in support of the 1st Marine Corps Division." Gregory estimated that he'd "dealt directly with approximately 500 such wounds." Gregory's experience with GSWs, including those caused by military rifles, was considerable.

In particular, Dolce takes issue with Olivier, et al, accepting Gregory's assignation of entry and exit for the wrist wound. Dolce based his objection on the fact that the dorsal wound was larger than the volar wound. He should have done his homework. Gregory noted that the dorsal wound was larger, ragged, and irregular, but the volar wound was "slit-like." The term "slit-like" screams "low velocity exit" in no uncertain terms. Further, Gregory noted that he found fabric debris from Connally's clothing in the dorsal side of the wound, but not the volar side.

And, as Jean Hill, I, and several other people have pointed out over the years, it is important to look at the x-rays of the target wrists as well as photos of the bullets. Connally's radius was badly fractured, but fractured into relatively large pieces with a negligible amount of missing bone. The x-rays of the test wrists show that the target radii were essentially pulverized, with most of the bone around the impact site completely missing. Gregory said that he would have been forced to amputate Connally's forearm had he been faced with an injury like the ones from the cadaver wrist tests. Edgewood and Gregory both noted that the cadaver wrist tests proved that Connally could only have been hit by bullet that had been significantly slowed before impact. The corollary to this is, the cadaver wrist bullets aren't relevant in the JFK case, no matter what Dolce wanted to believe.

[many misc edits. That's the last time I do a post this long on an IPad]

[Martin Weidmann]

How does anyone actually define a "ballistics expert" or a "wound ballistics expert?" The only person I would say for sure fits the description (at least as far as the arguments here are running) is Dr Martin L Fackler. Fackler had been a field surgeon in Da Nang during the Vietnam war, then spent the next 20 or so years investigating what they euphamistically call "terminal ballistics." He was insterested in the treatment of GSWs, but also spent considerably amoundsa of time looking at how bullet design, construction, materials, and velocity affected deformation and wounding potential. He ultimately wanted to start a better conversation between weapons designers and physicians regarding what would be done to make weapons less needlessly mangle-y while preserving their effectiveness, He thought there was room for imprtovement. He also came to the conclusion that surgeons overtreated gunshot wounds. Also, he found that the NATO standard 20% gelatine solution did a poor job of simulating tissue, and advocated 10%-15% concentration as a replacement.

As for Dolce, whether or not he falls under anyone's definition of above, he was ignornant of a number of important points. For instance, Dolce wrote that Dr Charles Gregory "has no wound ballistic experience." This isn't true. Gregory was had been presented with "the rather indigenous nature of such wounds in the main teaching hospital at Southwestern Medical School" Not only that, but he'd also "covered a tour of duty in the, Navy during World War II, and a considerably more active period of time in the Korean war in support of the 1st Marine Corps Division" Gregory estimated that he'd "dealt directly with approximately 500 such wounds." So Gregory's experience with GSWs, including those caused by military rifles, was considerable.

In particular, Dolce takes issue with Olivier, et al, accepting Grogory's assignation of entry and exit for the wrist wound. Dolce does this based on the fact that the dorsal wound was larger than the volar wound. He should have done his homework. Gregory noted that while the dorsal wound was larger, ragged, and irregular, but the volar wound was "slit-like." The term "slit-like" screams "low velocity exit" in no undcertain terms. Further, Gregory noted that he found fabric debris from Connally's clothing in the dorsal side of the wound, but not the volar side.

And, as Jean Hill, I and several other people have pointed out over the years, it is important to look at the x-rays of the target wrists as well as photos of the bullets. Connally's radius was badly fractured, but into relatively large pieces with a negligible amount of missibng bone. But the x-rays of the wrist tests sho that the target radii were essentially pulverized, with most of the bone around the impact site ocmpletly missing. Gregory pointed out that, had he been faced with an injury like the ones from the cadaver wrist tests, he would have been forced to amputate Connally's forearm. Edgewood and Gregory both noted that the cadaver wrist tests proved that Connally could only have been hit by bullet that had been significantly slowed before impact. The corallary to this is, the cadaver wrist bullets aren't relevant in the JFK case, no matter what Dolce wanted to believe.

How does anyone actually define a "ballistics expert" or a "wound ballistics expert?"

Ask Joe Elliot, as he seems to be desperate to make a distinction.

In particular, Dolce takes issue with Olivier, et al,

From what I have seen Dolce takes issue with Olivier because when he testified before the WC (after Specter had decided not to call Dolce) he told a different story than was in the Edgewood report, of which he (Olivier) was one of the authors.

In particular, Dolce takes issue with Olivier, et al, accepting Grogory's assignation of entry and exit for the wrist wound. Dolce does this based on the fact that the dorsal wound was larger than the volar wound. He should have done his homework. Gregory noted that while the dorsal wound was larger, ragged, and irregular, but the volar wound was "slit-like." The term "slit-like" screams "low velocity exit" in no undcertain terms. Further, Gregory noted that he found fabric debris from Connally's clothing in the dorsal side of the wound, but not the volar side.

So this is merely a disagreement about where the bullet entered and left Connally's arm? How is that in anyway significant for the shape of the bullet and the damage to it? During his testimony Gregory was asked if the bullet could have hit the wrist bone and come out lokking as CE399 and although he gave a long winded reply he never really answered the question.

Edgewood and Gregory both noted that the cadaver wrist tests proved that Connally could only have been hit by bullet that had been significantly slowed before impact. The corallary to this is, the cadaver wrist bullets aren't relevant in the JFK case, no matter what Dolce wanted to believe.

Nobody disputed that Connally's wrist was hit by a slowed down bullet, at least not as far as I can tell. I'm not sure what you think Dolce wanted to believe, but his position seems to have been that CE399 could not have hit two men, hit bone in Connally's body twice and somehow come out in near pristine condition. That was what the Edgewood team concluded in their report and that was why Specter buried the report and decided not to call Dolce as a witness.

As court cases all over the country demonstrate over and over again, experts will differ in opinions, depending for what side they testify for. That's why I'm not really interested in who is right or wrong or more qualified or not (as Joe seems to be) but instead I wonder why Specter would bury a report by ballistics experts his own commission had appointed. There can only be one explanation and that is that the report said what he didn't want to hear, because it would destroy his pet single bullet theory. And that - and a whole lot more - tells me all I need to know about the real objective of the Warren Commission.