A time to receive and give (CE399)

[Jon Banks]

Well, they might all need to know the entire plan. But they all would have to go along with it. And you seemed to indicate that it didn't matter how much evidence had to be covered up, the conspirators controlled everything. They controlled everyone. It would be no problem.

The law doesn’t always excuse participation in a conspiracy if you’re an unwitting participant.

So the fear of being prosecuted or facing other consequences may be enough to ensure that even people who were unwitting don’t talk.

And that logic applies typically to criminal conspiracies (ie organized crime) but it extends to the government when they engage in illegal activities.

[Joe Elliott]

You made a bit of a mess of your previous post, so I can't quote from it correctly. Instead I'll do it this way;

I was aware of that video. All it tells me is that not all the experts agree.

So, let's have a look at another, recent, video

I don't think he is a ballistics expert but,

You think so? Yeah, I sort of got the same impression. Still, not too bad for an amateur. Catching bullets after they hit a target with plastic bottles of water? Yes, I think that can work, and is as good a way as any for the cost. The low density of the water, the low density of the plastic, whether it is hard or not, should not deform the bullet much.

His best insight? You can run the same experiment ten different times, and no two of the resulting bullets are going to be identical. Variations in muzzle velocity, where the target is hit, the exact density of the target, the amount of subsequent yaw in a bullet that may result (if not fragmented) can all effect how the bullet turns out.

as the video will show, he basically does the same thing as the Haag team said they did. Except - as he explains this in the video - he used a skull filled with gel and fake blood and containers with water to catch the bullet.

Something to consider. You said that the bullet went through Kennedy's neck meeting very little resistance but slowing it down nevertheless. Well, in this video the bullet does hit skull bone twice, going in an out of the head, and still had enough speed to destroy the first couple of water containers. Just look how it came out.

Yes, but here is something you didn't consider. And something the amateur did not either. This "skull" was not a real skull. What do I think the problem with the model was? That it was already weakened by the first bullet and so it failed to fragment the second?

No. The problem was the "skull", or the "bone" did not have the same density as a real bone. It needs to have twice the density of water. I don't know if this is true (the density of the "bone" is his model heads), but I think it must be true, else the bullet would have fragmented. Real experts use real bones (still fresh enough to be twice water density), or at least material with twice the density of bone.

The fact that this material may have been hard, doesn't matter. Only density matters. A target that is dense enough can fragment such a bullet. A target that is not, won't. This is information I got from Larry SPersonivan's book "The JFK Myths".

The destructive power of the bullet is perhaps best shown in the first attempt he used a skull. Two things stand out; (1) despite hitting bone the bullet completely destroyed the first water bottle and (2) unlike the bullet that hit Kennedy it did not disintegrate but I came out of the skull at the other side. This of course justifies the question if the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head was indeed a 6.5 MJ bullet.

Another thing I noticed was a comment he made that the bullet that allegedly came through Kennedy's neck and met very little resistance, left the body leaving only a small hole, which in turn would mean that the bullet wasn't yet tumbling. But, the story is that Connally was hit by a tumbling bullet. So, if that's true, when did the bullet start tumbling? It doesn't make sense!

The bullet started to yaw within JFK's neck, just before it exited the neck. But was still pointed straight enough to leave a pretty round exit wound in JFK's neck.

This yaw continued during the next three feet until it struck Connally. By now, the yaw was great enough to leave an oblong entrance wound in Connally's back.

To make it clearer, let me give you an example. Let's say a bullet starts to yaw at 3 degrees per inch of travel just before it leaves a target. As it leaves the target, it might have only yawed by 3 degrees, which would leave a fairly round exit wound. 29 inches later, when it strikes a second target, it could have now yawed by 90 degrees, hitting the second target sideways, causing a oblong wound.

I'm not an expert on all the minutia of this case.

Then why are you expressing opinions about something you don't know about?

Because I have read up on the opinions of a real expert, and relating the information in my posts. But, yes, the best way to get this information is to read Larry SPersonivan's book "The JFK Myths".

Dolce seems to be saying he fired directly into dead animal torsos, directly into dead animal wrist (or equivalent) bones.

"Seems to be saying"? You really need to read his report before you make such a comical claim. It's in the National Archives. Read it!

Then why don't you quote it? If Dolce said something about slowing the bullet before hitting dead animal torsos or "wrists", provide a quote.

I suspect you won't. You will simply imply that such information might be there, somewhere, but not provide an easy way for me or anyone else to see it.

For crying out loud, what you saw was a short clip of a few seconds in a documentary. Do you really expect him to explain the entire procedure? You haven't got a clue about how the tests were done.

Fine, then give us the information that shows Dolce did slow the bullet before hitting a bone target, as would have happened at z222.

Amazing. You are throwing a guy under the bus who the WC hired for his credentials. The leading ballistics expert of the US army .... and why? For one reason only; you don't like what he has to say.

The WC might not have made a wise decision with Dolce. Specter and the other WC investigators were recent graduates from law school. Perhaps, with more experience, they would have picked someone else. And, in 1964, the science of ballistic investigation might not have been as advanced as it is today. I don't know if anyone was doing the sort of recreations that we can see Luke and Michael Haag did on the NOVA program.

And now you're also throwing the WC and Specter under the bus because they had not enough experience. Don't you see just how hilarious this is?

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.

Question: Does Dolce meet this minimum qualification?

An answer of "I don't know, maybe he does" is not good enough.

Face it, experts will always disagree with eachother. You see it happening in every courtroom. But the bottom line is that the WC hired Dolce (and a bunch of other experts) and they produced a report that basically said that none of the 100 bullets they fired came even close to looking as CE399, Specter not only did not call Dolce to testify but also buried the report. Now, what does that tell you about CE399?

What real expert who conducted a valid test (slowed the bullet with the equivalent of JFK's neck) says CE-399 is not consistent with a bullet that wounded both JFK and Connally?

You say different experts disagree? Name a valid one. Dolce will not do until you provide some evidence that he slowed the bullet, as JFK's neck would have done, before his test bullets struck rib cages or "wrists".

[John Iacoletti]

Connally’s back wound wasn’t all that oblong — it was 1.5 cm x 0.6 cm according to Shaw. He also stated that that shape could have been caused by the angle of entry and not a tumbling bullet.

[Martin Weidmann]

You think so? Yeah, I sort of got the same impression. Still, not too bad for an amateur. Catching bullets after they hit a target with plastic bottles of water? Yes, I think that can work, and is as good a way as any for the cost. The low density of the water, the low density of the plastic, whether it is hard or not, should not deform the bullet much.

And still the two bullets he recovered were both far more damaged than CE399. If that doesn't tell you something, then nothing will

His best insight? You can run the same experiment ten different times, and no two of the resulting bullets are going to be identical. Variations in muzzle velocity, where the target is hit, the exact density of the target, the amount of subsequent yaw in a bullet that may result (if not fragmented) can all effect how the bullet turns out.

Which still doesn't alter the fact that his two bullets showed far more damage than CE399.

Yes, but here is something you didn't consider. And something the amateur did not either. This "skull" was not a real skull. What do I think the problem with the model was? That it was already weakened by the first bullet and so it failed to fragment the second?

No. The problem was the "skull", or the "bone" did not have the same density as a real bone. It needs to have twice the density of water. I don't know if this is true (the density of the "bone" is his model heads), but I think it must be true, else the bullet would have fragmented. Real experts use real bones (still fresh enough to be twice water density), or at least material with twice the density of bone.

The fact that this material may have been hard, doesn't matter. Only density matters. A target that is dense enough can fragment such a bullet. A target that is not, won't. This is information I got from Larry SPersonivan's book "The JFK Myths".

Well, if you had paid attention to what he said, you would have known that the skulls were made by Ballistic Dummy Labs (who specialize in this stuff) and came as close to a real skull as possible. And no skull was weakened by the first bullet and thus failed to fragment the second because he used a different skull for each shot.

The bullet started to yaw within JFK's neck, just before it exited the neck. But was still pointed straight enough to leave a pretty round exit wound in JFK's neck.

That's just silly. Parkland doctors saw a small round hole and thought it was an entry wound. You have no evidence that the bullet started to yaw in Kennedy's neck. You're just guessing.

This yaw continued during the next three feet until it struck Connally. By now, the yaw was great enough to leave an oblong entrance wound in Connally's back.

To make it clearer, let me give you an example. Let's say a bullet starts to yaw at 3 degrees per inch of travel just before it leaves a target. As it leaves the target, it might have only yawed by 3 degrees, which would leave a fairly round exit wound. 29 inches later, when it strikes a second target, it could have now yawed by 90 degrees, hitting the second target sideways, causing a oblong wound.

Thank you for sharing that. I can't do much with it because, just like you I'm not an expert. I can't make an informed determination about something I don't know enough about. It seems you feel you can make such determinations based on no first hand knowledge at all.

Because I have read up on the opinions of a real expert, and relating the information in my posts. But, yes, the best way to get this information is to read Larry SPersonivan's book "The JFK Myths".

So you are reading a book and parot it's content, without actually knowing if you understand and interpret the information correctly. Got it!

It seems that you consider somebody a "real expert" when he says something you agree with.

Then why don't you quote it? If Dolce said something about slowing the bullet before hitting dead animal torsos or "wrists", provide a quote.

I suspect you won't. You will simply imply that such information might be there, somewhere, but not provide an easy way for me or anyone else to see it.

Fine, then give us the information that shows Dolce did slow the bullet before hitting a bone target, as would have happened at z222.

I did not imply that such information might be there. I advised you to read the report. Why should I do the work for you.

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.

Which confirms perfectly my earlier comment that the only person you consider an "expert" is somebody who does the tests the way you want him to do it (probably the way SPersonivan did) and reaches the conclusion that you want to hear.

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.

Question: Does Dolce meet this minimum qualification?

An answer of "I don't know, maybe he does" is not good enough.

Thank you for telling me what isn't good enough for you. It makes a conversation so much easier. If he were still alive, I seriously doubt that Dolce would give a damn about your opinion of how he was supposed to do the test.

What real expert who conducted a valid test (slowed the bullet with the equivalent of JFK's neck) says CE-399 is not consistent with a bullet that wounded both JFK and Connally?

Let me guess.... probably none, because who ever gets named will, in your opinion, not be a "real expert who conducted a valid test"

You say different experts disagree? Name a valid one. Dolce will not do until you provide some evidence that he slowed the bullet, as JFK's neck would have done, before his test bullets struck rib cages or "wrists".

Again, valid as in really valid or valid as in your opinion valid? Of course Dolce will not do for you. He will never do for you, regardless of whatever evidence you are shown. He will not do for you because you don't like what he said.

Regardless of your opinions, the facts remain that Dolce was hired by the WC to do the tests. He was given the original rifle and 100 bullets and concluded in a detailed report that CE399 could not have been fired through two bodies, hitting bone and staying nearly intact. I know you don't like it, but there it is; deal with it!

[Joe Elliott]

And still the two bullets he recovered were both far more damaged than CE399. If that doesn't tell you something, then nothing will


Which still doesn't alter the fact that his two bullets showed far more damage than CE399.

Clearly false. One of the bullets rolled, according to him. CE-399's base was oval, like an ellipse with a ratio of 4 to 3 between the major and minor axis. So it wouldn't roll very well. One of those bullets came out in better shape than CE-399, and the second in pretty similar shape.

And the bullet that went through the "head" came out pretty similar to CE-399, possibly even better, because that bullet could roll. From the glance I got of it on the video, it looks similar to CE-399. Of course, it would have fragmented, if the model was similar enough to a real head, with "bones" between twice the density of water.

Well, if you had paid attention to what he said, you would have known that the skulls were made by Ballistic Dummy Labs (who specialize in this stuff) and came as close to a real skull as possible. And no skull was weakened by the first bullet and thus failed to fragment the second because he used a different skull for each shot.

I checked the Ballistic Dummy Labs website. The most it would say is that:

Q: What are the bones made of?
A: The bones are made of a high-density resin closely replicating average human bone.

"Replicating average human bone". How? In size? In shape? In density? They don't say.

"High density resin". What does that mean? 1.1 times the density of water? 1.2 times the density of water? 2.0 times the density of water? They don't want to say.

I tried googling density of resin. I found that resin may have 1.02 or 1.22 times the density of water. I didn't find anything about any type of resin being twice as heavy as water. I suspect the "bones" in these models come no where close to the density of human bone, and the website tries to disguise that, by not providing the information.

But let's for a moment assume it is a good model. Let's see you answer one question.

We "know" from the video, that a WCC/MC can be fired directly through real human skull and come out pretty pristine, the bullet is intact and can even roll on it's side.

If this is true, then why couldn't a bullet pass through JFK's neck, Connally's torso, wrist and into the thigh and come out in a similar condition?

In both cases the bullet can even smash through bone and come out in pretty good shape.

Special Note:

I'm not saying a WCC/MC can directly strike a head and come out pristine. I'm saying that Martin seems to accept these "Ballistic Dummy Labs" models as a good model for the human body and so he seems to accept that a real human head won't greatly damage a WCC/MC bullet, just as in the video he provided.

That's just silly. Parkland doctors saw a small round hole and thought it was an entry wound. You have no evidence that the bullet started to yaw in Kennedy's neck. You're just guessing.

The small round hole is consistent with a bullet that did not yaw at all. But it is also consistent with a bullet that just started to yaw.

Real world tests by Dr. Lattimer showed, in four out of five cases, that a "neck" would cause a bullet to start yawing as it exited the "neck". Other evidence, the oblong wound in Connally's back, the damage to the side (not the front) of CE-399 are consistent with a yawing bullet.

Thank you for sharing that. I can't do much with it because, just like you I'm not an expert. I can't make an informed determination about something I don't know enough about. It seems you feel you can make such determinations based on no first hand knowledge at all.

So you are reading a book and parot it's content, without actually knowing if you understand and interpret the information correctly. Got it!

Better than you who, I gather, has never read a book about ballistics, although you seem reluctant to admit that.

It seems that you consider somebody a "real expert" when he says something you agree with.

No. If Luke and Michael used a test where a bullet went through 3 feet of ballistic gel, then struck a bone, and the bullet came out pristine, so they declared that CE-399 was vindicated, I would not respect their opinion, even if I agreed with their overall conclusion. Their using just 6 inches of ballistic gel to slow the bullet, gains my respect. That sounds like a valid test.

I did not imply that such information might be there. I advised you to read the report. Why should I do the work for you.

You would be happy to do the work for me, if the information was there. So the information is not there. Dolce had the bullets fired directly into the torsos and the "wrists".

Readers of these posts should conclude that the Dolce tests were bogus. Until you or someone provides evidence to the contrary. That shows Dolce had the bullets slowed by six inches of ballistic gel, or slowed somehow, before striking a "torso" or "wrist".

[Walt Cakebread]

Connally’s back wound wasn’t all that oblong — it was 1.5 cm x 0.6 cm according to Shaw. He also stated that that shape could have been caused by the angle of entry and not a tumbling bullet.
/quote]

Connally’s back wound wasn’t all that oblong — it was 1.5 cm x 0.6 cm

   1.5 cm X 10 = 15.0 mm    .6 cm X 10 = 6mm

A mannlicher catcano projectile is ----6.5mm in diameter and 30.5mm long

[Martin Weidmann]

Clearly false. One of the bullets rolled, according to him. CE-399's base was oval, like an ellipse with a ratio of 4 to 3 between the major and minor axis. So it wouldn't roll very well. One of those bullets came out in better shape than CE-399, and the second in pretty similar shape.

And the bullet that went through the "head" came out pretty similar to CE-399, possibly even better, because that bullet could roll. From the glance I got of it on the video, it looks similar to CE-399. Of course, it would have fragmented, if the model was similar enough to a real head, with "bones" between twice the density of water.

When was the last time you had your eyes checked. The first bullet was far more damaged than CE399 and yes the second one could still roll but also had far more damage than CE399. Did you even watch the video?

Btw both bullets went through the "head"

Of course, it would have fragmented, if the model was similar enough to a real head, with "bones" between twice the density of water.

Or alternatively the bullet that fragmented in Kennedy's head wasn't a 6.5.

I checked the Ballistic Dummy Labs website. The most it would say is that:

Q: What are the bones made of?
A: The bones are made of a high-density resin closely replicating average human bone.

"Replicating average human bone". How? In size? In shape? In density? They don't say.

"High density resin". What does that mean? 1.1 times the density of water? 1.2 times the density of water? 2.0 times the density of water? They don't want to say.

I tried googling density of resin. I found that resin may have 1.02 or 1.22 times the density of water. I didn't find anything about any type of resin being twice as heavy as water. I suspect the "bones" in these models come no where close to the density of human bone, and the website tries to disguise that, by not providing the information.

I knew in advance you were going to question the work done by Ballistic Dummy Labs. Too bad that anybody can look up their website and find out for themselves.

It's pretty obvious that you are stubbornly looking for anything, no matter how trivial, you can use to discredit information you don't like.

But let's for a moment assume it is a good model. Let's see you answer one question.

We "know" from the video, that a WCC/MC can be fired directly through real human skull and come out pretty pristine, the bullet is intact and can even roll on it's side.

We "know" from the video, that a WCC/MC can be fired directly through real human skull and come out pretty pristine

No we don't know that from the video. That is a gross misrepresentation of what the video actually shows. Neither bullet came out "pretty prisitine"

If this is true, then why couldn't a bullet pass through JFK's neck, Connally's torso, wrist and into the thigh and come out in a similar condition?

In both cases the bullet can even smash through bone and come out in pretty good shape.

There is no point to answer this because the premise of the question is simply not true.

The small round hole is consistent with a bullet that did not yaw at all. But it is also consistent with a bullet that just started to yaw.

Real world tests by Dr. Lattimer showed, in four out of five cases, that a "neck" would cause a bullet to start yawing as it exited the "neck". Other evidence, the oblong wound in Connally's back, the damage to the side (not the front) of CE-399 are consistent with a yawing bullet.

If you say so...

Better than you who, I gather, has never read a book about ballistics, although you seem reluctant to admit that.

Reluctant to admit that? Really? You are sinking this low? I've said this several times before on this forum, but I'll gladly repeat it here. Except for the Warren Report, I haven't read a single book (LN or CT) about the Kennedy murder. I'm just not interested in opinions of writers who clearly have an agenda. As much as I can, I prefer to do my own research using the actual evidence and make up my own mind that way.

No. If Luke and Michael used a test where a bullet went through 3 feet of ballistic gel, then struck a bone, and the bullet came out pristine, so they declared that CE-399 was vindicated, I would not respect their opinion, even if I agreed with their overall conclusion. Their using just 6 inches of ballistic gel to slow the bullet, gains my respect. That sounds like a valid test.

Yeah sure. Who do you think you are fooling?

You would be happy to do the work for me, if the information was there. So the information is not there. Dolce had the bullets fired directly into the torsos and the "wrists".

Do you mistake me for your personal assistant? But it's a good illustration how you jump to conclusions based on assumptions.

Readers of these posts should conclude that the Dolce tests were bogus. Until you or someone provides evidence to the contrary. That shows Dolce had the bullets slowed by six inches of ballistic gel, or slowed somehow, before striking a "torso" or "wrist".

Yes, guys... Dolce was the top ballastic experts for the army during and after WWII. But Joe tells us his tests for the Warren Commission were "bogus". Why? Because Joe doesn't like the outcome. Hilarious.

Telling people how they should answer your loaded questions, telling them in advance what you will and won't accept as an answer and now telling people not to believe their own eyes and ears and think the way you want them too.... I've seen you do this before. It's classic Joe.... and it makes it absolutely impossible to have any kind of reasonable discussion with you.

It doesn't matter how much factual evidence is thrown at you, you will always move the goalposts and start arguing again. I don't have the time or the patience for that BS.

Having said that, I still wish you and your loved ones a Merry Xmas.

[Joe Elliott]

Yes, guys... Dolce was the top ballastic experts for the army during and after WWII. But Joe tells us his tests for the Warren Commission were "bogus". Why? Because Joe doesn't like the outcome. Hilarious.

Telling people how they should answer your loaded questions, telling them in advance what you will and won't accept as an answer and now telling people not to believe their own eyes and ears and think the way you want them too.... I've seen you do this before. It's classic Joe.... and it makes it absolutely impossible to have any kind of reasonable discussion with you.

It doesn't matter how much factual evidence is thrown at you, you will always move the goalposts and start arguing again. I don't have the time or the patience for that BS.

Check this website to see what Jean Davison thinks of Dr. Dolce, from an email (or letter) sent to someone named Willy:

https://jfkfacts.org/milicent-cranors-response-to-jean-davison/

Willy,

“You will see here a photo of the bullet in the best shape after going through a goats rib – from the experiments at Edgewood Arsenal supervised by Dr Dolce. No wonder Dolce claimed that Olivier and Dziemian, did not testify in accordance with their experimental findings.”

On the contrary, I think that the test results show that Dr. Dolce didn’t know what he was talking about.

The deformed test bullets were fired directly into bone at full speed. They weren’t slowed by passing first through a simulated neck or chest.

This was explained in the Edgewood ballistics report. For example, see the last paragraph here which says, “The comparative sizes of the entrance and exit wound, the amount of bone damage and the lack of bullet deformation [in CE 399] all indicate that the wrist was struck by a tumbling bullet traveling at a reduced velocity”:

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=62296&relPageId=6

That a slower bullet would both be less damaged and cause less damage to its target is a principle illustrated by Martin Fackler’s experiment that we talked about before. It’s something like a car banging into another car at 5mph or at 55mph — different outcomes.

I don’t believe the Edgewood tests were “supervised by Dr. Dolce.” He was a Florida surgeon. According to the HSCA document you posted, he was “called by the Warren Commission to serve as a consultant in analyzing the wounds of Kennedy and Connally but from what I gather, it was on a limited basis.” As an Army surgeon, he may’ve known a lot about *wounds*, but his opinions on how bullets behave are contradicted by the HSCA’s experts, among others.

Dolce wanted his views to be heard by the HSCA, and they were. Then they ignored what he said and didn’t call him — and for good reason, imo.


WILLY WHITTEN
APRIL 4, 2015 AT 2:09 PM
“I don’t believe the Edgewood tests were “supervised by Dr. Dolce.” He was a Florida surgeon. According to the HSCA document you posted, he was “called by the Warren Commission to serve as a consultant in analyzing the wounds of Kennedy and Connally but from what I gather, it was on a limited basis.” As an Army surgeon, he may’ve known a lot about *wounds*, but his opinions on how bullets behave are contradicted by the HSCA’s experts, among others.”~Jean

Dolce worked at Ridgeway during the time of the Warren Commission. He moved to Flaorida when retiring from the army. It was there that the HSCA was contacted.
. . . .

“Dolce wanted his views to be heard by the HSCA, and they were. Then they ignored what he said and didn’t call him — and for good reason, imo.”

Yes for the very good reason that he contradicted the story they wanted to hear, and got from those that he did indeed direct at Edgewood.
Those experiments you read of by Olivier and Dziemian, are the very ones that Dolce was directing. So the ones of shots through other matter before hitting the cadaver wrists are the very ones that Dolce is speaking to, and those bullets you see representing the more deformed bullets are the same ones that both Dolce and Olivier and Dziemian refer to.

So, it appears the bullets were

The deformed test bullets were fired directly into bone at full speed. They weren’t slowed by passing first through a simulated neck or chest.
...
That a slower bullet would both be less damaged and cause less damage to its target is a principle illustrated by Martin Fackler’s experiment that we talked about before. It’s something like a car banging into another car at 5mph or at 55mph — different outcomes.

On Dr. Dolce:

On the contrary, I think that the test results show that Dr. Dolce didn’t know what he was talking about.
...
I don’t believe the Edgewood tests were “supervised by Dr. Dolce.” He was a Florida surgeon. According to the HSCA document you posted, he was “called by the Warren Commission to serve as a consultant in analyzing the wounds of Kennedy and Connally but from what I gather, it was on a limited basis.” As an Army surgeon, he may’ve known a lot about *wounds*, but his opinions on how bullets behave are contradicted by the HSCA’s experts, among others.

So, it appears Dr. Dolce's expertise was as a medical doctor, with experience with treating bullet wounds, but not a ballistic expert on what bodies do to bullets. Only an expert on what bullets do to bodies.

Now, does anyone have any evidence that Jean Davison was wrong?

That the bullets in the Edgewood tests were not fired directly into "torsos" or "wrists".

That Dr. Dolce was not a medical doctor but a real ballistic expert, an expert on what bodies do to bullets?