Post by Rob Caprio on Mar 16, 2021 13:53:52 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
3.bp.blogspot.com/-haDVFEFjG2w/VGq7NE17FCI/AAAAAAABBoc/LlQOGe_5jf0/s1600/CE349-Limousine.jpg
Why did Warren Commission (WC) FBI Expert Robert Frazier say a bullet fragment NOT seen by Secret Service (SS) Agent Roy Kellerman caused the dent in the windshield chrome frame? Also, which bullet did this fragment come from?
When Robert Frazier was asked about the dent to the windshield chrome he said a fragment from the head shot could have caused it. He said the dent could have been caused by one of the two fragments found in the limousine (but NOT seen by the man sitting in the front passenger seat -- Roy Kellerman).
Mr. DULLES - I wonder if I could go back just a moment to the indentation in the chrome around the windshield at the top of the windshield, but on the inside, could that have been caused by a fragment of a bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it very easily could have. It would not have been caused, for instance, by a bullet which was traveling at its full velocity from a rifle, but merely from a fragment traveling at fairly high velocity which struck the inside surface of the chrome.
Mr. DULLES - Could that have been caused by any of the fragments that you have identified as having been found on the front seat or near the front seat of the car?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I believe it could have by either, in fact, of the two fragments of rifle bullets found in the front seat.
How could this be when SS Agent Roy Kellerman said he did NOT even see any bullet fragments and he was sitting in the front passenger seat?
Mr. SPECTER. But aside from the portions of President Kennedy's head which you have already testified about, you observed nothing detectable as being bullet fragments or bullets?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Richocheting off any part of the car?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. And did you ever observe any bullet fragments in the car at rest after the shooting?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir.
So how could a bullet fragment cause the dent in the chrome of the windshield guard and land at Agent Kellerman’s feet again?
Also, why was Frazier unable to say which bullet the fragments came from OR if they came from the same bullet?
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0051a.gif
All these bullet fragments were found to be SIMILAR in metallic composition, but it was NOT POSSIBLE to determine whether two or more of the fragments CAME FROM THE SAME BULLET. It is possible for the fragments from the front seat to have been a part of the same bullet as the three fragments found near the left jump seat, since a whole bullet of this type weighs 160-161 grains. (WCR, p. 77) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0051a.htm
Quote off
Notice the trickery of the WC here as they say “All these bullet fragments were found to be similar in metallic composition…”, but that means they were NOT a match since SIMILAR is NOT what you are looking for in a scientific test. You are looking for IDENTICAL and they admit themselves these fragments did NOT match when they said, “…but it was NOT POSSIBLE to determine whether two or more fragments came from the same bullet.” Supposedly, this was the WHOLE PURPOSE of Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) to do this kind of testing and comparison. This opens the door for more than three bullets being involved since they could NOT show all these fragments were limited to the head shot bullet since this was the ONLY one that all of these fragments could have come from. Why?
Well, the one shot MISSED THE LIMOUSINE COMPLETELY, thus, it could NOT leave fragments of itself in the limousine. The other non-fatal shot that supposedly went through both JFK and Governor John B. Connally (JBC) is missing at most 3 or 4 grains so there is NO way the bullet fragments allegedly found near the front passenger seat could have come from that as one weighed 44.6 grains and the other weighed 21 grains.. The issue now is, can the WC show that the head shot broke into this many pieces and all the pieces that they found came from the SAME BULLET?
CE 567: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0141b.jpg
CE 569: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0142a.jpg
Robert Frazier would say he was UNABLE to determine if these two fragments came from the same bullet or not in his WC testimony.
Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567; and 569 are portions of the originally same bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
Mr. FRAZIER - There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated condition to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit together. However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such as 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section of 569, so that they could be parts of one.
I would be challenged on this by a supposed CTer named Ben Holmes on the board “ACJ” and he would employ the same tactics that would make people like Bill Brown so proud and happy. He took the stance just because the FBI could NOT show these two fragments did NOT come from the same bullet did NOT mean they did NOT! He would argue for many months that it was possible they did come from the same bullet and even went so far as to say “the odds favored it.” The point is that NAA was SUPPOSED to make this identification according to the FBI as this was their new “wonder weapon” in crime fighting, but even with that, they could NOT show these fragments all came from the same bullet. This would mean a fourth shot was fired that day as the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) said in 1979.
When you have the BURDEN OF PROOF, as the WC had and a prosecutor would have had, the “could have”, “might have” and “possibly” arguments are NOT good enough. If we used the WC standard NOTHING would be eliminated since no matter what the results were (usually NEGATIVE for the WC’s claims) they would still say, “It could have happened the way we said anyway.”
Ben Holmes said this and seemed to fail to comprehend that this was a DOUBLE MURDER case and not some hobby he was discussing at his local McDonalds.
Quote on
You don't seem to understand just what is happening here...let's imagine a bullet ...lengthen it out to a pencil.
The 'pencil' is now the object that struck JFK's head.
All that's left is the sharpened end of the pencil - one inch worth...and the eraser connected to one inch of the wood pencil.
So all we have is two one inch pieces of the original 8 inch pencil...
It is now IMPOSSIBLE to state authoritatively, that the two pieces once formed the same pencil.
If, on the other hand, the pencil was broken along it's axis, such that a sliver of wood from the eraser side can be matched to a vacant spot on the sharpened end of the pencil - THERE WOULD BE THE INDISPUTABLE PROOF THAT THE TWO PIECES INDEED WERE ORIGINALLY FROM THE SAME PENCIL.
Both Frazier and Nicols were making this point. You seem to believe that this means that there *MUST HAVE BEEN* two bullets.
That's simply not true. Being unable to prove that the two pieces of pencil were originally *one* pencil DOES NOT PROVE THAT THERE MUST HAVE BEEN TWO PENCILS.
Just how difficult is this to understand? (Ben Holmes, 11/28/07)
Quote off
Based on his innocuous and UNRELATED analogy I was having trouble understanding according to him. Why? Because bullets are made of lead and other metals that NAA was supposed to be able to test and determine if they came from the SAME SOURCE or not. Who has created the same test for a number 2 pencil? He also couldn’t comprehend (or was not there to comprehend) that in a court of law or a legal proceeding you can’t claim something is possible when YOU can’t show it is. The FBI had their normal ballistic tests and NAA and still could NOT SAY the fragments came from the SAME BULLET. Game over. But not for Ben Holmes and WC defenders as they simply use the “could have” card. His last statement is classic as in a court of law or a legal proceeding IF I said the fragments came from ONE bullet and then UTTERLY FAILED TO SUPPORT THAT by showing they did then of course I would expect others to think they came from more than one bullet since I failed to PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that they came from one bullet. Heck, in this case the WC failed to prove beyond the smallest doubt since they did NOT show the fragments DID COME FROM ONE BULLET. This alone sinks the WC’s whole conclusion and that is why WC defenders (and some posing as CTers IMO) fight this point so hard.
My response to the quote above by Ben Holmes was this.
Quote on
Not at all, you are saying you can't prove the two pieces came from one pencil, but you are also saying you can't say they are from two pencils. So what are you saying? You have to reach a conclusion. Either both fragments come from the same source or they don't. Period.
Quote off
This reminds me of the Eddy Benavides discussion where Bill Brown insisted that he and his brother Domingo Benavides may NOT have looked alike, but also admitted he was not sure as they could have looked alike! It is the SAME argument used over and over again by some people.
Scientific tests are meant to CONCLUDE with a result. NO case would ever go to court relying on the “inconclusive” result (which is the way the WC hid the NEGATIVE result) as much as the WC did. That is simply the truth.
More dishonesty came from Ben Holmes as he tried to claim that a mythical “middle part” of the bullet weighing something like 96 grains could have caused the dent in the chrome so even if CE 567 or CE 569 could NOT have done it the same bullet doing it was still possible.
Quote on
161-(44+21)=96
A fragment as large as 96 grains - or more than TWICE the size of the two remaining fragments - could have hit the chrome and bounced out of the limo. (obviously, I'm not accounting for the smaller fragments - but this would not make a huge difference to the 96 grain size)
So not only did Frazier SPECIFICALLY state that either of the two larger fragments, 44 & 21 grain fragments, could have caused the chrome damage, you can't handle the basic math to realize that if you needed something bigger – IT WAS THERE. (Ben Holmes, 11/28/07)
Quote off
Where was it? The mythical “middle part” is NOT in the evidence as far as I know. Also, the whole “middle part” was an invention of Ben Holmes since he kept claiming CE 567 and CE 569 could have come from the SAME BULLET, but this was NEVER supported with a scientific test as the ONLY determination reached is that they COULD NOT BE SHOWN TO HAVE COME FROM THE SAME BULLET. The funny thing is Robert Frazier NEVER mentioned this mythical “middle part” either as the WCR wrote the following about this issue.
Quote on
Although there is some uncertainty whether the dent in the chrome on the windshield was present prior to the assassination, Frazier testified to the dent “had been caused by some projectile which struck the chrome on the inside surface.” If it was caused by a shot during the assassination, Frazier stated that it would not have been caused by a bullet traveling at full velocity, but rather by a fragment traveling at a “fairly high velocity.” It could have been caused by either fragment found in the front seat of the limousine. (Ibid)
Quote off
There is NO mention of a “middle part” possibly causing this damage as Ben Holmes alluded to in order to save the WC’s precarious position IMO.
The bottom line is that SS Agent Kellerman testified to seeing NO bullet fragments at his feet and there is NO chain of custody for them. FBI Expert Robert Frazier never showed if a bullet fragment caused the damage to the chrome in the windshield frame or not so when we consider the evidence we see the possibility of more than three shots is very likely since the FBI and WC failed to show the the limousine fragments all came from the SAME bullet.
Can anyone answer these questions and provide evidence to help the WC and FBI (and Ben Holmes) out?
3.bp.blogspot.com/-haDVFEFjG2w/VGq7NE17FCI/AAAAAAABBoc/LlQOGe_5jf0/s1600/CE349-Limousine.jpg
Why did Warren Commission (WC) FBI Expert Robert Frazier say a bullet fragment NOT seen by Secret Service (SS) Agent Roy Kellerman caused the dent in the windshield chrome frame? Also, which bullet did this fragment come from?
When Robert Frazier was asked about the dent to the windshield chrome he said a fragment from the head shot could have caused it. He said the dent could have been caused by one of the two fragments found in the limousine (but NOT seen by the man sitting in the front passenger seat -- Roy Kellerman).
Mr. DULLES - I wonder if I could go back just a moment to the indentation in the chrome around the windshield at the top of the windshield, but on the inside, could that have been caused by a fragment of a bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it very easily could have. It would not have been caused, for instance, by a bullet which was traveling at its full velocity from a rifle, but merely from a fragment traveling at fairly high velocity which struck the inside surface of the chrome.
Mr. DULLES - Could that have been caused by any of the fragments that you have identified as having been found on the front seat or near the front seat of the car?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I believe it could have by either, in fact, of the two fragments of rifle bullets found in the front seat.
How could this be when SS Agent Roy Kellerman said he did NOT even see any bullet fragments and he was sitting in the front passenger seat?
Mr. SPECTER. But aside from the portions of President Kennedy's head which you have already testified about, you observed nothing detectable as being bullet fragments or bullets?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Richocheting off any part of the car?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. And did you ever observe any bullet fragments in the car at rest after the shooting?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir.
So how could a bullet fragment cause the dent in the chrome of the windshield guard and land at Agent Kellerman’s feet again?
Also, why was Frazier unable to say which bullet the fragments came from OR if they came from the same bullet?
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0051a.gif
All these bullet fragments were found to be SIMILAR in metallic composition, but it was NOT POSSIBLE to determine whether two or more of the fragments CAME FROM THE SAME BULLET. It is possible for the fragments from the front seat to have been a part of the same bullet as the three fragments found near the left jump seat, since a whole bullet of this type weighs 160-161 grains. (WCR, p. 77) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0051a.htm
Quote off
Notice the trickery of the WC here as they say “All these bullet fragments were found to be similar in metallic composition…”, but that means they were NOT a match since SIMILAR is NOT what you are looking for in a scientific test. You are looking for IDENTICAL and they admit themselves these fragments did NOT match when they said, “…but it was NOT POSSIBLE to determine whether two or more fragments came from the same bullet.” Supposedly, this was the WHOLE PURPOSE of Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) to do this kind of testing and comparison. This opens the door for more than three bullets being involved since they could NOT show all these fragments were limited to the head shot bullet since this was the ONLY one that all of these fragments could have come from. Why?
Well, the one shot MISSED THE LIMOUSINE COMPLETELY, thus, it could NOT leave fragments of itself in the limousine. The other non-fatal shot that supposedly went through both JFK and Governor John B. Connally (JBC) is missing at most 3 or 4 grains so there is NO way the bullet fragments allegedly found near the front passenger seat could have come from that as one weighed 44.6 grains and the other weighed 21 grains.. The issue now is, can the WC show that the head shot broke into this many pieces and all the pieces that they found came from the SAME BULLET?
CE 567: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0141b.jpg
CE 569: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0142a.jpg
Robert Frazier would say he was UNABLE to determine if these two fragments came from the same bullet or not in his WC testimony.
Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567; and 569 are portions of the originally same bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
Mr. FRAZIER - There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated condition to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit together. However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such as 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section of 569, so that they could be parts of one.
I would be challenged on this by a supposed CTer named Ben Holmes on the board “ACJ” and he would employ the same tactics that would make people like Bill Brown so proud and happy. He took the stance just because the FBI could NOT show these two fragments did NOT come from the same bullet did NOT mean they did NOT! He would argue for many months that it was possible they did come from the same bullet and even went so far as to say “the odds favored it.” The point is that NAA was SUPPOSED to make this identification according to the FBI as this was their new “wonder weapon” in crime fighting, but even with that, they could NOT show these fragments all came from the same bullet. This would mean a fourth shot was fired that day as the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) said in 1979.
When you have the BURDEN OF PROOF, as the WC had and a prosecutor would have had, the “could have”, “might have” and “possibly” arguments are NOT good enough. If we used the WC standard NOTHING would be eliminated since no matter what the results were (usually NEGATIVE for the WC’s claims) they would still say, “It could have happened the way we said anyway.”
Ben Holmes said this and seemed to fail to comprehend that this was a DOUBLE MURDER case and not some hobby he was discussing at his local McDonalds.
Quote on
You don't seem to understand just what is happening here...let's imagine a bullet ...lengthen it out to a pencil.
The 'pencil' is now the object that struck JFK's head.
All that's left is the sharpened end of the pencil - one inch worth...and the eraser connected to one inch of the wood pencil.
So all we have is two one inch pieces of the original 8 inch pencil...
It is now IMPOSSIBLE to state authoritatively, that the two pieces once formed the same pencil.
If, on the other hand, the pencil was broken along it's axis, such that a sliver of wood from the eraser side can be matched to a vacant spot on the sharpened end of the pencil - THERE WOULD BE THE INDISPUTABLE PROOF THAT THE TWO PIECES INDEED WERE ORIGINALLY FROM THE SAME PENCIL.
Both Frazier and Nicols were making this point. You seem to believe that this means that there *MUST HAVE BEEN* two bullets.
That's simply not true. Being unable to prove that the two pieces of pencil were originally *one* pencil DOES NOT PROVE THAT THERE MUST HAVE BEEN TWO PENCILS.
Just how difficult is this to understand? (Ben Holmes, 11/28/07)
Quote off
Based on his innocuous and UNRELATED analogy I was having trouble understanding according to him. Why? Because bullets are made of lead and other metals that NAA was supposed to be able to test and determine if they came from the SAME SOURCE or not. Who has created the same test for a number 2 pencil? He also couldn’t comprehend (or was not there to comprehend) that in a court of law or a legal proceeding you can’t claim something is possible when YOU can’t show it is. The FBI had their normal ballistic tests and NAA and still could NOT SAY the fragments came from the SAME BULLET. Game over. But not for Ben Holmes and WC defenders as they simply use the “could have” card. His last statement is classic as in a court of law or a legal proceeding IF I said the fragments came from ONE bullet and then UTTERLY FAILED TO SUPPORT THAT by showing they did then of course I would expect others to think they came from more than one bullet since I failed to PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that they came from one bullet. Heck, in this case the WC failed to prove beyond the smallest doubt since they did NOT show the fragments DID COME FROM ONE BULLET. This alone sinks the WC’s whole conclusion and that is why WC defenders (and some posing as CTers IMO) fight this point so hard.
My response to the quote above by Ben Holmes was this.
Quote on
Not at all, you are saying you can't prove the two pieces came from one pencil, but you are also saying you can't say they are from two pencils. So what are you saying? You have to reach a conclusion. Either both fragments come from the same source or they don't. Period.
Quote off
This reminds me of the Eddy Benavides discussion where Bill Brown insisted that he and his brother Domingo Benavides may NOT have looked alike, but also admitted he was not sure as they could have looked alike! It is the SAME argument used over and over again by some people.
Scientific tests are meant to CONCLUDE with a result. NO case would ever go to court relying on the “inconclusive” result (which is the way the WC hid the NEGATIVE result) as much as the WC did. That is simply the truth.
More dishonesty came from Ben Holmes as he tried to claim that a mythical “middle part” of the bullet weighing something like 96 grains could have caused the dent in the chrome so even if CE 567 or CE 569 could NOT have done it the same bullet doing it was still possible.
Quote on
161-(44+21)=96
A fragment as large as 96 grains - or more than TWICE the size of the two remaining fragments - could have hit the chrome and bounced out of the limo. (obviously, I'm not accounting for the smaller fragments - but this would not make a huge difference to the 96 grain size)
So not only did Frazier SPECIFICALLY state that either of the two larger fragments, 44 & 21 grain fragments, could have caused the chrome damage, you can't handle the basic math to realize that if you needed something bigger – IT WAS THERE. (Ben Holmes, 11/28/07)
Quote off
Where was it? The mythical “middle part” is NOT in the evidence as far as I know. Also, the whole “middle part” was an invention of Ben Holmes since he kept claiming CE 567 and CE 569 could have come from the SAME BULLET, but this was NEVER supported with a scientific test as the ONLY determination reached is that they COULD NOT BE SHOWN TO HAVE COME FROM THE SAME BULLET. The funny thing is Robert Frazier NEVER mentioned this mythical “middle part” either as the WCR wrote the following about this issue.
Quote on
Although there is some uncertainty whether the dent in the chrome on the windshield was present prior to the assassination, Frazier testified to the dent “had been caused by some projectile which struck the chrome on the inside surface.” If it was caused by a shot during the assassination, Frazier stated that it would not have been caused by a bullet traveling at full velocity, but rather by a fragment traveling at a “fairly high velocity.” It could have been caused by either fragment found in the front seat of the limousine. (Ibid)
Quote off
There is NO mention of a “middle part” possibly causing this damage as Ben Holmes alluded to in order to save the WC’s precarious position IMO.
The bottom line is that SS Agent Kellerman testified to seeing NO bullet fragments at his feet and there is NO chain of custody for them. FBI Expert Robert Frazier never showed if a bullet fragment caused the damage to the chrome in the windshield frame or not so when we consider the evidence we see the possibility of more than three shots is very likely since the FBI and WC failed to show the the limousine fragments all came from the SAME bullet.
Can anyone answer these questions and provide evidence to help the WC and FBI (and Ben Holmes) out?