Subject: Re: Magic Bullet
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 17:17:28 -0500
From: Anthony Marsh <anthonymarsh@usa.net>
Organization: The Puzzle Palace
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy.jfk.moderated

John Locke wrote:
>
> lho@foxvalley.net writes:
> > John Locke wrote:
>
> > > I'm satisfied that CE399 did the damage alleged to it. I'm also
satisfied
> > > by Lattimer's experiment that reproduced the SBT track and produced a
> > > bullet with damage similar to CE399. If it is your thesis that the
> > > bullet lacked the energy to smash the rib, then back it up with
> > > evidence. I've backed up my point of view with Lattimer. I didn't just
> > > say, "I don't doubt the bullet's energy." I've got empirical evidence
> > > on my side. What have you got?
> >
> > I realize that empirical evidence, no matter what field of expertise
> > one embraces, is the rule. Given that, has Lattimer's findings been
> > replicated? I don't mean to be a pain, but if we're talking in terms
> > of the scientific method that you seem to hold so dear, than what can
> > you tell me and others on this NG? One study alone does not prove
> > something as fact or even supposition.
>
> No, it doesn't. But Lattimer did not break much new ground in his
> grand experiment, except for the duplication of the lapel flip. Various
> aspects of the SBT are established by other work, and it takes no leap of
> faith to thread separate ideas together to arrive at the SBT. Lattimer
> simply did us the service of actually putting together the experiment
> that reproduces most of the SBT at once. It's a simpler focal point
> for discussion that the myriad of other tests which together
> accomplish the same result of confirming the possibility of the SBT.
>
> Add to that, the question of evidence and logic. If you doubt the SBT,
> then you have to explain the shooting some other ways, including the
> number of shots, timing of each, trajectories, with each element
> backed up by evidence. Even without a proof that the SBT was possible,
> you still couldn't provide a viable alternative based on evidence.
> But don't take my word for it. Try!
>
> Then you've got the credibility issue. The SBT appears to satisfy
> the crime detection experts. Ultimately, that's why there is no
> controversy among mainstream historians and journalists. If the
> experts say the evidence fits the current soluition, that's good
> enough for the historians. They don't care what the uninformed
> layman thinks.
>
> But, to answer your question, Lattimer's experiment has not been
> duplicated, so far as I know. But simply doubting it is no
> interest. Your doubt would have to be based on truly substantive
> issues.
>
> john

It is not duplication of results when you change conditions. On
Connally's jacket, the exit hole is NOT right next to the lapel. On the
Lattimer test jacket, the exit was right next to the lapel. When
Lattimer tried to get the lapel flip by putting the exit in the correct
place, he could not. He could only get the lapel flip by putting the
exit directly next to the lapel, so that the exit material and the
shockwave of the bullet would push the lapel.

Anthony Marsh