Jump to content


Spartacus

The Back Wound


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#31 Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 13 August 2005 - 05:41 AM

PPS. The photos presented were made with full speed carcano bullets and photographed just as the wound was created. There is no evidence of any burning of flesh in either, and neither are there any such indications in the two areas of the coat and shirts through which these bullets were fired.


Tom,
any chance you can re-post these photos please?
I didn't get a chance to see them.

What I keep hearing from descriptions of this wound is that it had an abrasion collar or "halo".
There is none seen in the blow-up that Robin posted earier. Do you see one?

In the same photo that clearly shows a ragged wound there are small "slithers" of flesh or skin all around the border.
Isn't this completely unheard of on a wound made by a bullet?
Surely the heat of the bullet would burn them doen to nothing no?

Alan

PS.
I don't believe Bennett saw a bullet hit JFK in the back & if I am persuaded that this wound really was on the body at Parkland, I certainly wouldn't use his handwritten notes allegedly written on the night of the 22nd to convince others.
It is almost amusing how the only evidence the Chief of the Secret Service could come up with to convince Spector that this wound was genuine is these notes of Bennetts.
Was the look of this wound really that unconvincing?

The evidence that points towards a false wound far outways the notes of a man who worked as in administrator for the very agency who are at the very heart of critics "body altering" accusations.

Humes was so convinced this wound wasn't created by a bullet he had no choice but to ask Perry if he did it.
There were no witnesses to this wound at Parkland.

The nurse I think you're refering to was asked about it for the first time almost 25 years later, hardly what you'd call reliable. It is curious how she says nothing about it when Spector gave her the chance, while her memory was fresh & uncloaded by other sources of imformation about the wounds.
I mean let's face it, she may of seen & heard about this back wound over a hundred times after that day through various media.

Maybe Arlen had his own reasons for not asking the staff who washed the body the direct question "did you see anything on the back?" & it would of had little to do with leading the witnesses IMO.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Dr. Boswell has fully stated that the back wound was "atypical"! Meaning NOT TYPICAL.

At lease they were aware that it did not favor a normal wound of entry.

Bennett wrote his notes on the flight back from Dallas.
Those who wish to criticize this have jumped on the bandwagon that he COULD NOT have observed a 2,000 to 2,200 fps bullet pass through the air and strike JFK.

To this , most would have to agree.

However, a tumbling bullet which covers more visible space, and which is possibly only moving at 500 fps, is another story.

Personally, I would not attempt to discredit the man as he wrote that he saw it strike.
The question being, If the bullet was travelling at 2000 fps, then he obviously did not.
If the bullet was tumbling end over end at approximately 500 fps, then he certainly could have seen/observed it.

The answers to all of these contradictory statements are as simple as a bullet striking in a base first attitude at a reduced velocity, and rotating end over end as a result of loss of stability from penetration of a tree limb.

Just because David Lifton can not explain or reconcile the physical evidence, is not evidence of body kidnapping and wound alteration.

The phyisical evidence answers the questions.

As regards the photo's from my ballistic testing, they have been placed away with other of the stuff that I have, and were not posted.
Don't really know exactly where they are right now. Some box, some where.
In the event I can locate them then I will post them.
Nevertheless, the enty hole in the back of JFK does not come close to matching a normal wound of entry.
Which, as stated, should be elongated vertically if at all.

The correlation of the exact dimension of the wound, with it's "wadcutter" immage, along with the facts of the fabric from the coat and shirt carried into the wound, along with the large amounts of fabric removed from the coat and shirt, are all fully indicative that CE 399, and only CE399 struck JFK in a base first attitude.

If you, or for that matter any others, prefer to chase non-existent body kidnappers and wound creaters, it is likely that 40-years from now, this subject will be exactly where it lies today.

Tom

#32 Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 13 August 2005 - 06:00 AM

PPS. The photos presented were made with full speed carcano bullets and photographed just as the wound was created. There is no evidence of any burning of flesh in either, and neither are there any such indications in the two areas of the coat and shirts through which these bullets were fired.


Tom,
any chance you can re-post these photos please?
I didn't get a chance to see them.

What I keep hearing from descriptions of this wound is that it had an abrasion collar or "halo".
There is none seen in the blow-up that Robin posted earier. Do you see one?

In the same photo that clearly shows a ragged wound there are small "slithers" of flesh or skin all around the border.
Isn't this completely unheard of on a wound made by a bullet?
Surely the heat of the bullet would burn them doen to nothing no?

Alan

PS.
I don't believe Bennett saw a bullet hit JFK in the back & if I am persuaded that this wound really was on the body at Parkland, I certainly wouldn't use his handwritten notes allegedly written on the night of the 22nd to convince others.
It is almost amusing how the only evidence the Chief of the Secret Service could come up with to convince Spector that this wound was genuine is these notes of Bennetts.
Was the look of this wound really that unconvincing?

The evidence that points towards a false wound far outways the notes of a man who worked as in administrator for the very agency who are at the very heart of critics "body altering" accusations.

Humes was so convinced this wound wasn't created by a bullet he had no choice but to ask Perry if he did it.
There were no witnesses to this wound at Parkland.

The nurse I think you're refering to was asked about it for the first time almost 25 years later, hardly what you'd call reliable. It is curious how she says nothing about it when Spector gave her the chance, while her memory was fresh & uncloaded by other sources of imformation about the wounds.
I mean let's face it, she may of seen & heard about this back wound over a hundred times after that day through various media.

Maybe Arlen had his own reasons for not asking the staff who washed the body the direct question "did you see anything on the back?" & it would of had little to do with leading the witnesses IMO.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Dr. Boswell has fully stated that the back wound was "atypical"! Meaning NOT TYPICAL.

At lease they were aware that it did not favor a normal wound of entry.

Bennett wrote his notes on the flight back from Dallas.
Those who wish to criticize this have jumped on the bandwagon that he COULD NOT have observed a 2,000 to 2,200 fps bullet pass through the air and strike JFK.

To this , most would have to agree.

However, a tumbling bullet which covers more visible space, and which is possibly only moving at 500 fps, is another story.

Personally, I would not attempt to discredit the man as he wrote that he saw it strike.
The question being, If the bullet was travelling at 2000 fps, then he obviously did not.
If the bullet was tumbling end over end at approximately 500 fps, then he certainly could have seen/observed it.

The answers to all of these contradictory statements are as simple as a bullet striking in a base first attitude at a reduced velocity, and rotating end over end as a result of loss of stability from penetration of a tree limb.

Just because David Lifton can not explain or reconcile the physical evidence, is not evidence of body kidnapping and wound alteration.

The phyisical evidence answers the questions.

As regards the photo's from my ballistic testing, they have been placed away with other of the stuff that I have, and were not posted.
Don't really know exactly where they are right now. Some box, some where.
In the event I can locate them then I will post them.
Nevertheless, the enty hole in the back of JFK does not come close to matching a normal wound of entry.
Which, as stated, should be elongated vertically if at all.

The correlation of the exact dimension of the wound, with it's "wadcutter" immage, along with the facts of the fabric from the coat and shirt carried into the wound, along with the large amounts of fabric removed from the coat and shirt, are all fully indicative that CE 399, and only CE399 struck JFK in a base first attitude.

If you, or for that matter any others, prefer to chase non-existent body kidnappers and wound creaters, it is likely that 40-years from now, this subject will be exactly where it lies today.

Tom

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Posted are the two "Wound" photo's.

The top photograph is what a typical 6.5mm Carcano bullet wound into soft flesh looks like.

The bottom photographs is a wound which was created with a 6.5mm Carcano "wadcutter"/flat-nosed bullet in order to demonstrate the physical characteristis of a wound of entry which would be created by the flat base of CE 399 striking in a base-first attitude.

That the base of CE399 measured 4X7mm in size, and that the back entry wound into JFK measured 4 X7mm in size, and that the back entry is not elongated vertically as it should be for a downward angle of entry, and that the wound outline for all practical purposes matches exactly the deformed base of CE399, and that the wound had considerably fabric carried into it by the entering bullet, which is also not normal for a normal striking nose-first entry, and that the coat and shirt of JFK had considerable fabric "punched" out and removed by the bullet which struck, places this into the category of "common sense" and does not require any great degree of rocket science mentality.

CE399, by it's physical anomalies will tell one how it came to exist.
The back wound in JFK will tell one in exactly what attitude that CE399 struck.

So, the WC SBT/Magic Bullet is a proven lie for anyone who accepts forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical fact.

However, even with this now proven lie, there was still only a single/lone assassin.

Tom

Edited by Thomas H. Purvis, 14 August 2005 - 04:06 AM.


#33 Charles Black

Charles Black

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:History<br />Sports<br />Fishing<br />Shooting

Posted 14 August 2005 - 06:27 AM

Tom

I feel that you attempt, at times quite effctively, to distort both testimony and "facts".

In reading Bennet's testimony, I never considered the fantasy that he meant to imply that he saw a MachII bullet flying thru the air! I interpreted it in the manner that I feel that he meant it. He witnessed an impact!
He saw something impact the back at appx. 4 inches down from the shoulder. At the time that he wrote this report, how could he have known that a back wound would be found? Do you really feel that he wished to report to his chief that he was so gifted that he had the extraordinary ability to see medium to high velocity bullets flying thru the air? Perhaps he could also leap high mountains!

Another point that I would like to make in reference to an earlier one of your posts. Yes I have been shot at. Yes I have seen people shot. Yes I think that Kennedy is responding to an anterior throat wound with a closed fist, but this is not the result of my witnessing a throat shot. This is the result of witnessing someone who had suddenly become choked and his reaction was to bring both closed fists, palms outward, immediately to his throat...... "Exactly" in the manner in which Kennedy responds as depicted in the Z film.

One more thing that I would like to mention. At the close proximity of the theoretical oak limb to the rifle scope, a one inch diameter branch, which is quite large, would be so obvious an impediment when appearing in the reticle of his scope, that no shooter in their right mind would have squeezed the trigger at that exact instant. A sniper would know the potential instability of the round which he was firing. If he were a seasoned shooter and knew this, why not take a different shot..... only a millisecond sooner or later.

Tom, I find some of what you say quite credible. I find much of what you say to be absolute pure speculation. I truly feel that you are becoming a legend in your own mind.

I think you are often so far off base that it upsets me when I feel that I must respond. You have established youself thru your bio. to be such a firearms and ballistics expert, that the majority of people on this forum feel, I'm certain, that they do not have the credentials to challenge you and therefore acept your speculation and far out theory as fact. This only is why I have once again responded.


I am sure that you wont be heartbroken, but I intend for this to be my last response to anything that you post regarding those particular few seconds in Dallas.

Charlie Black

Edited by Charles Black, 14 August 2005 - 07:40 AM.


#34 Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 14 August 2005 - 02:49 PM

Tom

I feel that you attempt, at times quite effctively, to distort both testimony and "facts".

In reading Bennet's testimony, I never considered the fantasy that he meant to imply that he saw a MachII bullet flying thru the air! I interpreted it in the manner that I feel that he meant it. He witnessed an impact!
He saw something impact the back at appx. 4 inches down from the shoulder. At the time that he wrote this report, how could he have known that a back wound would be found? Do you really feel that he wished to report to his chief that he was so gifted that he had the extraordinary  ability to see medium to high velocity bullets flying thru the air? Perhaps he could also leap high mountains!

Another point that I would like to make in reference to an earlier one of your posts. Yes I have been shot at. Yes I have seen people shot. Yes I think that Kennedy is responding to an anterior throat wound with a closed fist, but this is not the result of my witnessing a throat shot. This is the result of witnessing someone who had suddenly become choked and his reaction  was to bring both closed fists, palms outward, immediately to his throat...... "Exactly" in the manner in which Kennedy responds as depicted in the Z film.

One more thing that I would like to mention. At the close proximity of the theoretical oak limb to the rifle scope, a one inch diameter branch, which is quite large, would be so obvious an impediment when appearing in the reticle of his scope, that no shooter in their right mind would have squeezed the trigger at that exact instant. A sniper would know the potential instability of the round which he was firing. If he were a seasoned shooter and knew this, why not take a different shot..... only a millisecond sooner or later.

Tom, I find some of what you say quite credible. I find much of what you say to be absolute pure speculation. I truly feel that you are becoming a legend in your own mind.

I think you are often so far off base that it upsets me when I feel that I must respond. You have established youself thru your bio. to be such a firearms and ballistics expert, that the majority of people on this forum feel, I'm certain, that they do not have the credentials to challenge you and therefore acept your speculation and far out theory as fact. This only is why I have once again responded.


I am sure that you wont be heartbroken, but I intend for this to be my last response to anything that you post regarding those particular few seconds in Dallas.

Charlie Black

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



I truely feel that you have never fired a rifle with a scope on it.

The bullet exits some 2+ inches below the direct line of sight through the scope.

It is a common error, for those who are inexperienced with scope shooting, to hit low on close range targets.

Line-of-Sight IS NOT Line-of-Flight!

Just may answer why LHO,s first attempt on General Walker also struck the frame of the window.

As regards "Experts", those with the propery credentials, to include true ballistic experts as well as forensic pathologists have reviewed the information.
All, with no reservations, have stated the same.

Perhaps you might expend the time and effort to take the information to those who are qualified to examine it.
May just suprise you.

Actually, most of it is merely common sense!

#35 Charles Black

Charles Black

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:History<br />Sports<br />Fishing<br />Shooting

Posted 14 August 2005 - 03:51 PM

Tom

It is very seldom that I break my word, but your wild speculations have forced it for this last time!

Unlike Oswald, I have many times fired both rifles as well as pistols equipped with scopes.
I don't particularly like scopes for several reasons: 1) Live, moving targets are difficult to reacquire in the event of a miss. 2) As a hunter, I placed more value on the art of stalking, rather than long range shooting. 3) In the military, I never used one because I wasn't issued one.
4) I, as would anyone familiar with shooting, never attempt to use a very cheap scope or one that is misaligned as a result of improper mounting or a scope that has not been sighted in before each shooting venture.

Furthermore, I have found NO substantiated proof of the existence of your "Magic Limb".

It has never been proven to me that LHO ever shot at Gen. Walker. Other than Ozzie being a "dirty red commie", why would he have? Just target practice for the President? Perhaps you feel that he was a "mad dog killer" that truly needed no motive other than the "thrill of the kill".

Please list the forensic and ballistic experts, to whom you have referred, and who have made a study of this particular case. As a particular treat for, we the unknowing, how about some scholastic refernces if you feel that we, the few of us that are smart enough to read, might be able to comprehend.

I say now, hopefully for the last time, that I will not respond further to your unsubstantiated meanderings, that haplessly range from the T.H. Purvis geneological study of Southern Aristocracy, to your "magic limb' theory, and forward to your belief that only you personally truly understand the complexities of firearm operation.

Tom, I personally find your arrogance appalling. Once again, "A legend in your own mind".

So long Tom

Charlie Black

Edited by Charles Black, 14 August 2005 - 09:44 PM.


#36 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,306 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 14 August 2005 - 07:18 PM

Tom

It is very seldom that I break my word, but your wild speculations have forced it for this last time!

Unlike Oswald, I have many times fired both  rifles as well as  pistols equipped with scopes.
I don't particularly like scopes for several reasons:  1) Live, moving targets are difficult to reacquire in the event of a miss. 2) As a hunter, I placed more value on the art of stalking, rather than long range shooting. 3) In the military, I never used one because I wasn't issued one.
4) I, as would anyone familiar with shooting, never attempt to use a) a very cheap scope  B) one that is misaligned as a result of it's mounting  c) a scope that has not been sighted in before each shooting venture.

Furthermore, I have found NO substantiated proof of your "Magic Limb".

It has never been proven to me that LHO ever shot at Gen. Walker. Other than Ozzie being a "dirty red commie", why would he have? Just target practice for the President? Perhaps you feel that he was a "mad dog killer" that truly needed no motive other than the "thrill of the kill".

Please list the forensic and ballistic experts, to whom you have referred, and who have made a study of this particular case. As a particular treat for, we the unknowing, how about some scholastic refernces if you feel that we the few that can read might be interested.

I say now, hopefully for the last time, that I will not respond further to your unsubstantiated meanderings, that haplessly range from the T.H. Purvis geneologicasl study of Southern Aristocracy, to your "magic limb' theory, and forward to your belief that only you personally truly understand the complexities of firearm operation.

So long Tom

Charlie Black

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Tom, are not barrels generally angled upwards to compensate for drop? This upwards trajectory intersects line of sight about after 25 feet, and again after say 200 feet depending on how the scope is adjusted? Also firing down or up as opposed to vertical introduces another set of factors. Also coreolis force here plays a minor role. All up I wonder if you might not be making wrong assumptions?

It's possible that such a shot as you suggest would in fact tend to be high to an inexperienced scope shooter.

#37 Mark Knight

Mark Knight

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,274 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southern Indiana, USA
  • Interests:1950's International trucks, Farmall tractors, 1946-47 Hudson automobiles, JFK assassination, pre-1980 rock 'n' roll...more later when I have time to think about it.

Posted 15 August 2005 - 06:43 AM

John Dolva wrote:

Tom, are not barrels generally angled upwards to compensate for drop? This upwards trajectory intersects line of sight about after 25 feet, and again after say 200 feet depending on how the scope is adjusted? Also firing down or up as opposed to vertical introduces another set of factors. Also coreolis force here plays a minor role. All up I wonder if you might not be making wrong assumptions?

It's possible that such a shot as you suggest would in fact tend to be high to an inexperienced scope shooter.


John, in my experience hunting deer with both shotgun [slugs] and handgun [.41 magnum, 210 grain jacketed hollow-point], and with bead sights as well as scopes, the tendancy for a projectile to strike either high or low at a particular range is dependent upon two things: 1.) the trajectory of the particular round, and 2.) the distance at which the sight is zeroed in on the target. At fifty yards, a 12-gauge slug en route to a 100-yard target--using a scope zeroed in for that 100-yard range--will be anywhere from 4 to 8 inches "high." But a bullet from a rifle with a scope zeroed in at 150 yards, with corresponding ammo, might shoot "low" within the first 20 yards before rising above the line of sight, and then eventually falling back even with the line of sight, preferably at the exact range of the intended target. It simply depends upon the trajectory of the particular cartridge in the particular firearm used, and how well the scope is zeroed in. Other factors would include the height above the barrel that the scope is mounted.

And having played around with a 4x scope mounted on my shotgun, I can state unequivocably that a 1" tree branch within a certain very close range will blur out to the point that the shooter may not be aware that it is actually a branch, and it might be mistaken for a leaf or something else that might be easily shot through without deflecting the shot. Such is how misses occur during deer season on "can't-miss" shots.

But the truth is, it depends upon the caliber of the gun, the trajectory of the bullet, and the scope and its mount, as to whether the shot would be high or low at a particular range. Since I have no familiarity with the actual operation of the 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano, I can only depend upon what has been determined by actual testing...providing the test results are accureatly reported.

#38 Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 15 August 2005 - 02:10 PM

John Dolva wrote:

Tom, are not barrels generally angled upwards to compensate for drop? This upwards trajectory intersects line of sight about after 25 feet, and again after say 200 feet depending on how the scope is adjusted? Also firing down or up as opposed to vertical introduces another set of factors. Also coreolis force here plays a minor role. All up I wonder if you might not be making wrong assumptions?

It's possible that such a shot as you suggest would in fact tend to be high to an inexperienced scope shooter.


John, in my experience hunting deer with both shotgun [slugs] and handgun [.41 magnum, 210 grain jacketed hollow-point], and with bead sights as well as scopes, the tendancy for a projectile to strike either high or low at a particular range is dependent upon two things: 1.) the trajectory of the particular round, and 2.) the distance at which the sight is zeroed in on the target.  At fifty yards, a 12-gauge slug en route to a 100-yard target--using a scope zeroed in for that 100-yard range--will be anywhere from 4 to 8 inches "high."  But a bullet from a rifle with a scope zeroed in at 150 yards, with corresponding ammo, might shoot "low" within the first 20 yards before rising above the line of sight, and then eventually falling back even with the line of sight, preferably at the exact range of the intended target.  It simply depends upon the trajectory of the particular cartridge in the particular firearm used, and how well the scope is zeroed in.  Other factors would include the height above the barrel that the scope is mounted.

And having played around with a 4x scope mounted on my shotgun, I can state unequivocably that a 1" tree branch within a certain very close range will blur out to the point that the shooter may not be aware that it is actually a branch, and it might be mistaken for a leaf or something else that might be easily shot through without deflecting the shot.  Such is how misses occur during deer season on "can't-miss" shots.

But the truth is, it depends upon the caliber of the gun, the trajectory of the bullet, and the scope and its mount, as to whether the shot would be high or low at a particular range.  Since I have no familiarity with the actual operation of the 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano, I can only depend upon what has been determined by actual testing...providing the test results are accureatly reported.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Some years back, an excellent article appeared in, I believe, AMERICAN RIFLEMAN, in which an entire article was devoted to thos "highly experienced" riflemen/hunters who had struck and injured their quarry, yet missed the "first shot/kill shot", due to the bullet having struck a small limb or twig.
The article went on in which the authors conducted testing of shooting small wood pegs in an efffort to develope a better understanding of the deflection which can occur as a result of impact of the bullet with such limbs.
Of course, in Vietnam, we had many instances in which bullets struck persons and only went in a short distance due to velocity loss as a result of penetrating bushes; bamboo; other persons; etc.
Anyone experienced with hunting should be fully aware of such instances and recognize that they are neither rare, nor are they uncommon.

When "experts" make such mistakes, then one recognizes that it is quite common.

Of course, those who conduct proper research into the "subject matter" would know of the works of others along these lines.

Down here in South MS, many years ago, it was against the law to hunt with a hunting rifle.
Deer were hunted with shotguns and buckshot.

Rifles were referred to as "brushcutters", as due to the thick underbrush in the woods, one could easily shoot at a deer, miss, and the bullet continue through the underbrush to strike another person.

Now, it is "every man for himself out there".

Somewhere, I have a copy of the article on the deflection of bullets as a result of striking limbs, and would recommend review of it by all who doubt that bullets completely penetrate tree limbs, etc; yet continue on to strike their target.

Tom

P.S. If recalled correctly, it was Dr. Lattimer who fired the WCC 6.5 Carcano bullet into soft pine to test it's structural stability.
The bullet entered approximately 42-inches deep into the pine, with little deformation to the actual round.

P.P.S. "Minds, like parachutes, work best when open".

Ayoob Massad-----American Handgunner Magazine*

Ayoob also wrote an excellent article relative to test firing of the Carcano rifle.
But, no doubt, this proper application of research only made him a "legend in his own mind" as well.
Some time back, I posted the article on the internet.

#39 Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 15 August 2005 - 02:37 PM

Tom

I feel that you attempt, at times quite effctively, to distort both testimony and "facts".

In reading Bennet's testimony, I never considered the fantasy that he meant to imply that he saw a MachII bullet flying thru the air! I interpreted it in the manner that I feel that he meant it. He witnessed an impact!
He saw something impact the back at appx. 4 inches down from the shoulder. At the time that he wrote this report, how could he have known that a back wound would be found? Do you really feel that he wished to report to his chief that he was so gifted that he had the extraordinary  ability to see medium to high velocity bullets flying thru the air? Perhaps he could also leap high mountains!

Another point that I would like to make in reference to an earlier one of your posts. Yes I have been shot at. Yes I have seen people shot. Yes I think that Kennedy is responding to an anterior throat wound with a closed fist, but this is not the result of my witnessing a throat shot. This is the result of witnessing someone who had suddenly become choked and his reaction  was to bring both closed fists, palms outward, immediately to his throat...... "Exactly" in the manner in which Kennedy responds as depicted in the Z film.

One more thing that I would like to mention. At the close proximity of the theoretical oak limb to the rifle scope, a one inch diameter branch, which is quite large, would be so obvious an impediment when appearing in the reticle of his scope, that no shooter in their right mind would have squeezed the trigger at that exact instant. A sniper would know the potential instability of the round which he was firing. If he were a seasoned shooter and knew this, why not take a different shot..... only a millisecond sooner or later.

Tom, I find some of what you say quite credible. I find much of what you say to be absolute pure speculation. I truly feel that you are becoming a legend in your own mind.

I think you are often so far off base that it upsets me when I feel that I must respond. You have established youself thru your bio. to be such a firearms and ballistics expert, that the majority of people on this forum feel, I'm certain, that they do not have the credentials to challenge you and therefore acept your speculation and far out theory as fact. This only is why I have once again responded.


I am sure that you wont be heartbroken, but I intend for this to be my last response to anything that you post regarding those particular few seconds in Dallas.

Charlie Black

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>




TOPIC: "I DON"T OWN A RIFLE"

"As a matter of fact the near pristine condition of CE399 could have resulted from the bullet having been fired into a liquid or inta a soft fiber."

Charles Black.

Well folks, with quality research such as this, we can all certainly wrap this up and go home now.

#40 Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 15 August 2005 - 02:44 PM

John Dolva wrote:

Tom, are not barrels generally angled upwards to compensate for drop? This upwards trajectory intersects line of sight about after 25 feet, and again after say 200 feet depending on how the scope is adjusted? Also firing down or up as opposed to vertical introduces another set of factors. Also coreolis force here plays a minor role. All up I wonder if you might not be making wrong assumptions?

It's possible that such a shot as you suggest would in fact tend to be high to an inexperienced scope shooter.


John, in my experience hunting deer with both shotgun [slugs] and handgun [.41 magnum, 210 grain jacketed hollow-point], and with bead sights as well as scopes, the tendancy for a projectile to strike either high or low at a particular range is dependent upon two things: 1.) the trajectory of the particular round, and 2.) the distance at which the sight is zeroed in on the target.  At fifty yards, a 12-gauge slug en route to a 100-yard target--using a scope zeroed in for that 100-yard range--will be anywhere from 4 to 8 inches "high."  But a bullet from a rifle with a scope zeroed in at 150 yards, with corresponding ammo, might shoot "low" within the first 20 yards before rising above the line of sight, and then eventually falling back even with the line of sight, preferably at the exact range of the intended target.  It simply depends upon the trajectory of the particular cartridge in the particular firearm used, and how well the scope is zeroed in.  Other factors would include the height above the barrel that the scope is mounted.

And having played around with a 4x scope mounted on my shotgun, I can state unequivocably that a 1" tree branch within a certain very close range will blur out to the point that the shooter may not be aware that it is actually a branch, and it might be mistaken for a leaf or something else that might be easily shot through without deflecting the shot.  Such is how misses occur during deer season on "can't-miss" shots.

But the truth is, it depends upon the caliber of the gun, the trajectory of the bullet, and the scope and its mount, as to whether the shot would be high or low at a particular range.  Since I have no familiarity with the actual operation of the 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano, I can only depend upon what has been determined by actual testing...providing the test results are accureatly reported.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Some years back, an excellent article appeared in, I believe, AMERICAN RIFLEMAN, in which an entire article was devoted to thos "highly experienced" riflemen/hunters who had struck and injured their quarry, yet missed the "first shot/kill shot", due to the bullet having struck a small limb or twig.
The article went on in which the authors conducted testing of shooting small wood pegs in an efffort to develope a better understanding of the deflection which can occur as a result of impact of the bullet with such limbs.
Of course, in Vietnam, we had many instances in which bullets struck persons and only went in a short distance due to velocity loss as a result of penetrating bushes; bamboo; other persons; etc.
Anyone experienced with hunting should be fully aware of such instances and recognize that they are neither rare, nor are they uncommon.

When "experts" make such mistakes, then one recognizes that it is quite common.

Of course, those who conduct proper research into the "subject matter" would know of the works of others along these lines.

Down here in South MS, many years ago, it was against the law to hunt with a hunting rifle.
Deer were hunted with shotguns and buckshot.

Rifles were referred to as "brushcutters", as due to the thick underbrush in the woods, one could easily shoot at a deer, miss, and the bullet continue through the underbrush to strike another person.

Now, it is "every man for himself out there".

Somewhere, I have a copy of the article on the deflection of bullets as a result of striking limbs, and would recommend review of it by all who doubt that bullets completely penetrate tree limbs, etc; yet continue on to strike their target.

Tom

P.S. If recalled correctly, it was Dr. Lattimer who fired the WCC 6.5 Carcano bullet into soft pine to test it's structural stability.
The bullet entered approximately 42-inches deep into the pine, with little deformation to the actual round.

P.P.S. "Minds, like parachutes, work best when open".

Ayoob Massad-----American Handgunner Magazine*

Ayoob also wrote an excellent article relative to test firing of the Carcano rifle.
But, no doubt, this proper application of research only made him a "legend in his own mind" as well.
Some time back, I posted the article on the internet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>




"The Ayoob Files-The JFK Assassination.A Shooter's Eye View"

American Handgunner Magazine
March/April 1993

#41 Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 15 August 2005 - 03:01 PM

Tom

It is very seldom that I break my word, but your wild speculations have forced it for this last time!

Unlike Oswald, I have many times fired both  rifles as well as  pistols equipped with scopes.
I don't particularly like scopes for several reasons:  1) Live, moving targets are difficult to reacquire in the event of a miss. 2) As a hunter, I placed more value on the art of stalking, rather than long range shooting. 3) In the military, I never used one because I wasn't issued one.
4) I, as would anyone familiar with shooting, never attempt to use a) a very cheap scope  B) one that is misaligned as a result of it's mounting   c) a scope that has not been sighted in before each shooting venture.

Furthermore, I have found NO substantiated proof of your "Magic Limb".

It has never been proven to me that LHO ever shot at Gen. Walker. Other than Ozzie being a "dirty red commie", why would he have? Just target practice for the President? Perhaps you feel that he was a "mad dog killer" that truly needed no motive other than the "thrill of the kill".

Please list the forensic and ballistic experts, to whom you have referred, and who have made a study of this particular case. As a particular treat for, we the unknowing, how about some scholastic refernces if you feel that we the few that can read might be interested.

I say now, hopefully for the last time, that I will not respond further to your unsubstantiated meanderings, that haplessly range from the T.H. Purvis geneologicasl study of Southern Aristocracy, to your "magic limb' theory, and forward to your belief that only you personally truly understand the complexities of firearm operation.

So long Tom

Charlie Black

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Tom, are not barrels generally angled upwards to compensate for drop? This upwards trajectory intersects line of sight about after 25 feet, and again after say 200 feet depending on how the scope is adjusted? Also firing down or up as opposed to vertical introduces another set of factors. Also coreolis force here plays a minor role. All up I wonder if you might not be making wrong assumptions?

It's possible that such a shot as you suggest would in fact tend to be high to an inexperienced scope shooter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



The fixed/non-adjustable sights on the 91/38 short rifle are "zeroed" at 300 meters.
This being the point at which line-of-sight across the rifle sight, intersects with the rising arc of the bullet line-of-flight.

Therefore, even a 150-foot distant shot would have struck somewhat low unless compensated for in sighting/sight picture.
When firing through a scope which is mounted 2-inches higher than the centerline of the rifle barrel, the bullet exits the rifle at a full two inches lower than the line-of-sight.

#42 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,306 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 15 August 2005 - 04:11 PM

Tom, are not barrels generally angled upwards to compensate for drop? This upwards trajectory intersects line of sight about after 25 feet, and again after say 200 feet depending on how the scope is adjusted? Also firing down or up as opposed to vertical introduces another set of factors. Also coreolis force here plays a minor role. All up I wonder if you might not be making wrong assumptions?

It's possible that such a shot as you suggest would in fact tend to be high to an inexperienced scope shooter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[/quote]


The fixed/non-adjustable sights on the 91/38 short rifle are "zeroed" at 300 meters.
This being the point at which line-of-sight across the rifle sight, intersects with the rising arc of the bullet line-of-flight.

Therefore, even a 150-foot distant shot would have struck somewhat low unless compensated for in sighting/sight picture.
When firing through a scope which is mounted 2-inches higher than the centerline of the rifle barrel, the bullet exits the rifle at a full two inches lower than the line-of-sight.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[/quote]

Edited by John Dolva, 15 August 2005 - 04:19 PM.


#43 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,306 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 15 August 2005 - 04:17 PM

OOps , sorry Tom,Mark, my mistake. I wrote feet where it should be yards. It rises and intersects line of sight at about 25 yards, curving in a parabola and dropping again intersecting at say 200yards (dapending on factors). This second intersect during the drop of the parabola is what its zeroed to. Not rise.

#44 Charles Black

Charles Black

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:History<br />Sports<br />Fishing<br />Shooting

Posted 15 August 2005 - 04:38 PM

Should any members be still interested in this purely speculative thread, please consider the following.

Tom Purvis has no doubt spent an estraordinarily great amount of time, both in this thread and in many others, which have focused, as best that I can ascertain, on his speculation that LHO did in fact shoot Pres. Kennedy with his MC rifle which was purchased from Kleins Sporting Goods.

This expenditure of time and effort has culminated in this particular thread and is based on
this above cited assumption. I do not question his right to this or to any other theory. However I do question some of the "facts" which he refers to.

In my post #35 of this current thread, I requested referenced substantiation of his "facts" and theories. What I would like to see is, but is not limited to, the following:
1) "please list the forensic and ballistics experts" referred to who have made a study of "this" case and references to those particular works.
2) Please explain "proven that LHO shot at Gen. Walker"--------
I personally have no faith in the validity of the testimony of Marina Oswald, particularly at this point in her life. I cannot prove, but I most certainly believe, that these statements, which were made regarding this particular time period, were made under extreme duress. I do not understand how anyone might study the methodology used by both the WC interrogators and the FBI and not determine that their goal was to produce "Only" the answers which they sought. I feel that due to this power held over Marina, a Russian immigrant and the alledged Presidential assassin's wife, and who was also potentially an accomplice after the fact, that both the FBI and the WC could have enlisted any testimony that they desired from Marina (as they certainly did from a great many of the other witnesses).

3) Please show "substantial proof of the existence of your `magic limb'."

I feel that without, at least all of the above, this line of reasoning has been both a waste of time and an excercise in futility. This also, is in itself OK, unless one conjectures that this same time and very strong effort may have been directed toward a more promising end.

Charlie Back

#45 Guest_Alan Healy_*

Guest_Alan Healy_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 August 2005 - 06:14 PM

Okay,
it would be nice to have other examples but if I could base my conclusion on this alone, I would say the back wound to JFK was not made by a wadcutter bullet.

There is a certain degree of ragidness to Toms example but overall it is a smooth, typical bullet wound.

The wound to JFK has(from a laymans POV) sn extreemly unusual feature.
Not only is it ragged all the way around its circumference but it has these slithers of skin/flesh which I would expect to be burnt away by the heat generated by a bullet fired from a gun.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Thanks for reposting that for us Tom.

Alan

Unlimited & free picture hosting.
http://www.imageshack.us/




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users