What physical properties (re trajectory, etc) preclude the Dal-Tex bldg as a "sniper nest position?

For which shot? As well as from what position/location.

Last time that I looked, it was a pretty big building.

knowing what's currently known concerning (the autopsy and trajectory) wounds on Kennedy and Connally's body. Would the current SBT work, if say 3 rifle shots as described in the SS/FBI reenactments and/or Mr. West plats, have originated from, say, the 3rd floor on up in Dal-Tex building?

Fair & logical question!


Shot#1: Had this shot been fired from the approximate SW corner of the building, then the bullet could have gone through JFK and thereafter struck JBC in the right shoulder.
However! Due to the slight left-to-right trajectory, the bullet would not have exited from JBC's right side mid-chest/under the breast nipple.
Instead, it would have exited farther to the right side of the arm (from the point of entry) as looking at JBC's back.
(assuming JBC sitting and facing forward.

Were JBC turned to his far right for some unknown reason, then yes, the bullet could have struck in the rear armpit area and exited below the nipple in the front chest.

If one moved farther North in the building, along the west wall, then the JFK/JBC wound alignment becomes considerably more in correct alignment with JBC sitting and facing forward.


Questions on #1?

"If one moved farther North in the building, along the west wall, then the JFK/JBC wound alignment becomes considerably more in correct alignment with JBC sitting and facing forward."

vicinity of the fire escape?

Correct!


http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/ike5big.jpg

But with my "credibility problem", what would I know about it??????


P.S. One could not move too far up the North Wall, as well as they would have to be high enough to avoid this, the overhead street light which most seem to have forgotten about.

Which by the way has a relationship with "Point A"!

Tom,

If this were the case would not the shooter be firing directly over the SS follow up car? From that 3rd floor what would the declining angle of the rifle be?

Interestingly, if we replicate JBC wounds at 223 our shooter is about 8 inches over the county records roof......Give or take 1/2 degree. And accepting the standard that the wound declines at 25 and right to lefts at 20-23.

The reason I ask about the angle for the 3rd DT is the SS follow up car windshield height is minimum 54". Can we clear a shot from there. I know the second floor hits the glass about 8" below the top.

Oh yes and I will be writing an apology for the credibility crack shortly. Your ideas are far more sound than they appeared once I sorted out the explanations.


Mike

The variables for a potential shot from the Dal-Tex building can not be made to eliminate the possibility of a shot having eminated from there.

Problem being that for a single position, what would potentially work for one of the shots, would have some form of interference for at least one, if not both of the other shots.

Then of course there is the problem with the wounds in correlating any specific location to the downward angle associated with the wounds.

Nevertheless, this building can not be ruled out merely because one is of the opinion that all three shots came from the sixth floor of the TSDB.

Just that there is zero evidence of any shot having been fired from the Dal-Tex bldg.


Oh yes and I will be writing an apology for the credibility crack shortly.

Most assuredly not necessary on my end, and it would ultimately come down to who/which may have been the biggest offender.

As you are no doubt aware, we have both encountered a whole lot of "wannabe's".

On these forums as well as elsewhere in life.

In only a few days, you have demonstrated far more grasp and understanding of the factual evidence than virtually anyone else on any of these forums.

Call it a "draw" between two who by all appearances, have been there--done that, and now recognize that they both have and continue to serve the same cause with a somewhat mutual respect for each other's contributions as well as capabilities.

And, rest assured that there are others, however limited in numbers, who are climbing onto this train as well and they are also true "researchers".

The windshield trim shot may have come from the Dal-Tex building.

No Don it could not have.

Relate the hole then align it back on the horizontal plane, it struck at 4 degrees. From here we can then get a general measurement to the SS follow up car, figure in the 4 degrees and realize that it would not have cleared the ss car windshield.



Mike

Then a draw it is. Thank You.


Mike

In your theory only, look at the vertical plane and you will see a shot from the right of the limo totally missing the SS follow up car.

Ok then at what frame do you suspect this happened? And where do you place your shooter?

You do realize of course that this could not have been a direct impact, and was likely caused during the head shot sequence right?

Duncan MacRae

Ok Duncan,

So when did this fellow take his shot and where did it go?

I don't know Mike, I'm just submitting this for those who have not previously seen it, and for those better educated at trajectories than I am, to either confirm it as a possibility or slay it to death.


Duncan

Since I don't have my copies of the survey plat before me--mainly because I don't own copies of the survey plat--I'd like Prof. Purvis to go into a little more detail--for the benefit of those who, like me, may seem a little dense about this--on how all this ties in to "Point A"...

Not trying to be difficult here, Tom...just trying to understand the relationships.

Mark;

I am well aware that I often speak in terms which have not been fully explained.

First off.

If you will recall from long ago, "Point/Position "A" was nothing more than a point at which the WC attempted go begin their survey work in lieu of utilization of the previously established horizontal control which Mr. West had fully established during the SS work of December 2, 3, & 4th of 1963.

They had Mr. West make distance references to this point, as well as "C", all of which tells one absolutely nothing as no one had any idea as to exactly where and how these points were established.

However! To the benefit of most of us, Mr. West utilized his original horizontal control stationing for the WC work, which in turn gives us an exact reference between the SS work; FBI work; and the WC work.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0050a.htm

This is of course "Position "A".

It was established in the far right hand lane (direction of travel) through the intersecting alignment (view) from the Zapruder position (across edge of sign) and a view from the sixth floor window which utilized the post which supported the red light as a reference point.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0453b.htm


My referenc, to what was utilized as a reference point for "position "A", was merely to point out that dependent upon certain positions within the Dal-Tex building, the red light and supporting arm which held the red light out over Elm St. could create interference in obtaining a shot at JFK at specific locations as the limo moved down Elm St.

All of which is dependent entirely on what elevation one would place the purportedly potential shooter in the Dal-Tex building.

IMO, the bullet from the 2nd floor struck the chrome trim, (direct hit) split into pieces. One piece hit the rearview mirror then hit the windshield. When the 2nd floor shot occured the president's limo was in the area of Johnson's car in the Altgens 6 photo.

Don

Don,

What ballistic evidence can you offer to support that? Or is this simply a guess?

Might want to read what Frazier had to say about this. It was not and could not have been a direct hit.


Mike

Or is this simply a guess?



Just in case you have not caught on, that is how much of the JFK assassination research is conducted.


With that stated, I will now pull out my OUIJI Board and Crystal ball and briefly discuss the two remaining shots which also struck JFK (in the head).

Tom,

Nope no guess. The Carcano at the average velocity yields 1701 ft lbs of energy from an intact 161 grain projectile. The trim covering on the limo, as in the replica is about 1/16" thick and the steel mullion under that was basically 1/8" walled reenforced(had to be with a convertable) tubing.

The trim itself was not steel, but chrome covered tin. The steel underneath was not hardened.

If we look into these metals, and the required 1/4 inch punch pressure of the same, we can, and would see, that the projectile had to be at less than full velocity. Full velocity would have yielded a complete penetration, and a far more significant amount of damage to the chrome strip.

I think that Frazier was pretty well on the nail when he swung that hammer.


Mike

It seems to me that some here are proposing the possibility of multiple shooters at multiple locations, while others are propounding one shooter firing from one location, the latter ruling out any possibility of a particular shot based upon the supposed facts that /A/ the inability of a shot to have been fired at "a" particular point in time and have hit something in particular precludes such a shot have been fired at any time to hit anything, and /B/ if there was more than one shooter, all "must" have been using the same shitty Carcano rifles.

Am I to understand that there was never a time that anyone anywhere in or on the Dal-Tex building could have fired a shot that hit JFK ever? Am I likewise to understand that the only proof of such as shot is its hitting its target? And also that if someone made a shot from there and it did not hit its intended target, then it was not taken?

Understand that I'm not propounding that a shot did come from Dal-Tex, where in Dal-Tex it may have come from, when it was taken, nor to where it might have gone. I am merely asking if the possibility of a Dal-Tex shot is ruled out at all times, from all places, from hitting anything at any place along the route. Nobody ever had a clear shot, even if it missed.

I'd also ask, relative to the windshield "hit" (if that's what it was), for any projectile travelling at any speed, first off: how slow would it have to be going to cause only that amount of damage if in fact the damage was caused by a projectile; and second: if a bullet of any caliber was travelling at that speed, what would happen to a human body - or, in particular, its head - if it was struck by that projectile?

If nothing, then I agree: there'd be no sense in using such a round.

I don't recall if Tony Marsh had ever posted photos - say, from Love Field or along the parade route - that showed that there was not a dent in the windshield frame prior to Dealey Plaza. Presuming for a minute that he did (where's Robin Unger when you need him?), then would we all agree that the damage must have been or at least most likely was incurred during the course of the shooting?

If the damage was not there prior, but was there by the time everyone got to Parkland, if we cannot pinpoint exactly what caused the damage or - assuming it was a shot - where it may have been fired (or thrown!) from, must we then conclude either /a/ the damage happened elsewhere or /b/ the damage didn't happen at all?

Is there ever a possibility that anything can happen without leaving behind a clue to the cause of its occurrence, or do all things leave behind discernable evidence and is all such evidence always found?

Just trying to nail down what our point of reference is here. All the theoretical expertise in the world does not a fact make.

I'm also looking at the photo referenced earlier (http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/ike5big.jpg - may have to cut-and-paste to see, they don't like remote referencing for some reason) and am wondering what the traffic signals have to do with a shot from anywhere in Dal-Tex?

EDITED:

Duke.

About a year ago i posted a "LARGE" image of a Dillard photo showing the inside of the Limo taken at Love field.
I purchased it from Corbis for $250.00 it did not appear to show a dent.


http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/10748.jpg

Was not referencing your work as being a "guess"!

A hypothesis based on educated and informed evaluation of the factual evidence, is called scientific research.

Thinking that a full velocity bullet only created a minor dent into the molding is a Guess.

Actually, it is a "WAG"!

Wild A**ed Guess!

"An" hypothesis!

Postulating that it was a "full velocity" bullet is also a guess.

"Full" velocity is different for any type of ammo/weapon combination. For example, a bullet travelling at 1150 fps muzzle velocity is a "full velocity" bullet if it's a .22 LR, but not if it's a .223 Remington with a standard muzzle velocity of 3330 fps (source, Table 1.0), which would only be going a bit more than 1/3 of its "full" velocity at the same speed. An under-loaded round would likewise have a reduced muzzle velocity.

Which brings us to the damage any such slug might cause, it is not solely a question of velocity, but also of mass. A .30-06 round with a muzzle velocity of 2700 fps will pack a greater punch than a .223 round travelling at 3330 fps (2466 v. 966 ft/lb); using only simple mathematics, that same .30-06 slug would pack roughly equal "stopping power" travelling at just under 1100 fps if it was under-loaded by 2/3.

Presuming any such bullet to be an 1800± fps MC round is a mistake (or, if you prefer, an assumption), just as is saying that a .30-06 will "always" produce more damage because it's a heavier load, or that a .223 will "always" do more damage because it's a faster-moving projectile.

Thus the argumentis invalid if only on account of the fact that you've no idea what kind of projectile might've caused it or at what speed it was travelling.

... But it's an argument easily worthy of Posner or Myers (incomplete data -> final result)!

We remain at the position that, if there was no dent at Love Field or along the parade route, but there was afterward, then something in Dealey Plaza caused it even if we don't know what it was. And to say that "if it wasn't a 6.5 MC round, then it wasn't there" is an obvious fallacy.

Consider these:

An under-loaded round will sound like a pop, firecracker when fired.

The first shot sounded like a firecracker.

A diversion was created with the first shot hitting the chrome trim, this made the SS in the follow-up car look back and soon after the first round of shots came in from different directions.

Don

Yes in an attempt to kill a President, I would intentionally create a diversion, with a deliberate miss, rather than just shoot the target.

Heh! Heh! Heh!

I was biting my tongue on that one.

Am obviously getting better in old age or else just glad to have a "spelloff" on some of this.

Don't give up, there are a limited few who are actually paying attention.

Personally, with the above scenario, makes one wonder exactly why Greer; Kellerman; Nellie; JBC; Jackie: and JFK merely sat around waiting for the true/non diversionary shot.

Was it one of them "silent bullets" that struck the trim and therefore made no noise whatsoever?

Inquiring minds, as well as the National Inquirer, want to know.

I'm beginning to think this thread is a meeting of the Mutual Admiration Society.

Happy to flick off those pesky little gnats with sardonic asides as with not responding to those which are perhaps a tad more challenging and continuing with sweeping generalities.

If, as noted before, there was no dent in the windshield frame at Love Field, and there was one at Parkland, then I guess one of those "full velocity" "silent bullets" that "made no noise whatsoever" must've done it.

Unless there's another solution?

And how do we know there was "no noise whatsoever?" The acoustics analysis, for whatever weight you might give it, did not attempt to analyze where any impulses there may have been had emanated from - whether the TSBD or elsewhere, or anywhere in particular from the TSBD - so to say that a noise that was not analyzed did not come from any particular location is, again, a fallacy. "I heard a noise but don't know where it came from, so that fallen tree over there didn't make it." Hullo?!?

Still haven't heard back on the question of how you know any "full velocity" round was involved since, presumably lacking evidence of that what kind of round it may have been, we don't know what its full velocity was.

You're offering presumptions as proof and derision to create doubt. If this is a crusade, I fear it's failing miserably.

As near as I have been able to determine, there is little physical evidence that would indicate anything but a 6.5mm Carcano was fired that day.

Unless you are thinking it possible someone was plinkin away at the President with a .22 then a less than full velocity strike to the chrome would stand. Im sure Tom would know that as well as I do. I just add this for you, because you may not be aware of the impact energy of some projectile.

I also do agree with you that there was no damage to the chrome at Love Field. It had to have happened during the shooting event.

And the answer is:

Gee Tom, why was it again we were examining a Carcano Bullet??

Gee Tom, why was it again we were examining a Carcano Bullet??

However remote the possibilitly, there may actually be those persons who are attempting to resolve the issues based on a proper examination of the evidence.

As opposed to hunting mythological creatures and beings.


Perhaps if one orients the photo to it's proper flight attitude the it may assist in unraveling some of the confusion/controversy.

Now! For those who are unaware, merely because I "flipped" the photo, it does not mean that this represents the nose of a Carcano bullet, when "properly interpreted"!

Quoting three, four, then five lengthy posts merely to call out one sentence of the last one is a terrible waste of space. Most can remember what was said in the post above what they're reading. My pet peeve having been walked ....

What we're looking at is the tail end of a Carcano bullet sans lead core. It weighs about 21 grains, and was found in the front seat area of the limo by the USSS on Friday night and turned over to the FBI. It's about 1/8th of the bullet.

What seems to be lacking here is any kind of flattening that would suggest that it caused the dent; the forward end isn't "mushroomed," but more "torn." No dispute about it being a Carcano bullet; the question is if it is either proved or inferred to have been what caused the dent, which is fairly substantial. My vote is for inferred unless there's an analysis of the dent that shows the same composition of metal on it.

My recollection is that there is testimony or a report to the effect that the windshield-frame damage had occurred elsewhere, and that therefore it was not tested for this purpose. It is true, though, that both things can't be true: the damage "caused by Q-3" (aka CE569) could not have been there before the shooting.

If there is license to infer that 569 caused the dent, but if those responsible for the vehicle say that the dent was already there, there likewise is license to infer that, if there was no damage at Love Field and there was at Parkland, then either /a/ those responsible are mistaken about it being there already, or /b/ that something other than a Carcano bullet struck the frame.

Clearly, inference is not proof in either case. But disproving an inference cannot be done by making a different inference.

Incidentally, Frazier said that they could not state that any of the fragments were from one or more slugs: "they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of course, they could be parts of separate bullets," he testified. Not even a percentage of likelihood that they were parts of the same bullet came from his lips.

Simple point: there is no proof as to the cause and origin of the dent, whether by a Carcano bullet or something completely different. No proof, therefore, of a "full velocity" round. Try as anyone might to suggest otherwise, it remains ambiguous if only because what "the" or "a" bullet supposedly hit was not tested to find out what hit it.

But at least we agree that it probably occurred during the shooting sequence.

Duke,

If we look at the ballistics of medium velocity and high velocity projectiles, and their impact energies, and relate that directly to the pressures required to penetrate the trim and steel, there are but 2 conclusions.

A) The damage was caused by a full velocity impact from a .22 or/
It was caused by a less than full velocity impact from virtually any other type of rifle.

Even the impact energies created by a .22 magnum would have caused more damage. Its really just that simple.

One does not have to assess every other rifle one just has to eliminate the .22, which would be rather ridiculous for someone to be using in this situation.

I do not believe the damage was existing, but I have not found any photo yet that fully proves this. The picture Robin posted earlier is about as good as it gets, but the area of damage still would not be visible in that photo.



Mike

Thomas,

After the shot, JFK stop waving and turned his head to the right. Jackie turned her head to the left. The shot was not silent to witnesses in Dealey Plaza… the man on the fire escape jumped up quickly and others close to the limo heard what sounded like a firecracker in the limo.

Did you know that CE 569 and CE 567 are fragments from the same bullet? CE 569 is the base and CE 567 is the flattened center cone of the bullet. You can see the base was torn from the top portion of the bullet upon impact. The base is flattened more on one side meaning that it hit on an angle. See the pictures below.

What is the comparison in size of a 6.5mm bullet to a .22 bullet?

Don

Don,

First I would have to ask how you come to the conclusion that the two fragments are from the same bullet?

A .22 caliber bullet is about .040 smaller, about 7/8 of an inch shorter and about 130 grains lighter.

What does the man on the fire escape prove exactly?

Mike,

The answer to your question was in my post:

Did you know that CE 569 and CE 567 are fragments from the same bullet? CE 569 is the base and CE 567 is the flattened center cone of the bullet. You can see the base was torn from the top portion of the bullet upon impact. The base is flattened more on one side meaning that it hit on an angle.

Don

So your basis for this is your own observation? I think that is pretty remarkable considering Frazier could not even come to that conclusion.

One was determined to the base, and one the nose, but I dont recall reading anything, by someone who actually examined the fragments, that determined they were from the same projectile.

It proves that something below him startled him and his reaction is to get up out of the way.



Yep. Who is this Frazier person you speak of? If he were any good he would have noted that the base was ripped from the cone upon impact. These two fragments are from one bullet fired from the 2nd floor of the Dal-Tex building.

IMO, the Carcano bullet that hit the chrome trim is a "Set-Up the Patsy Bullet."

Don

Don,

I hardly think that the man on the fire escape jumping up could be used as evidence of where the shot came from. I think thats asking to assume a a lot.