I have been seriously researching the JFK Assassination for some fourteen years. What I bring into it is a background in weaponry, ballistics, crime scene investigative techniques and an understanding for sniper deployment and procedures. I have never accepted the official version of a lone sniper achieving the feat from a location 60’ above in the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Then add to this official account, the capabilities of the weapon and shooter that was accepted by the Warren Commission and later the HSCA, it was ridiculous.

Wound ballistics became an immediate issue when I began researching the Kennedy assassination in order to determine a shot origin. While there is overwhelming evidence in my opinion of a shooter on the north knoll at the time of the assassination, I had issues with this angle of trajectory creating the head wound suffered by President Kennedy. The discovery of Badgeman by Jack White and Gary Mack in the Mooreman Photograph, witnesses who reported hearing shot(s) on the north knoll, Gordon Arnold’s reporting of a shooter there, as well as other sightings of shooters and smoke from that origin, leaves no doubt in my mind that shot(s) were fired from this location. That does not necessarily mean that the head wound was inflicted by this shot origin and in my opinion from my background in weaponry and wound ballistics, I believe that it was not.

There are issues to consider when determining a point of entrance. The greater fracturing of the skull will occur forward of the point of impact as the energy from the penetrating projectile will radiate forward along the trajectory path of the initial penetration point. As seen in the Zapruder film and after the lightening of the top of the head autopsy photos, a large defect was also found high on the head, right of midline and a flap of scalp and partial skull bone was attached to the flap. This is created when the penetration trajectory is shallow below the skull, creating the energy dispersion to push out against the fractured bone.

By noting where the skull fracture and flap begins, it is logical that the point of entry is close to that location. By following the trajectory back to the massive wound in the right portion of the occipital parietal, which was clearly seen at Parkland Hospital by medical personnel, it shows a true line of trajectory and shot origin.

The challenge to this line of trajectory in support of shot origin of the north knoll comes from many researchers and is supported by forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht. Dr. Wecht believes that a shot fired from the north knoll, striking the right temporal/parietal region of the president’s skull would DEFLECT and turn outward (left), maintaining a wound cavity to the right portion of the skull.

The problem with this is that penetration from a rifle caliber projectile that is traveling in excess of 1800fps and most likely above 2400fps, would not deviate outward, but actually slightly inward through skull penetration. The ratio of diameter v. length of the projectile penetrating through a multi-layed resistant surface, such as skull plating, would actually create a rollover effect through surface penetration. This would cause the projectile to turn slightly inward instead of deflecting upon penetration. This has been proven in wound ballistic testing through the work of Dr. Martin Fackler over the past twenty years and accepted by the NIJ in studies of wound ballistics in order to determine effectiveness in ballistic resistant materials in ballistic vests.

The problem this shot trajectory creates is that it shows a shot origin that is in conflict with the witnesses who made a determination on shot origin by what they heard. This shot trajectory would place a shot origin in the region of the south end of the overpass over some sixty feet to the south knoll parking lot. No witnesses reported hearing a shot from this location, other than one who has came forward as being part of an abort team. This witness I will address later.

With 200 plus witnesses in DP at the time of the assassination and none focusing on shots from this location, most researchers write off the likelihood of a south plaza shooter. They also have concerns with this exposed location. This can easily be explained by a common practice by military sniper teams in both urban and rural environments.

Often, the most ideal location for shot origin, especially on a moving target, is a location that exposes the shooter the greatest. Making the shot is only half the objective, the other is escaping either undetected or without being molested. The military found a practice to overcome this obstacle and it has been termed “Canyon Shoot”. This practice utilizes multiple snipers from locations suited to draw attention to those origins where they cannot be accessed, or by allowing the terrain to confuse the shot origin to the enemy present. The term “Canyon Shoot” was unofficially adopted when Sgt. Alvin York utilized various shot origins and the echo effects of the terrain to fool the enemy into believing they were surrounded, when in fact it was only he who was shooting.

In the case of Dealey Plaza, a shooter firing from the Texas School Book Depository would initially fire and the other shooters in the plaza would cue off the Depository shooter by startle reaction and fire a round immediately on top of the shot fired by the Depository shooter. Witnesses would detect the first sound and roughly identify a shot origin and this would cover the fire of the others shooters, deeper in the plaza. The echo effect of the Plaza would also aid in making the witnesses believe that it was shot reverberation that they were hearing deeper in the plaza. With another shooter firing from the North Knoll, this would direct witnesses along Elm and at the intersection of Elm and Houston to focus their attention on the area between the Depository and the Knoll. By utilizing startle reaction to cue simultaneous fire from three locations, three shots could easily sound like one.

The closest known witnesses to the South End Overpass/South Knoll position were James Tague who was positioned on Commerce under the overpass, two Dallas Police Officers and nine railroad employees atop the underpass over Elm, and Tosh Plumlee and an associate who were on the bank of the South Knoll. Tague did not hear a shot originate from overhead or to his left and rear, but his perception could easily have been hampered by the extreme echo effects of all shots reverberating under the underpass. The persons atop the underpass did not detect the shot fired to their left, but their attention was on the approaching motorcade and their attention was drawn to the shots fired from the north knoll, which was in the direct of the approaching motorcade and of nearly equal distance in comparison to the south origin. Plumlee and his associate, who he has reported as being sent to Dallas as part of an assassinations abort team, clearly heard a shot fired from behind them, that would put it in line with the shot origin I have been describing. Plumlee was also ex-military and was their to stop an assassination attempt, so he would be prepared for the sounds he was about to hear. He apparently also recognized the ideal location of the south knoll region as that is where he chose to station himself.

The most recent challenge to the South End of the Overpass/South Knoll shot origin comes from Sixth Floor Museum Curator Gary Mack. Mack has come forward with new reporter Bob Jett, who has claimed to have been in the South Knoll Parking Lot eating his lunch at the time of the assassination. Jett has stated that he saw no assassin and heard no shots fired from that origin. Jett was working at the time of the assassination. My question as to his credibility and presence is why did he not immediately report on air, witnessing the assassination? Why was he not called upon by the Warren Commission to testify as to what he saw and did not see? The Warren Commission directed questions at most witnesses as to whether they heard or saw anything suspicious in this region. Wouldn’t Jett have been the nail in the coffin they needed to disprove a shooter there?

Another established researcher who supports my belief of shot origin from the south end of overpass/south knoll region, is nationally recognized Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Expert and Instructor, Sherry Gutierrez. Sherry has presented at JFK Lancer November in Dallas Seminars in 2001 and 2003. In 2003, she partly focused on this shot origin. She has also produced threads on the Lancer Forum regarding this.

Beyond the headshot wound issue, I have also aligned this shot origin with the neck wound and have established it by showing Elm at a higher elevation at this point and how the shot would have to penetrate the windshield through its trajectory. This also explains the compromised velocity that would result in a shallower wound path. I have been challenged on this through photos including Altgens 6 and 7 and have provided arguments on both. Because this is already a rather complex subject, I will not go into detail on the throat wound.

Al Carrier

Wonderful points, I wonder what all it would take to get an experiment running to test the echo effect. This was really well-written, and I'm sure it'd be an eye opener for anyone who didn't previously consider the south Knoll. Congrats!

Great posting Al. I hope this is the beginning of a long thread:

In Harold Weisberg’s book Whitewash he states:

When the motorcade turned toward the Depository Building on Houston Street, for several hundred feet there was a completely unobstructed view of it from the sixth-floor window. The police photographs and the forgotten Secret Service reconstruction of 1963 also show this. There was not a twig between the window and the President. There were no curves in that street, no tricky shooting angles. If all the shots came from this window, and the assassin was as cool and collected as the Report represents, why did he not shoot at the easiest and by far the best target? Why did he wait until his target was so difficult that the country's best shots could not duplicate his feat?

Do you share Weisberg’s view that the fact that the firing did not start until the motorcade reached Elm Street, suggests that there must have been more than one gunman?

To help this discussion I have added a drawing of scene of the assassination.

A few years ago, a friend and I set of a fircracker on the southside of the tripple underpass.., about where we thought a shooter would have shot from. We watched the people who were standing around the kill zone and on the north knoll... They ALL first looked toward the north side of the underpass and some started walking that way. I found that interesting and then Dallas's fineist came and politely ask us to leave.

Yes, the plan required the TSBD shooter to wait in order to have triangulation of gunfire.

I imagine a lone nutter would say that Oswald waited because taking an easy frontal shot on Houston would lessen his chance of making a getaway. The source of the shot would be more obvious, and the Secret Service was directly facing the building.

Here is J. Edgar Hoover's lying explanation to the Warren Commission:

"Now, some people have raised the question: Why didn't he shoot the President as the car came toward the storehouse where he was working? The reason for that is, I think, the fact there were some trees between his window on the sixth floor and the cars as they turned and went through the park. So he waited until the car got out from under the trees, and the limbs, and then he had a perfectly clear view of the occupants of the car, and I think he took aim, either on the President or Connally, and I personally believe it was the President in view of the twisted mentality the man had."

Hoover was a fine one to talk about twisted mentality.

Ron

Very interesting and often overlooked problem with the Oswald/Lone Gunman theory. He was facing the President from the sixth floor when the 1963 Secret Service presidential limosine rounded the corner. Hoover's explanation is very weak. The delay and longer shot range from rear was part of a triangulated ambush out in the open with shooters on the Knoll (n/s) using the overpass RR tracks for escape routes, and rear shooters (Brading? Rooftop man?)
This postioning of JFK for the kill probably has to do with Point of View of Zapruder as well and expected echo distortion.
Oswald is so utterly discredited as sole assailant, this is just another coffin nail.
Thanks, Al, you add a lot to our group, excellent posting....
Shanet

Unfortunately, the South Knoll view that was described by Tosh is blocked by an overgrown tree. Here are photos I took last week of the South Knoll trajectory:

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Tim

John,

I agree with Ron and the late Harold Weisberg. There is no other explanation for it. Ron referred to a LNer stance that has also been taken by some CPers, that by firing at the President on Houston would have gave away the TSBD Shooter's position. While it is true that the Agents in the motorcade were facing the Depository at the time the limo was travelling down Houston, the reverberration amongst the three buildings at the intersection of Elm and Houston would have created greater confusion than shots being fired as the Limo proceeded down Elm. Due to the sixty foot elevation of the sixth floor and the elevation angle to target on Houston, the shooter could have sat back inside the window and engaged the target without windshield obstruction. Even if the Agents and LE were looking at the TSBD, the shooter could have fired without detection, other than a possible muzzle flash, that would not have stood out with the witnesses outside in the sunlight as they were.

I am always happy to see a quote from Harold Weisberg. I always admired him for his work and sacrifices and was fortunate enough to converse with him while he was still with us. I received a letter from him a year and a half before he died and will always keep it preserved as a reminder to the sacrifices that have been made in this research field.

Al

Tim,

Here is one I took in 2001.

Al

Al, the lines of trajectory in your 2001 photo appear to be converging at a projected rate that would make the source, or shooter's position, be somewhere in the middle Commerce, the most southern of the three Plaza streets, or right at the curb at best. I believe that Tosh's estimation that the South Knoll shooter would have been up the South Knoll near the tree line to be more a more reasonable projection, both in terms of concealability and escape. As I mentioned previously, I couldn't get a photo from the general line of sight you suggest from higher up the Knoll near or behind the fence, because of the overgrowth of the tree and because of a remarkably heightened level of security in the South Knoll parking lot.

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

As for your statement, "Often, the most ideal location for shot origin, especially on a moving target, is a location that exposes the shooter the greatest," do you mean that I am correct in seeing that the source of the two South Knoll shots you propose, which is unrevealed because it is just below the bottom edge of your photo, would have been near curbside rather than high up near the fence?

Click to view attachment

Tim

You might find this photograph useful:

You will find a collection of photographs of Dealey Plaza here:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JAMESdealey.htm

Let me know if you want any of them added to this thread.

Al,

Isn't it your view that the south knoll shooter was on the overpass, specifically behind the banister on the south end, where it slants eastward toward the parking lot? I believe this is what you have posted previously on the Lancer forum.

Interestingly, there is one significant witness who thinks a shot came from the overpass. At the 1996 December in Dallas conference, Mark Oakes showed a video interview with Dallas motorcycle officer H.B. McClain (he of the the stuck microphone fame), who states, "I think he was shot from that overpass and the picket fence." (Mark Oakes, "Witnesses to History," Kennedy Assassination Chronicles, Winter 1996-97, p. 49.)

Ron

Ron,

This photo is from the ideal trajectory point of the overpass, in which Elm St. is most directly coming toward the proposed overpass shooter's line of sight.

Click to view attachment

However, there is scant evidence of anyone on the south side of the overpass, in contrast to the numerous "railroad workers" hanging right right above the Elm St. motorcade route.

Click to view attachment

Tim

By the ideal point do you mean from behind the banister, where it slants eastward toward the parking lot? This is where Al placed the shooter, I believe.



I don't get your point here. Any shooter on the south end of the overpass would try to avoid being seen, so naturally there would be "scant evidence" of anyone there.

I believe Al has stated that anyone behind the banister where it slants at the south end could not be seen by the people who were standing at the north end, because of the slant. Did you take note of this when you were there, or do you agree?

Ron

Thanks Tim, Al, Ron: Good points. AND Good Pictures!

I think this south shooter was about even with the rail road tracks where the overpass has that south cover hooked wall, which is only a few feet from the (west) cornor edge of the parking lot or perhaps even on the tracks in line with the 'kill zone'. This position is about two or three feet higher than the south edge of the parking lot.

The reason I say this is because this position would be shooting down and direct in stright line with the Limo. If the shooter was at curb side he would be shooting slightly up hill (a low shoot into the Limo through the windsheld) and no cover for escape. I think the escape route was over the railroad tracks.., the same route (except further south of us) as Sergio and I left the Plaza. At the time there were weeds and a vacant, muddy parking area at the base of the railroad hill. (west side of tracks-- cover all the way down to Industrail Blvd.)

Ron:

1. I did not at all say "ideal point" but "ideal trajectory point," meaning the spot on the overpass with the optimally direct line of sight (minimal lateral movement of the motorcade).

2. Obviously, a shooter would "avoid being seen," but I was trying to take into account Al's seminar point that, "Often, the most ideal location for shot origin, especially on a moving target, is a location that exposes the shooter the greatest." The overpass had police atop it, along with an inexplicable (except to Gary Mack) number of railroad workers. We have photos showing these overpass spectators on the north side, but none on the south.

3. I did take note of "the bannister where it slants at the south end" of the overpass, but could not actually stand at that spot because there is now a gate blocking the south end of the pedestrian walkway atop the overpass precisely at the spot where the bannister angles. I do agree that this would be more concealed than any other place on the overpass, unless there was a policeman stationed at that end keeping spectators from wandering onto the pedestrian overpass. Nevertheless, this deviates from Al's seminar points here, as opposed to something that may have been said somewhere on Lancer, in that the lines of trajectory in Al's presentation here show a shooter far closer and exposed (which Al allowed for) than the spot you are attributing to him at the angled bannister, which is the most southwesterly spot in the Plaza. Admittedly, the spot to which you allude corresponds with Tosh Plumlee's impression of the location of the South Knoll shooter:

Click to view attachment

Here's Al's depiction of two South Knoll shot trajectories. Reversing these trajectories back to the shooter source, they describe a spot east of the bannister and much lower down toward street level.

Click to view attachment

John Simkin's previous posting of the aerial view of the Plaza may be helpful if Al uses it to pinpoint the spot from which he deduces the two shots emanated.

Click to view attachment

Extending Al's lines, they cross the landscaped "V" between Main and Commerce just west of where the grass ends, leading back to the spot in the following photo:

Click to view attachment

Tim

Tosh,

Did you mean to say the north edge of the south parking lot (the Plaza side)?

Tim

OK, I stand corrected. My question was, is this point, however you define it, behind the banister where it slants. But you have answered this with your statement that there is now a gate blocking the way to the slant in the banister.

Was there any reason evident why this area has been blocked with a gate? Not being there to see it myself, only two reasons come to mind: to keep people from going into the parking lot, or to keep researchers like you from checking out a shooter position. The second would be a most telling reason.



Al will have to address this. I have a paper copy of one of his Lancer posts, which I can't find by searching at Lancer. In my paper copy (of a post entitled "RE: 312-317 headshot sequence," dated 1/29/04):

" . . . to explain my position for the shot origin coming from the south end atop the triple underpass where the railing banks away from parallel, is to consider the following:

1 - This is the first available position from the left front where the shooter is hidden from the others atop the underpass.

2 - This allows for the great elevation over the support rod over the front seat of the limo.

3 - It is the best tracking angle for the limos movement once it hits Elm.

4 - It does not allow for obstruction of Jackie.

5 - It explains the shallow wound trajectory of the resulting skull flap and aligns the occipital parietal blowout in the right rear."



I don't understand that at all. Al will have to address it.

Ron

"A few years ago, a friend and I set of a fircracker on the southside of the tripple underpass.., about where we thought a shooter would have shot from. We watched the people who were standing around the kill zone and on the north knoll... They ALL first looked toward the north side of the underpass and some started walking that way. I found that interesting and then Dallas's fineist came and politely ask us to leave."

Tosh,

You've indicated many times you and Sergio were standing on the south knoll near the south end of the underpass during the shooting. You would have been within a stone's throw of the shooter if there was one in that position, yet you've said you heard a shot from the north knoll. The photos of the south knoll are few and of poor quality to say the least, but I don't recall seeing anyone there. You've indicated that you were sent to abort the assassination. A simple call to the Secret Service by whoever "sent" you would have aborted the motorcade. If Al's scenario is plausible, and I think it is, there is more to your story than meets the eye. Besides you and Sergio, was there a third person with you?

RJS

RJ: I have said many times we were standing on the south knoll near the sidewalk in line with the light poles next to the forked tree across from the 'kill zone' (south) That is approximately150 feet (east) of the south edge of the tripple underpass. I have never said " we were near the south end of the underpass", when the shoots were fired..". Also I never said "...I heard a shot from the north knoll...". I have always said, I felt, a shot came from the left of our position. That would make the shooter at the south end of the underpass, around the northwest corner of the parking lot or on the railroad tracks. Why is it so important to clutter what I have said. I think you should re read what I have certified.

And to your statement; "....a simple call to the Secret Service...". is a little simplification of speculation on your part. Either you are not versed in the real facts that lead up to that day are there is another reason for what you are indicating. " You do not recall seeing anyone there...". But you have just indicated to me that you were looking in the wrong place.., again indicating that we Sergio and I were not on the south knoll at all, thus implying I am not telling the truth of that day. Thats fine. But RJ get your facts straight as to what I have said before you try to establish you beliefs as facts.

If you are going to call me and imply then lets level the playing field and stick with the statements I have made and not drift into speculations based on wrong interpretations. "There is more to my story than meets the eye". Yes there is. That is why I am documenting and attempting to set the record straight when people say I said something I did not. To me it seems some want to lead me off into never never land, instead letting me document and say what I have to say about that day and let it stand on its own merits. I am beginning to suspect there is malice in this rather than simple misunderstandings.

Tim: Yes 'north' edge (or better-- the north west corner of the parking lot. The rail road tracks are about four feet higher than the parking lot itself. The bridge part that slants toward the parking lot is about two feet higher than the parking lot corner.

Ron,

Thank you for posting my previous post on Lancer. That is exactly what I am referring to. I believe this position also fits Tosh's view of where the shot originated from also. I am not locked into the South End atop the underpass, as a shot origin from the adjacent parking area also would achieve this shot angle and create the skull wound that was described by Parkland Medical Staff and what we see in Zapruder and others. Sherry's research into this supports this angle for shot origin and she accepts a range from center atop the underpass over Main to the central south reaches of the lot. The archives on Lancer are not up to find this diagram of hers and I cannot find her diagram that she sent me as part of her powerpoint presentation that I assisted her with. I will contact her in order to obtain it.

The overhead photo that Tim posted is the shot angle that I referred to and I don't understand where he is getting the low trajectory angle from a photograph of this nature. Maybe he can shed some light on this.

The reason I often refer to the south end atop the overpass is that it gives it the best pan angle on the limo as it proceeded down Elm with the greatest elevation over the limo's obstructions. In order to get a better pan angle, the shooter would have had to expose themselves to Foster and others atop the underpass over Elm.

When I went to the plaza in 2001, I noted the ideal location here and had my wife and daughter take up a position where Foster and others were over Elm and they could not see me.

Al

Tosh,

I don't see this as Richard being difficult or trying to disrupt what you are providing. I do see it as many having difficulty in seeing the motivation to send in a team to disrupt the assassination attempt, instead of getting JFK out of harms way. I have not always agreed with Richard, but have never disrespected his motives for his stances or challenges.

If I am reading your situation correctly at the time of the incident, you had little knowlege at the time for what you were walking into or the reasons for sending your team, beyond your objective. Now that is a shocker, huh! Keep the field ops blind and ask them to do their job without proper briefing. Another consistency throughout the years! Richard states "...a simple call to the Secret Service...". That would have likely prevented the assassination, but that also would add another link to the pattern that was already developing from Chicago on the 2nd and Miami on the 18th. Both the previous left a patsy to take the fall and some undesirables who knew the plan and all could start to link back to persons and operational bodies within the government. The problem at the time was nobody likely knew where it would lead back to. By notifying the SS of this third attempt for Nov '63, the SS would obviously start seeing a pattern and call these consistencies out for further formal investigation and that could be embarrassing to say the least to the intelligence community and the DOD. By Dallas, the DOD would obviously see this pattern and would want to stop the 22nd plan and then investigate it themselves to see who in their midst was a part of it. I am sure they would much rather look into their own closets in the DOD and DIA then have the justice department do it and blow the breakdown wide open.

I am sure you have a much better grip on these issues now than in '63 and maybe would not want to comment. Maybe I am way off. Or maybe I am not. I understand if you would not want to comment either way.

Al

Hi Al,

The overhead photo I posted was an extension of John Simkin's suggestion in this seminar that perhaps that view would be helpful, with the trajectories that you posted into a photo also in this seminar incorporated into the overhead. That is what I did with your photo, which doesn't show the source convergence of the two trajectories you've drawn. Before I actually incorporated your lines into the overhead, it appeared to me that these lines converge fairly closely to the street level, which is why I said: "Reversing these trajectories back to the shooter source, they describe a spot east of the bannister and much lower down toward street level."

Click to view attachment

Once I incorporated those trajectories, creating as much benefit of the doubt for the likelihood that a shooter would be somewhere near the parking lot/treeline, the lines still didn't quite make it to the very top, at the fence, but do appear to converge higher in the overhead than it appeared in your photo, where the source/convergence location was not in the frame, thereby requiring the extending of your lines in the overhead view. I undertook this exercise upon John's suggestion that an overhead view of the trajectories might be helpful. If you see the photos of the South Knoll I took last week, posted earlier in this seminar, perhaps one of those would be helpful for circling the precise spot you consider to have been optimal for the source of the two trajectories you show in your earlier photo.

Click to view attachment

Tim

Tim,

My photos originating form the actual location of shot origin did not turn out for some reason. I utilized a photo I took from over Commerce and utilized the lines of trajectory to show the angles of trajectory from the South. Hope the attached photo helps.

Al

Al,

Isn't that the same photo with the lines I drew in earlier today? This is the one I created, using your photo with trajectories drawn in, taken from Commerce.

Click to view attachment

As I said earlier, I was just trying to advance your case, applying John Simkin's suggestion that the trajectories be shown on an overhead.

Tim

Tim,

Yes, that is the same photo and your trajectories are correct. I simply placed a black box in for shot origin on the trajectories.

I appreciate what you and John are doing to make a better visual presentation for this thread.

Al

For what it's worth, I've had discussions on this topic with a friend who happens to be a Captain in Special Forces. I submitted a few questions to him, which he ran by some of his buddies in a sniper unit. They all agreed that one of the keys in sniping is not having to re-aim, and that this is much more important than being close to the target. They described the ideal location for shooting someone in the back of an open car as being high and behind the target...high so as to cut down the possibility of someone blocking their aim, and behind so that they get more than one shot without having to re-aim.

All the shots fired in Dealey came when the limousine was heading in an almost straight line away from the corner of Houston and Elm. Weisberg's argument aside, the sixth floor window was the ideal location within the TSBD. An even better location, however, was the top floors or roof of the Dal-Tex Building.

How about there being two directions from which a sniper would not have to re-aim, from directly in back and directly in front? Direct departing and direct approaching lines of sight would be optimal. Pat, your friend's correct that the "ideal location" would be that which involved the least need to "re-aim." Of course, that fact is more applicable to a telescopic sighting than a non-telescopic shot at a laterally moving target. I would hope to think that I have paid sufficient attention to Al's postings to know this would be true, in addition to common sense.

Tim

I think that this post is worth reviving. It is especially relevant with regard to Sherry Gutierez' presentation, which myslef, John Simkin and other Dealey Plaza Uk members witnessed in canterbury in March of this year.

I'm not necessarily reviving it so that people may once again post on it, rather I think it is important that people read it.

John

The challenge to this line of trajectory in support of shot origin of the north knoll comes from many researchers and is supported by forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht. Dr. Wecht believes that a shot fired from the north knoll, striking the right temporal/parietal region of the president’s skull would DEFLECT and turn outward (left), maintaining a wound cavity to the right portion of the skull.

The problem with this is that penetration from a rifle caliber projectile that is traveling in excess of 1800fps and most likely above 2400fps, would not deviate outward, but actually slightly inward through skull penetration. The ratio of diameter v. length of the projectile penetrating through a multi-layed resistant surface, such as skull plating, would actually create a rollover effect through surface penetration. This would cause the projectile to turn slightly inward instead of deflecting upon penetration. This has been proven in wound ballistic testing through the work of Dr. Martin Fackler over the past twenty years and accepted by the NIJ in studies of wound ballistics in order to determine effectiveness in ballistic resistant materials in ballistic vests.

Hi Al

I'm with Cyril on this. My years of press tool design and manufacture experience and basic physics (a entity moves along the least line of resistance) tells me that a hole punch which doesn't meet a balanced resistance (ie. a flat strip of material) will deflect toward the least line of resistance.
If the bullet had hit JFK's head with a glancing collision IMO it would deflect (however small) away from the curvature of the skull. (It will still penetrate the skull due to its force)
Have you a link to the ballistics paper of Dr Fackler?

Chris Brown.

The challenge to this line of trajectory in support of shot origin of the north knoll comes from many researchers and is supported by forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht. Dr. Wecht believes that a shot fired from the north knoll, striking the right temporal/parietal region of the president’s skull would DEFLECT and turn outward (left), maintaining a wound cavity to the right portion of the skull.

The problem with this is that penetration from a rifle caliber projectile that is traveling in excess of 1800fps and most likely above 2400fps, would not deviate outward, but actually slightly inward through skull penetration. The ratio of diameter v. length of the projectile penetrating through a multi-layed resistant surface, such as skull plating, would actually create a rollover effect through surface penetration. This would cause the projectile to turn slightly inward instead of deflecting upon penetration. This has been proven in wound ballistic testing through the work of Dr. Martin Fackler over the past twenty years and accepted by the NIJ in studies of wound ballistics in order to determine effectiveness in ballistic resistant materials in ballistic vests.

Hi Al

I'm with Cyril on this. My years of press tool design and manufacture experience and basic physics (a entity moves along the least line of resistance) tells me that a hole punch which doesn't meet a balanced resistance (ie. a flat strip of material) will deflect toward the least line of resistance.
If the bullet had hit JFK's head with a glancing collision IMO it would deflect (however small) away from the curvature of the skull. (It will still penetrate the skull due to its force)
Have you a link to the ballistics paper of Dr Fackler?

Chris Brown.