A Criticism of DVP

[Robert Prudhomme]

Ok, I'll bite:

Where did the bullet go, Robert?

LOL I love a good sport, Greg.

I'm just running out to do a job but I'll respond to this later today.

[Greg Burnham]

That's what you said on my forum, too. But you never did deliver.

[Cliff Varnell]

The root facts of the case:

JFK had an entrance wound in his throat with no corresponding exit; no bullet recovered at the autopsy.

He had an entrance wound in his back with no corresponding exit; no bullet recovered at the autopsy.

Central question relating to the murder of JFK: what happened to the bullets causing the throat and back wounds?

The historical record indicates two possibilities.

Members of the Secret Service conspired with members of the US military to alter JFK's body prior to the autopsy.

And/Or

Members of the Staff Support Group within US Army Special Operations Division, based at Fort Detrick , Maryland, are Persons of Interest, on record as having tested high tech weaponry firing rounds which wouldn't show up in an autopsy.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[James R Gordon]

There is a third reason

The root facts of the case:

JFK had an entrance wound in his throat with no corresponding exit; no bullet recovered at the autopsy.

He had an entrance wound in his back with no corresponding exit; no bullet recovered at the autopsy.

Central question relating to the murder of JFK: what happened to the bullets causing the throat and back wounds?

The historical record indicates two possibilities.

Members of the Secret Service conspired with members of the US military to alter JFK's body prior to the autopsy.

And/Or

Members of the Staff Support Group within US Army Special Operations Division, based at Fort Detrick , Maryland, are Persons of Interest, on record as having tested high tech weaponry firing rounds which wouldn't show up in an autopsy.

There is another possible reason. The ammunition might have been old and spent. I understand that in the early 1960's ammunition for the Mannlicher Carcano dates to the early 1950's. I understand the makers of that ammunition did not have any that was newer than the 1950's Therefore it is not impossible that it was a spent bullet that was unable to penetrate.

When the Haag's undertook their experiment for Cold Case they used quality ammunition and we saw the penetrating power of a Carcano bullet when it was it was in top condition.

Had the bullet that caused the back wound - especially if it was quality ammunition - would have gone right through JFK and Connally as the Haag's demonstrated and possibly still have power left.

James.

[Cliff Varnell]

There is a third reason

The root facts of the case:

JFK had an entrance wound in his throat with no corresponding exit; no bullet recovered at the autopsy.

He had an entrance wound in his back with no corresponding exit; no bullet recovered at the autopsy.

Central question relating to the murder of JFK: what happened to the bullets causing the throat and back wounds?

The historical record indicates two possibilities.

Members of the Secret Service conspired with members of the US military to alter JFK's body prior to the autopsy.

And/Or

Members of the Staff Support Group within US Army Special Operations Division, based at Fort Detrick , Maryland, are Persons of Interest, on record as having tested high tech weaponry firing rounds which wouldn't show up in an autopsy.

There is another possible reason. The ammunition might have been old and spent. I understand that in the early 1960's ammunition for the Mannlicher Carcano dates to the early 1950's. I understand the makers of that ammunition did not have any that was newer than the 1950's Therefore it is not impossible that it was a spent bullet that was unable to penetrate.

But James, they did penetrate.

Seems to me this is part of the pre-autopsy surgery scenario -- JFK was hit with defective rounds which were removed prior to the autopsy.

When the Haag's undertook their experiment for Cold Case they used quality ammunition and we saw the penetrating power of a Carcano bullet when it was it was in top condition.

Had the bullet that caused the back wound - especially if it was quality ammunition - would have gone right through JFK and Connally as the Haag's demonstrated and possibly still have power left.

James.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Robert Prudhomme]

Words for the day:

"open pneumothorax"

"closed or 'tension' pneumothorax"

"chest drainage tube"

[Ron Ecker]

I find it incredible that conspirators behind the JFK assassination would come up with defective rounds to use. I mean, you go to all that trouble and then, uh-oh, these bullets don't work.

Did Oswald buy that MC rifle on his own? If so, for what purpose? To shoot General Walker? I have always assumed that he was put up to it, just like he was put up to hand out those leaflets in New Orleans and take a trip to Mexico City. He had handlers. So why wouldn't his handlers see that he at least bought a rifle with some available ammunition?

[Robert Prudhomme]

There is a third reason

The root facts of the case:

JFK had an entrance wound in his throat with no corresponding exit; no bullet recovered at the autopsy.

He had an entrance wound in his back with no corresponding exit; no bullet recovered at the autopsy.

Central question relating to the murder of JFK: what happened to the bullets causing the throat and back wounds?

The historical record indicates two possibilities.

Members of the Secret Service conspired with members of the US military to alter JFK's body prior to the autopsy.

And/Or

Members of the Staff Support Group within US Army Special Operations Division, based at Fort Detrick , Maryland, are Persons of Interest, on record as having tested high tech weaponry firing rounds which wouldn't show up in an autopsy.

There is another possible reason. The ammunition might have been old and spent. I understand that in the early 1960's ammunition for the Mannlicher Carcano dates to the early 1950's. I understand the makers of that ammunition did not have any that was newer than the 1950's Therefore it is not impossible that it was a spent bullet that was unable to penetrate.

When the Haag's undertook their experiment for Cold Case they used quality ammunition and we saw the penetrating power of a Carcano bullet when it was it was in top condition.

Had the bullet that caused the back wound - especially if it was quality ammunition - would have gone right through JFK and Connally as the Haag's demonstrated and possibly still have power left.

James.

While Italian military surplus ammunition for the 6.5mm Carcano, mostly made by the firm SMI, was often found to be defective (mostly due to corrosive primers and poor crimping of bullets in the cartridge necks that allowed gunpowder to deteriorate), the track record for the 6.5mm Carcano ammunition made by the Western Cartridge Co. was much better, with virtually no reports of misfires, hangfires or short shots reported, even in WCC 6.5 Carcano ammo fired in the last ten years. In a well made and well sealed cartridge, age makes little difference, and the ammunition being almost ten years old at the time of the assassination should not have been a contributing factor.

I think we are all familiar with the details of the back wound. FBI agents Sibert and O'Neil watched Commander Humes attempt to insert a finger into the back wound, fail and declare the back wound to be shallow and non-penetrating. The theory goes that the bullet fell out at Parkland during attempts to resuscitate JFK.

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly CT's accepted this description of the back wound as Gospel. I think the main reason it was so readily accepted is that it contradicted the through and through wound that was the basis for the SBT. Unfortunately, this has prevented most researchers from taking a harder look at the "shallow" back wound story, and seeing the difficulties with it.

Anyone that has handloaded their own rifle cartridges will be familiar with the terms "understabilized" and "overstabilized" as they are applied to bullets in flight. When a bullet travels down a rifle barrel, the spiral rifling grooves grip the bullet and impart a gyroscopically stabilizing spin to the bullet; allowing it to remain stable in flight without tumbling. Rifle manufacturers do careful research to determine exactly what rate of spin (expressed in bullet revolutions per length of barrel unit, ie. 1:7 or 1:10 or 1 turn in 7 inches or 1 turn in 10 inches) the riflings should have to give optimum bullet stability.

However, this stability will only be there if the limits for bullet weight and bullet velocity are maintained. As any handloader knows, loading too much or too little gunpowder into a rifle cartridge increases or decreases bullet velocity, and increases the likelihood of the bullet losing stability, and beginning to tumble in flight. The same thing can occur by loading a heavier or lighter than normal bullet into a cartridge. Heavy bullets require tighter rifling grooves, such as 1:7, in order to impart sufficient spin, while lighter bullets require less tighter rifling grooves, such as 1:10 or 1:12. Once again, exceeding the parameters of the groove pattern with the wrong weight of bullet will lead to a bullet being either over or under stabilized and increase the likelihood of tumbling.

Further complicating things is the design of the 6.5mm Carcano bullet.

As seen above, the Carcano bullet is a "round nosed, flat based" bullet, and it is extraordinarily long for its diameter. The long length makes this bullet extremely stable in flight and in a wound BUT, only if the bullet is kept within the parameters of velocity for this bullet. Working against this stabilizing length is the round nose and flat base, making this a very un-streamlined bullet and giving it quite a low ballistic coefficent of around .311.

The problem with the bullet design is that the round nose goes through the air like an old tugboat ploughing through the water, and the flat base does not allow air to pass by it easily. Passing air rushes in to fill the void a flat based bullet leaves behind it, and a great amount of de-stabilizing turbulence is created. This photo shows it well:

Modern bullets tend to have a much more streamlined design, such as these "spire point, boat tail" bullets:

The Carcano bullet is a stable bullet in flight IF the muzzle velocity is kept in the 2000+ feet per second range. The question is, how low would the muzzle velocity have to be for a Carcano bullet to only penetrate an inch or two in flesh, after travelling a mere 40-50 yards? I'll examine this in my next post.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Kenneth Drew]

You're assuming, of course, that the wound was made at a point on Elm that would be inconsistent with such a trajectory. However, we have no reliable source to cite for the exact location of the limo.

You are assuming, of course, that the shot that caused this wound originated from the south east corner of the TSBD. We have no "admissible" evidence to indicate that a shot was fired from that location by Oswald or by anyone else.

You are assuming, of course, that the wound was caused by a 6.5 mm Carcano round. This has not been proved.

If we rely on the autopsy, in order to impeach itself, if not impeach the WCR, the autopsy evidence indicates, as you have alluded--not only to the incompetence of Humes--but if he is correct in his report on this issue of the size of the wound and if Sibert and O'Neil reported accurately what they witnessed, then we have evidence that the round that caused the back wound was NOT a 6.5 mm Carcano round at all!

IMO: This is yet another example of how micro-analyzing the evidence leads nowhere except in circles. Again, I submit, this is not the fault of the researchers attempting to discover the truth. Rather it was and remains the intent of those who conspired to "keep us busy" seeking answers to questions that may not be knowable.

These are all very good points, Greg. I understand what you are saying, as well, about the origin of the shot and the calibre of the bullet.

It is possible that JFK was shot earlier than when he was out of sight of Zapruder behind the Stemmons sign but, what is the probability? It is true that Zapruder claimed to have filmed the limo non-stop from turning the corner, and that JFK might have been wounded in this missing piece of film but, he does not appear to be wounded in the short film segment of him before the sign. To have him wounded right at the corner from, say, one of the other buildings, would give us the steep 45-60° trajectory, but would require alteration of the film to remove the frames from before the sign.

Barring massive alteration of the Z film pre-Stemmons sign, I believe the greatest probability for JFK's back shot is still when he was behind the sign, totally contradicting Humes' report of a steep trajectory.

Humes reported a 4x7 mm entry wound in JFK's back. I would say this is totally consistent with the entry wound of a small calibre rifle, such as a 6.5mm Carcano. It must be remembered that entry wounds are often smaller than the diameter of the bullet that caused them.

This still does not tell us what became of the bullet, though.

"It is true that Zapruder claimed to have filmed the limo non-stop from turning the corner, and that JFK might have been wounded in this missing piece of film" Since there was a 'missing' piece of film, I'm gonna guess that there was a reason for that.

"Humes reported a 4x7 mm entry wound in JFK's back. I would say this is totally consistent with the entry wound of a small calibre rifle, such as a 6.5mm Carcano." or perhaps a 7.65 mm?

It is clear that JFK had been shot in the throat while behind the sign. That shot having been totally independent of the back shot.

[Kenneth Drew]

Once again, we're treated to Cliff Varnell assigning ludicrous levels of presumed spot-on accuracy to things that nobody can know with 100% certainty by merely looking at a photograph (such as the Croft photo) --- such as the EXACT amount of "bunching" of JFK's clothing.

But Cliff pretends he can extrapolate perfect, to-the-millimeter "bunching" measurements JUST by looking at the photos.

In a word --- Ridiculous.

"Once again, we're treated to Cliff Varnell assigning ludicrous levels of presumed spot-on accuracy to things that nobody can know with 100% certainty by merely looking at a photograph" An ability you seemingly want to apply only to you, such as 'absolute' proof that LHO ordered a rifle. Such that LHO absolutely posed for BYP's. Such that LHO ever fired a gun. In 3 words, even more ridiculous.

[Thomas Graves]

Once again, we're treated to Cliff Varnell assigning ludicrous levels of presumed spot-on accuracy to things that nobody can know with 100% certainty by merely looking at a photograph (such as the Croft photo) --- such as the EXACT amount of "bunching" of JFK's clothing.

But Cliff pretends he can extrapolate perfect, to-the-millimeter "bunching" measurements JUST by looking at the photos.

In a word --- Ridiculous.

"Once again, we're treated to Cliff Varnell assigning ludicrous levels of presumed spot-on accuracy to things that nobody can know with 100% certainty by merely looking at a photograph" An ability you seemingly want to apply only to you, such as 'absolute' proof that LHO ordered a rifle. Such that LHO absolutely posed for BYP's. Such that LHO ever fired a gun. In 3 words, even more ridiculous.

To be fair, Von Pein is just saying that documents are easier to interpret than photographs and films.

--Tommy

Edited May 27, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Kenneth Drew]

Once again, we're treated to Cliff Varnell assigning ludicrous levels of presumed spot-on accuracy to things that nobody can know with 100% certainty by merely looking at a photograph (such as the Croft photo) --- such as the EXACT amount of "bunching" of JFK's clothing.

But Cliff pretends he can extrapolate perfect, to-the-millimeter "bunching" measurements JUST by looking at the photos.

In a word --- Ridiculous.

"Once again, we're treated to Cliff Varnell assigning ludicrous levels of presumed spot-on accuracy to things that nobody can know with 100% certainty by merely looking at a photograph" An ability you seemingly want to apply only to you, such as 'absolute' proof that LHO ordered a rifle. Such that LHO absolutely posed for BYP's. Such that LHO ever fired a gun. In 3 words, even more ridiculous.

To be fair, Von Pein is just saying that documents are easier to interpret than photographs and films.

--Tommy

"To be fair, Von Pein is just saying that documents are easier to interpret than photographs and films."

Maybe that's his intent, but he seems to have no problem having 'absolute certainty' that LHO ordered a rifle from Klein's based only on some paperwork that could just as easily have been filled out by anyone in the world. And, of course, he has no problem with 100% certainty that LHO actually made some BYP with that rifle, just by looking at the photos.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[Ian Lloyd]

Once again, we're treated to Cliff Varnell assigning ludicrous levels of presumed spot-on accuracy to things that nobody can know with 100% certainty by merely looking at a photograph (such as the Croft photo) --- such as the EXACT amount of "bunching" of JFK's clothing.

But Cliff pretends he can extrapolate perfect, to-the-millimeter "bunching" measurements JUST by looking at the photos.

In a word --- Ridiculous.

"Once again, we're treated to Cliff Varnell assigning ludicrous levels of presumed spot-on accuracy to things that nobody can know with 100% certainty by merely looking at a photograph" An ability you seemingly want to apply only to you, such as 'absolute' proof that LHO ordered a rifle. Such that LHO absolutely posed for BYP's. Such that LHO ever fired a gun. In 3 words, even more ridiculous.

Quote from DVP on the "Did Oswald order the rifle? The answer is yes." thread:

Your charts and schematics don't show JOHN KENNEDY'S skeletal structure specifically. And without knowing every little nuance of John F. Kennedy's body, then your charts might be CLOSE, but they might not be close ENOUGH.

And now this:

"Once again, we're treated to Cliff Varnell assigning ludicrous levels of presumed spot-on accuracy to things that nobody can know with 100% certainty by merely looking at a photograph" An ability you seemingly want to apply only to you, such as 'absolute' proof that LHO ordered a rifle. Such that LHO absolutely posed for BYP's. Such that LHO ever fired a gun. In 3 words, even more ridiculous.

Best decide the level of accuracy required - what is "close" and what is "close enough"?

[Cliff Varnell]

Once again, we're treated to Cliff Varnell assigning ludicrous levels of presumed spot-on accuracy to things that nobody can know with 100% certainty by merely looking at a photograph (such as the Croft photo) --- such as the EXACT amount of "bunching" of JFK's clothing.

But Cliff pretends he can extrapolate perfect, to-the-millimeter "bunching" measurements JUST by looking at the photos.

In a word --- Ridiculous.

"Once again, we're treated to Cliff Varnell assigning ludicrous levels of presumed spot-on accuracy to things that nobody can know with 100% certainty by merely looking at a photograph" An ability you seemingly want to apply only to you, such as 'absolute' proof that LHO ordered a rifle. Such that LHO absolutely posed for BYP's. Such that LHO ever fired a gun. In 3 words, even more ridiculous.

Quote from DVP on the "Did Oswald order the rifle? The answer is yes." thread:

Your charts and schematics don't show JOHN KENNEDY'S skeletal structure specifically. And without knowing every little nuance of John F. Kennedy's body, then your charts might be CLOSE, but they might not be close ENOUGH.

And now this:

"Once again, we're treated to Cliff Varnell assigning ludicrous levels of presumed spot-on accuracy to things that nobody can know with 100% certainty by merely looking at a photograph" An ability you seemingly want to apply only to you, such as 'absolute' proof that LHO ordered a rifle. Such that LHO absolutely posed for BYP's. Such that LHO ever fired a gun. In 3 words, even more ridiculous.

Best decide the level of accuracy required - what is "close" and what is "close enough"?

I can identify the amount of jacket elevation to within a fraction of an inch using the Dealey Plaza photos..

That's easy -- the jacket was only elevated a fraction of an inch!

DVP's SBT requires multiple inches of clothing movement which David has allowed didn't happen in Dealey.

[Greg Burnham]

Ok, I'll bite:

Where did the bullet go, Robert?

LOL I love a good sport, Greg.

I'm just running out to do a job but I'll respond to this later today.

Bumped:

Where did the bullet go, Robert? You have offered us characteristics of the bullet, such as, the tendency toward stability inherent to its length, the tendency toward turbulence in its wake resultant from the round shape of its nose and wide/flat bottom, etc.

However, that is not an answer to the question you asked of us in your earlier post in this thread nor on my forum!

This is a straight forward question. "Where did the bullet GO?"

For the sake of this inquiry, based upon the implication you left that you know the answer to THAT question, please note that: I do not need to know "Why?" nor do I need to know "How?" the bullet ended up "where" it eventually came to rest. We can discuss that later. First, I only want to know where Robert Prudhomme thinks the bullet came to rest. Perhaps you think there was no bullet at all? Perhaps Humes inflicted the wound during autopsy? Perhaps there is some other explanation that you have yet to share?

Inquiring minds want to know especially since you promised to answer the question you posed.