A Criticism of DVP

[Robert Prudhomme]

Now we are back to the sabot fantasy. I hate to say this but, I've read some of the things Gerry Hemming has said and I can tell you, the guy stretches the truth a bit.

Would you like to know what sabots are, why they are used, and why it would be virtually impossible to fire a saboted 6.5mm Carcano bullet from another rifle?

[Kenneth Drew]

The caliber probably wouldn't make any difference, only the velocity at the time it comes in contact. That's why I wonder why you keep insisting that it was a 6.5 manlicher carcano when there is NO evidence that it was. You sure had a tough time answering Greg's question.

The proper name for the rifle is a Carcano Model M91/38. It is not called a Mannlicher by the Italians. The reason I am calling the rifle in my discussions a Carcano is merely for the sake of argument. If it makes you happy, we can start calling it a Winchester Model 94 30-30.

Which question of Greg's are you referring to?

"The proper name for the rifle is a Carcano Model M91/38. It is not called a Mannlicher by the Italians. The reason I am calling the rifle in my discussions a Carcano is merely for the sake of argument. If it makes you happy, we can start calling it a Winchester Model 94 30-30." Very good. Why not call it an 'unknown firearm"? As it has yet to be established that it was 'any rifle'. In fact we don't know what caused the back wound or when it occurred, so making assumptions about whether it was an A or B makes no sense at all. Just refer to it as a wound of unknown origin.

"Which question of Greg's are you referring to?" LOL.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[Ron Ecker]

Didn't Hemming once say that JFK was shot in the back with what he called a sabot, which as I recall is a deliberately defective kind of bullet? I don't remember what the purpose was supposed to be, or how Hemming was supposed to know. But if Hemming was the big guy seen carrying a rifle down a Dallas street that morning, or if that's Hemming photographed along with Rip and who knows who else at the corner of Houston and Main, then maybe the big guy knew something.

That was the story about the cartridge shell that was found on the Dallas records building roof years later having a crimped edge. I think it was a 7.65 shell, but I'm not sure. It was supposedly used to fire a 'sabot' so that the bullet would retain the rifling marks of the weapon it was originally fired from but it was 'supposedly' fired using a very low velocity. Setting up the hypothesis that it was the bullet that hit JFK in the back. If it were fired from that building roof while JFK were below, it could have a downward angle around 45 %. (or any other up to 90%.)

Yes, the purpose would be to plant a bullet from the MC rifle in JFK's back. Correct?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Kenneth

Do you really think it makes any difference what calibre of rifle fired the bullet that hit JFK in the back? It stuns me that this is the most intelligent comment you can come up with after reading that post.

ANY bullet will suffer severe vertical drop if you rob it of 90% of its muzzle velocity.

"It stuns me that this is the most intelligent comment you can come up with after reading that post."

I think what disturbs you is that I didn't care about your amateur analysis of rifling and tumbling of bullets because none of that has anything to do with 'who shot John'.

It has everything to do with who shot John. At the autopsy, it was not necessary yet for JFK to have a through and through wound from his back to his throat. As I stated before, Humes was either very inexperienced with bullet wounds, or he had an ulterior motive for declaring JFK's back wound to be shallow. Personally, I believe the latter to be true, and his declaration of a shallow back wound was in order to conceal the type of bullet used to shoot JFK, not only in the back, but in the head as well.

If you will just be patient, I will get to all of this in a couple of posts.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Didn't Hemming once say that JFK was shot in the back with what he called a sabot, which as I recall is a deliberately defective kind of bullet? I don't remember what the purpose was supposed to be, or how Hemming was supposed to know. But if Hemming was the big guy seen carrying a rifle down a Dallas street that morning, or if that's Hemming photographed along with Rip and who knows who else at the corner of Houston and Main, then maybe the big guy knew something.

That was the story about the cartridge shell that was found on the Dallas records building roof years later having a crimped edge. I think it was a 7.65 shell, but I'm not sure. It was supposedly used to fire a 'sabot' so that the bullet would retain the rifling marks of the weapon it was originally fired from but it was 'supposedly' fired using a very low velocity. Setting up the hypothesis that it was the bullet that hit JFK in the back. If it were fired from that building roof while JFK were below, it could have a downward angle around 45 %. (or any other up to 90%.)

Yes, the purpose would be to plant a bullet from the MC rifle in JFK's back. Correct?

I assumed the purpose of shooting at JFK was to kill him.

[Kenneth Drew]

Now we are back to the sabot fantasy. I hate to say this but, I've read some of the things Gerry Hemming has said and I can tell you, the guy stretches the truth a bit.

Would you like to know what sabots are, why they are used, and why it would be virtually impossible to fire a saboted 6.5mm Carcano bullet from another rifle?

No we're not back to sabot fantasy, never have been there. Just because someone discusses it as 'in their opinion' doesn't hold any weight. It's just part of the smoke screen the 'nutters' like to throw out. And no, I don't want to know anything about sabots. I already know all I need to know about them. Just a question, is 'virtually impossible' a different standard than 'impossible' or is 'impossible' a much higher standard. I think putting the word 'virtually' in there only means, 'in my opinion'.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Virtually impossible means it could be done but, the larger calibre rifle would have to be severely modified to accept the saboted cartridge. But why am I telling you this? You already know everything there is to know about sabots.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Anyways, I've had enough of your distracting drivel. Go annoy someone else.

[Kenneth Drew]

Didn't Hemming once say that JFK was shot in the back with what he called a sabot, which as I recall is a deliberately defective kind of bullet? I don't remember what the purpose was supposed to be, or how Hemming was supposed to know. But if Hemming was the big guy seen carrying a rifle down a Dallas street that morning, or if that's Hemming photographed along with Rip and who knows who else at the corner of Houston and Main, then maybe the big guy knew something.

That was the story about the cartridge shell that was found on the Dallas records building roof years later having a crimped edge. I think it was a 7.65 shell, but I'm not sure. It was supposedly used to fire a 'sabot' so that the bullet would retain the rifling marks of the weapon it was originally fired from but it was 'supposedly' fired using a very low velocity. Setting up the hypothesis that it was the bullet that hit JFK in the back. If it were fired from that building roof while JFK were below, it could have a downward angle around 45 %. (or any other up to 90%.)

Yes, the purpose would be to plant a bullet from the MC rifle in JFK's back. Correct?

I assumed the purpose of shooting at JFK was to kill him.

"I assumed the purpose of shooting at JFK was to kill him." you ASSUMED that? What about using a very small caliber weapon to shoot him in the throat, without it even being frangible? Would that be to kill him? Do you think part of the assassination intent may have been to 'plant evidence'? You're not getting much plumbing work done.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I thought so. Who is this? You obviously are familiar with my theories if you are discussing frangible bullets already.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Now that I have shown that it is extremely unlikely for a 6.5mm Carcano bullet to have been moving slowly enough to only penetrate JFK's back without tumbling, we should next examine how much the accuracy of such a slow moving bullet would have been affected.

For those unfamiliar with firearms, I should point out that a tumbling bullet would not have made a neat little entrance wound in JFK's back. It more than likely would have hit side on, and made a much larger messier wound.

Below is a handgun cartridge power chart put together by Chuck Hawks, listing the majority of popular handgun cartridges, their muzzle velocities and other specs:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_power_chart.htm

If we look at this chart, we can see the lowest muzzle velocity listed is for a .38 Special firing a 158 grain round nosed bullet at 587 feet per second. Despite this low velocity, it still has a muzzle energy of 200 ft. lbs., comparable to bullets on this chart weighing only 90 grains but travelling at muzzle velocities of over 1000 fps. This, of course, proves that muzzle energy is a product of mass and velocity, or that a slower bullet of greater weight can do the same damage as a faster bullet of a lighter weight.

So, if a person shot another person in the head, at point blank range, with this .38 Special handgun and the bullet had a muzzle velocity of 587 fps and a muzzle energy of 200 ft. lbs., would it make only a superficial wound? Absolutely not. This bullet would penetrate the skull bone, and likely inflict enough damage to kill a person. If fired at someone's back at close range, it would penetrate the lung and might even have a chance of exiting the front of the chest, especially if it were also a full metal jacket bullet.

With this in mind, and considering the Carcano bullet, at 162 grains, was a heavy bullet for its calibre, how slow would this bullet have to be travelling to only penetrate JFK's back a mere inch in flesh? Just as a refresher, also consider the Carcano M91/38 short rifle is textbook rated at a muzzle velocity of 2200 fps, and that C2766 was tested by the FBI and determined to have a muzzle velocity of 2165 fps.

While it would take an incredible amount of testing on goats or cadavers to get an absolutely accurate figure, I am going to go out on a limb and state that I believe the 6.5mm Carcano bullet would have to be travelling at well under 300 fps to only penetrate JFK's back a mere inch.

Now we get to the good part. Let's say, for argument's sake, that LHO's alleged rifle was sighted in to be accurate at 100 yards. By using the ballistics calculator at this site http://www.handloads.com/calc/we find that, at fifty yards, this bullet would be .77 inches above the line of sight to the target.

Also, at 100 yards, this bullet would have a vertical drop of 4.2 inches.

However, if we do the same calculation, but replace 2200 fps with 300 fps, things change drastically. In order to hit a target at 100 yards, this bullet would now be travelling 46.68 inches above the line of sight. This bullet would also have a vertical drop of 48.99 inches at 50 yards, and a vertical drop of 191.83 inches at 100 yards.

What this means is that if you had a rifle sighted in at 100 yards, using ammo with a muzzle velocity of 2200 fps, and you unexpectedly fired a dud round that only propelled the bullet at 300 fps, you would be aiming where you normally aimed, and the bullet would impact 48.68 inches lower than where you were aiming. If a shooter was aiming at the centre of JFK's head, it likely would have hit the trunk lid of the limo, not a few inches down on his back.

The "shallow" back wound from a dud round is a fantasy. I'm not even sure the bullet would make it all the way down the barrel, only travelling at 300 fps.

P.S.

If anyone wishes to use the ballistics calculator, the ballistic coefficient for the 6.5mm Carcano bullet is about .311.

Bumped

[Robert Prudhomme]

Now, let's get to Greg's question, that being, where did the bullet go?

If we ignore the autopsy results, it becomes clear from the other evidence (ie. death certificate, bullet holes in clothing, etc.) that JFK was struck in the back at the level of thoracic vertebra T3, about 1.5-2 inches to the right of the spinal mid line.

Looking at this diagram, we can see this location to be directly over the top section of the right lung:

Where did the bullet go? Directly into JFK's right upper lung. However, just as an underpowered bullet would not penetrate very far, a bullet, such as a 2200 fps 6.5mm Carcano, for example, would have sufficient power to not only penetrate JFK's lung, it would pass right through his chest, through the seat ahead of him and into Connally.

As far as we know, that did not happen. No Parkland doctor reported a bullet exit wound on the front of his chest. The task now becomes looking at all of the available clues, and determining what kind of bullet can enter but not exit.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Jon G. Tidd]

Robert Prudhomme,

Given what you say at post #118 (and based on some other discussions I've read), I'm inclined to believe the assassins used low-power rounds. So that there would not be too much collateral damage.

Questions for you: [1] Based on what you believe about JFK's head wound(s), do you believe it's possible such wound(s) was (were) caused by a low-powered round or rounds? [2] Based on what you believe about JBC's wounds, do you believe it's possible JBC's wounds were caused by a low-powered round or rounds?

[Kenneth Drew]

I thought so. Who is this? You obviously are familiar with my theories if you are discussing frangible bullets already.

Frangible bullets? I've heard of them for at least 50 years, I only heard of you this year. Who am I? Every word in my profile is correct. I do believe that JFK was shot in the back about 5 inches down from his neck with a very low powered bullet. Where did it go, I have no idea, but if I was guessing, I'd go with it was removed after his body left Dallas and that fact has never been disclosed on any autopsy report. But that's just a guess.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Robert Prudhomme,

Given what you say at post #118 (and based on some other discussions I've read), I'm inclined to believe the assassins used low-power rounds. So that there would not be too much collateral damage.

Questions for you: [1] Based on what you believe about JFK's head wound(s), do you believe it's possible such wound(s) was (were) caused by a low-powered round or rounds? [2] Based on what you believe about JBC's wounds, do you believe it's possible JBC's wounds were caused by a low-powered round or rounds?

Hi Jon

It would seem to make sense that the rounds would have to be low powered but I am going to show how a high velocity bullet could have come to a complete stop only two or three inches into JFK's lung. Believe it or not, the type of bullet I am referring to would even, at high velocities, address the problem of collateral damage.

As I pointed out, making a bullet go slowly enough to limit its lethality presents very difficult trajectory problems. The slower the bullet, the more it has to be "lobbed" in a high parabola, just to reach its target.