Jump to content
The Education Forum
David Von Pein

The "Wound Ballistics Of 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition" Report

Recommended Posts

WHOA.

Houston, we have a problem.

I believe I recall WC testimony indicating that the chalk mark on the jacket represents something OTHER than the back wound.

Correct me if I'm wrong...but I recall reading that the reenactment was done in the QM, rather than SS100X. According to the testimony, it was determined that the agent in the JFK position of the QM was sitting about 10 inches higher than JFK's position in SS100X...and that the chalk mark on the jacket was to mark the location of JFK's HEAD wound, relative to the alleged sniper's view from the 6th floor of the TSBD...and was NOT placed there to represent the back wound. In fact, I believe the testimony was that the back wound was represented by a mark on the TRUNK of the QM.

SO using the chalk mark on the jacket to plot trajectories of the BACK wound is....well, let's just say it's disingenuous. Because the back wound, being lower than the head wound, would require different angles, as it relates to the 6th floor of the TSBD.

And if the angles are all wrong...then someone's trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

SO am I wrong about the testimony regarding what the chalk mark on the jacket represented?

http://www.filedropper.com/recreationtape

Thanks Mark.

Maybe that will turn on the lightbulb for others.

chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHOA.

Houston, we have a problem.

I believe I recall WC testimony indicating that the chalk mark on the jacket represents something OTHER than the back wound.

Correct me if I'm wrong...but I recall reading that the reenactment was done in the QM, rather than SS100X. According to the testimony, it was determined that the agent in the JFK position of the QM was sitting about 10 inches higher than JFK's position in SS100X...and that the chalk mark on the jacket was to mark the location of JFK's HEAD wound, relative to the alleged sniper's view from the 6th floor of the TSBD...and was NOT placed there to represent the back wound. In fact, I believe the testimony was that the back wound was represented by a mark on the TRUNK of the QM.

SO using the chalk mark on the jacket to plot trajectories of the BACK wound is....well, let's just say it's disingenuous. Because the back wound, being lower than the head wound, would require different angles, as it relates to the 6th floor of the TSBD.

And if the angles are all wrong...then someone's trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

SO am I wrong about the testimony regarding what the chalk mark on the jacket represented?

http://www.filedropper.com/recreationtape

Thanks Mark.

Maybe that will turn on the lightbulb for others.

chris

Yikes, Chris, there was no lightbulb. Mark's recollection was incorrect. The chalk mark represented the back wound. The SS positioned Kennedy and Connally in the same relative positions they were sitting in the presidential limo. But they were ten inches too high. As a result, when it came to determining at what point Kennedy's back wound was, from the view of the sniper's nest. covered by the tree, or at what point it was clear of the tree, they had to make an adjustment, which entailed rolling the limo a few feet forward.

While this was not very important in 1964, it became important later, when LNs started claiming the first shot was fired at frame 160, and was deflected by the tree. Their heroes, the SS, the FBI, and the Warren Commission, proved this to be ridiculous. While the back wound in the re-enactment disappeared behind the tree when the Queen Mary was in the position of the limo at frame 161, the adjustments by the SS, FBI, and Specter led them to claim Kennedy's back wound location would have been accessible up to frame 166.

This means that...for the Posner theory to be true--that Oswald took his first shot at frame 160, but instead hit the tree--Oswald would have to have been aiming at Kellerman, instead of Kennedy. Oops.

lost2.jpg

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat,

http://www.filedropper.com/210-225

210-225 is the closest comparison I could find for an elevation drop of 10/12inches = .833ft

.82 x 18.18ft = 14.9ft horizontal move = .82 x 12 inches = 9.84inch vertical drop

.833 x 18.18ft = 15.14ft horizontal move = .833 x 12 inches = 10 inch vertical drop

Q: Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, where 168 appears on that plaque, am I correct in stating that the dot next to 168 represents the position of the location of President Kennedy within the limousine at that time. Is that correct?

A: That is correct, the limousine that we were using for the re-enactment was not the limousine that the President was riding in, and we had to make an adjustment because the stand-in was sitting ten inches higher than the President was sitting, ten inches higher from the street, so after positioning Frame 161, we moved the car forward until we could just barely see the spot on the back of the -- the approximate spot where the President was hit on the back, this appeared based on a ten-inch adjustment, so that we take into account the last clear place that the President could have been shot just before going under the tree.

Testimony from the Clay Shaw trial.

chris

P.S. Once again, the difference in distance between JFK's position in the limo and the limo front end is 15.25 ft.

Edited by Chris Davidson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.filedropper.com/3deg8min

The final plat of May24, 1964 had the street slope at 3°8min = 3.13° = 18.3ft horiz/1ft vertical drop ratio.

The 10inch/12 adjustment or .83333333ft x 18.3ft = 15.2499999ft which just happens to match the distance between JFK's position in the limo and the limo front end at 15.25 ft.

chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.filedropper.com/166

Mr. SPECTER. Considering the 3-inch difference in the jump seat--and I believe it would be an inch and a half difference in height between President Kennedy and Governor Connally--how much higher, then, approximately, was President Kennedy sitting than the Governor on November 22?

Mr. KELLEY. I am not----

Mr. SPECTER. Would the President have been about an inch and half higher than the Governor on the day of the assassination?

Mr. KELLEY. The day of the assassination, yes.

Take your cursor and set it at the top of JFK's head as the gif plays.

What heads align (vertically) from extant Z161-166?

chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the back wound in the re-enactment disappeared behind the tree when the Queen Mary was in the position of the limo at frame 161, the adjustments by the SS, FBI, and Specter led them to claim Kennedy's back wound location would have been accessible up to frame 166.

This means that...for the Posner theory to be true--that Oswald took his first shot at frame 160, but instead hit the tree--Oswald would have to have been aiming at Kellerman, instead of Kennedy. Oops.

I disagree, Pat.

IF the rifle scope had been misaligned when Oswald took his first shot (which can never be proven or disproven), and IF that "misalignment" was the same as it was after the assassination when the C2766 rifle was tested by the FBI (with the shots through the scope hitting high and to the right of the target [see Robert Frazier's Warren Commission testimony, at 3 H 404-405]), and IF Oswald were, in fact, using the scope for his first shot (which is another thing that can never be proven or disproven).....then Oswald's shot at Z160 (IF that was, in fact, when he squeezed off Shot #1, and I think it was, but this is yet another "IF" that can never be proven beyond all doubt; perhaps his first shot came a little earlier, perhaps a little later; nobody can know for certain) would have landed high and right of his intended target of John F. Kennedy's body.

And what is located high and to the right of President Kennedy's body at around Z160 (and at Z161)? Let's look and see....

CE888.jpg

I presented a lot of IFs above, I know. But isn't the "high and to the right" idea (in conjunction with the "Bullet hit the tree" theory) at least something to consider? I think it is.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/missed-shot-controversy.html

(Also see the related discussion in my next post below.)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Related discussion....

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't see why anyone would claim that the observation about Oswald having to alter his shooting posture between the shots positively means that Oswald could NOT have accomplished the assassination on his own from that sixth-floor sniper's perch.

Even if Oswald had to stand up (instead of sitting or squatting) to fire his first shot at Kennedy's car around Z160, so what? We still have solid indications that THREE shots from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle WERE fired from that very same sixth-floor location in the southeast corner. The THREE spent bullet shells on the floor [CE510] pretty much seal the deal on that point. Plus the huge percentage of witnesses who heard exactly THREE SHOTS fired during the assassination.


ED BAUER SAID:

Oswald would have had to change his position for the first shot only if he were aiming at the limousine, which I don't believe he was. He was aiming downrange to zero his weapon with the first shot. Changing his position would not have been necessary.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's an interesting theory indeed. And nobody can prove it's incorrect. But it would have been a mighty risky thing for Oswald to do---firing one wild shot, not intended to hit anybody, just to "zero in" his scope. He would have been drawing attention to his sniper's location with a shot that wasn't even designed to accomplish Oswald's ultimate goal, which was to kill the President.

At the same time, however, the whole proposition of trying to assassinate a U.S. President is a tad bit "risky" too. So I probably won't win this argument by merely saying it was "too risky" for Oswald to waste Shot #1 with a wild, stray shot. :)

But I'm still a bit dubious about accepting your first-shot theory as fact, Ed. I certainly can't disprove it, however. And I doubt anyone else can either.


ED BAUER SAID:

Ah, but David, it was anything but a "wild, stray shot." Oswald carefully aimed at a still target, took note of where it hit relative to the crosshairs, adjusted the windage and elevation screws and operated the bolt. Less than ten seconds. Could have been ten minutes; nobody reacted.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Wait a second, Ed. Please clarify something for me....

Are you actually suggesting that Oswald possibly fired his first "zeroing in" shot BEFORE the President's car even entered Dealey Plaza? ("Ten minutes"?) It kind of sounds like you are advocating that possibility.

If so, I think that would have been way too "risky" for Oswald to do. It would have been crazy, in fact. He would have been advertising the fact that a person with a gun was in the TSBD many minutes before JFK ever even entered the kill zone. Plenty of time for someone to get up there to the sixth floor to investigate and to prevent the assassination.

Is that really what you think might have happened, Ed? Or did I misinterpret your "could have been 10 minutes" remark?

But even your "less than ten seconds" comment is not reasonable, IMO. Oswald wouldn't have had time to re-adjust the scope settings if he had fired a "zeroing in" shot after JFK's car had turned onto Elm Street. How could he possibly have thought he would have had time to adjust the scope in such a short space of time?

FWIW....

If I were forced at gunpoint to make a final determination on what I think happened with respect to the topic of whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald utilized the four-power telescope on his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle on 11/22/63, I'd say it probably happened this way....

Oswald fired his first shot through the scope at approximately Zapruder frame 160. After firing that shot, Oswald realized that it didn't hit a darn thing. He then might have realized that the scope was misaligned and needed adjusting before he could use it again effectively. Realizing also that he would, of course, have no time to perform any adjustments on the scope, he quickly switched to the open iron sights at the end of the rifle barrel for his last two shots (at Z224 and Z313).

The above scenario is the one that makes the most sense to me.

BROCK T. GEORGE SAID:

Bingo! And when you consider that the Walker miss must have already introduced concerns in his mind about using the scope, I think it's doubly likely he would have reverted to the iron sites [sic].

Also, there is some indication in his military record that Oswald shot better in rapid fire conditions---indicating a tendency to overthink his shot. Once he missed that first shot, instinct probably took over and he once again displayed his aptitude for rapid fire.

BT George

ED BAUER SAID:

David, thanks for the opportunity to clarify my comment.

No, I don't believe he zeroed his firearm 10 minutes before. That was just my way of pointing out that no security personnel ever reacted to the first shot. Oswald's timing was good enough if not perfect. He fired the first shot just as the limo was turning from Houston onto Elm or in the process of completing its turn. This is when career-trained witnesses said it was fired (13 of whom are quoted in The Final Truth).

More importantly, it's also where the FBI spliced the 7 frames from the Towner film, which is exactly, to the frame, when a jiggle would have occurred--a jiggle which would disprove the FBI's contention of a late first shot. (It took almost ten years for this splice to be noticed.) The time to the second shot is 9.5 seconds, time enough.

I like your ideas about Oswald using the iron sights for shots 2 and 3 (and I agree with your timing), but IMO he used the not-yet-damaged scope for all three shots.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Okay, Ed. Thanks for the clarification.

David Von Pein
August 28, 2014
June 13, 2015
June 17-20, 2015

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking through a scope at the target, If bios first shot missed, how would he know where it hit in order to zero his scope?

(Just asking as a non-hunter.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Related discussion....

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't see why anyone would claim that the observation about Oswald having to alter his shooting posture between the shots positively means that Oswald could NOT have accomplished the assassination on his own from that sixth-floor sniper's perch.

Even if Oswald had to stand up (instead of sitting or squatting) to fire his first shot at Kennedy's car around Z160, so what? We still have solid indications that THREE shots from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle WERE fired from that very same sixth-floor location in the southeast corner. The THREE spent bullet shells on the floor [CE510] pretty much seal the deal on that point. Plus the huge percentage of witnesses who heard exactly THREE SHOTS fired during the assassination.

ED BAUER SAID:

Oswald would have had to change his position for the first shot only if he were aiming at the limousine, which I don't believe he was. He was aiming downrange to zero his weapon with the first shot. Changing his position would not have been necessary.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's an interesting theory indeed. And nobody can prove it's incorrect. But it would have been a mighty risky thing for Oswald to do---firing one wild shot, not intended to hit anybody, just to "zero in" his scope. He would have been drawing attention to his sniper's location with a shot that wasn't even designed to accomplish Oswald's ultimate goal, which was to kill the President.

At the same time, however, the whole proposition of trying to assassinate a U.S. President is a tad bit "risky" too. So I probably won't win this argument by merely saying it was "too risky" for Oswald to waste Shot #1 with a wild, stray shot. :)

But I'm still a bit dubious about accepting your first-shot theory as fact, Ed. I certainly can't disprove it, however. And I doubt anyone else can either.

ED BAUER SAID:

Ah, but David, it was anything but a "wild, stray shot." Oswald carefully aimed at a still target, took note of where it hit relative to the crosshairs, adjusted the windage and elevation screws and operated the bolt. Less than ten seconds. Could have been ten minutes; nobody reacted.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Wait a second, Ed. Please clarify something for me....

Are you actually suggesting that Oswald possibly fired his first "zeroing in" shot BEFORE the President's car even entered Dealey Plaza? ("Ten minutes"?) It kind of sounds like you are advocating that possibility.

If so, I think that would have been way too "risky" for Oswald to do. It would have been crazy, in fact. He would have been advertising the fact that a person with a gun was in the TSBD many minutes before JFK ever even entered the kill zone. Plenty of time for someone to get up there to the sixth floor to investigate and to prevent the assassination.

Is that really what you think might have happened, Ed? Or did I misinterpret your "could have been 10 minutes" remark?

But even your "less than ten seconds" comment is not reasonable, IMO. Oswald wouldn't have had time to re-adjust the scope settings if he had fired a "zeroing in" shot after JFK's car had turned onto Elm Street. How could he possibly have thought he would have had time to adjust the scope in such a short space of time?

FWIW....

If I were forced at gunpoint to make a final determination on what I think happened with respect to the topic of whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald utilized the four-power telescope on his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle on 11/22/63, I'd say it probably happened this way....

Oswald fired his first shot through the scope at approximately Zapruder frame 160. After firing that shot, Oswald realized that it didn't hit a darn thing. He then might have realized that the scope was misaligned and needed adjusting before he could use it again effectively. Realizing also that he would, of course, have no time to perform any adjustments on the scope, he quickly switched to the open iron sights at the end of the rifle barrel for his last two shots (at Z224 and Z313).

The above scenario is the one that makes the most sense to me.

BROCK T. GEORGE SAID:

Bingo! And when you consider that the Walker miss must have already introduced concerns in his mind about using the scope, I think it's doubly likely he would have reverted to the iron sites [sic].

Also, there is some indication in his military record that Oswald shot better in rapid fire conditions---indicating a tendency to overthink his shot. Once he missed that first shot, instinct probably took over and he once again displayed his aptitude for rapid fire.

BT George

ED BAUER SAID:

David, thanks for the opportunity to clarify my comment.

No, I don't believe he zeroed his firearm 10 minutes before. That was just my way of pointing out that no security personnel ever reacted to the first shot. Oswald's timing was good enough if not perfect. He fired the first shot just as the limo was turning from Houston onto Elm or in the process of completing its turn. This is when career-trained witnesses said it was fired (13 of whom are quoted in The Final Truth).

More importantly, it's also where the FBI spliced the 7 frames from the Towner film, which is exactly, to the frame, when a jiggle would have occurred--a jiggle which would disprove the FBI's contention of a late first shot. (It took almost ten years for this splice to be noticed.) The time to the second shot is 9.5 seconds, time enough.

I like your ideas about Oswald using the iron sights for shots 2 and 3 (and I agree with your timing), but IMO he used the not-yet-damaged scope for all three shots.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Okay, Ed. Thanks for the clarification.

David Von Pein

August 28, 2014

June 13, 2015

June 17-20, 2015

Even if Oswald had to stand up (instead of sitting or squatting) to fire his first shot at Kennedy's car around Z160, so what? So what? You mean other than the fact that it would be impossible for a man to stand up and fire a rifle shot thru that window? That 'so what'? What the hell, just because it's not possible doesn't mean it couldn't happen; to a Nutter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Related discussion....

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't see why anyone would claim that the observation about Oswald having to alter his shooting posture between the shots positively means that Oswald could NOT have accomplished the assassination on his own from that sixth-floor sniper's perch.

Even if Oswald had to stand up (instead of sitting or squatting) to fire his first shot at Kennedy's car around Z160, so what? We still have solid indications that THREE shots from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle WERE fired from that very same sixth-floor location in the southeast corner. The THREE spent bullet shells on the floor [CE510] pretty much seal the deal on that point. Plus the huge percentage of witnesses who heard exactly THREE SHOTS fired during the assassination.

ED BAUER SAID:

Oswald would have had to change his position for the first shot only if he were aiming at the limousine, which I don't believe he was. He was aiming downrange to zero his weapon with the first shot. Changing his position would not have been necessary.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's an interesting theory indeed. And nobody can prove it's incorrect. But it would have been a mighty risky thing for Oswald to do---firing one wild shot, not intended to hit anybody, just to "zero in" his scope. He would have been drawing attention to his sniper's location with a shot that wasn't even designed to accomplish Oswald's ultimate goal, which was to kill the President.

At the same time, however, the whole proposition of trying to assassinate a U.S. President is a tad bit "risky" too. So I probably won't win this argument by merely saying it was "too risky" for Oswald to waste Shot #1 with a wild, stray shot. :)

But I'm still a bit dubious about accepting your first-shot theory as fact, Ed. I certainly can't disprove it, however. And I doubt anyone else can either.

ED BAUER SAID:

Ah, but David, it was anything but a "wild, stray shot." Oswald carefully aimed at a still target, took note of where it hit relative to the crosshairs, adjusted the windage and elevation screws and operated the bolt. Less than ten seconds. Could have been ten minutes; nobody reacted.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Wait a second, Ed. Please clarify something for me....

Are you actually suggesting that Oswald possibly fired his first "zeroing in" shot BEFORE the President's car even entered Dealey Plaza? ("Ten minutes"?) It kind of sounds like you are advocating that possibility.

If so, I think that would have been way too "risky" for Oswald to do. It would have been crazy, in fact. He would have been advertising the fact that a person with a gun was in the TSBD many minutes before JFK ever even entered the kill zone. Plenty of time for someone to get up there to the sixth floor to investigate and to prevent the assassination.

Is that really what you think might have happened, Ed? Or did I misinterpret your "could have been 10 minutes" remark?

But even your "less than ten seconds" comment is not reasonable, IMO. Oswald wouldn't have had time to re-adjust the scope settings if he had fired a "zeroing in" shot after JFK's car had turned onto Elm Street. How could he possibly have thought he would have had time to adjust the scope in such a short space of time?

FWIW....

If I were forced at gunpoint to make a final determination on what I think happened with respect to the topic of whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald utilized the four-power telescope on his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle on 11/22/63, I'd say it probably happened this way....

Oswald fired his first shot through the scope at approximately Zapruder frame 160. After firing that shot, Oswald realized that it didn't hit a darn thing. He then might have realized that the scope was misaligned and needed adjusting before he could use it again effectively. Realizing also that he would, of course, have no time to perform any adjustments on the scope, he quickly switched to the open iron sights at the end of the rifle barrel for his last two shots (at Z224 and Z313).

The above scenario is the one that makes the most sense to me.

BROCK T. GEORGE SAID:

Bingo! And when you consider that the Walker miss must have already introduced concerns in his mind about using the scope, I think it's doubly likely he would have reverted to the iron sites [sic].

Also, there is some indication in his military record that Oswald shot better in rapid fire conditions---indicating a tendency to overthink his shot. Once he missed that first shot, instinct probably took over and he once again displayed his aptitude for rapid fire.

BT George

ED BAUER SAID:

David, thanks for the opportunity to clarify my comment.

No, I don't believe he zeroed his firearm 10 minutes before. That was just my way of pointing out that no security personnel ever reacted to the first shot. Oswald's timing was good enough if not perfect. He fired the first shot just as the limo was turning from Houston onto Elm or in the process of completing its turn. This is when career-trained witnesses said it was fired (13 of whom are quoted in The Final Truth).

More importantly, it's also where the FBI spliced the 7 frames from the Towner film, which is exactly, to the frame, when a jiggle would have occurred--a jiggle which would disprove the FBI's contention of a late first shot. (It took almost ten years for this splice to be noticed.) The time to the second shot is 9.5 seconds, time enough.

I like your ideas about Oswald using the iron sights for shots 2 and 3 (and I agree with your timing), but IMO he used the not-yet-damaged scope for all three shots.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Okay, Ed. Thanks for the clarification.

David Von Pein

August 28, 2014

June 13, 2015

June 17-20, 2015

You fellows need to get off of that Kickapoo Joy Juice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears, David, you've broken rank again.

The standard line from your side of the fence is that the rifle was quite accurate, and that any flaw with the scope would only have helped Oswald.

Your new theory, as I understand it, holds that Oswald aimed for Kennedy's head, but hit the tree. And that he then adjusted for this by aiming low on the second shot, to hit him on the back. And then a little bit higher on the next shot, to hit him in the head.

Your theory, then, is at odds with the standard line. So which is it? Are you willing to admit the recurrent claim the scope helped Oswald...is nonsense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We still have solid indications that THREE shots from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle WERE fired from that very same sixth-floor location in the southeast corner. The THREE spent bullet shells on the floor [CE510] pretty much seal the deal on that point."

really? seal the deal, huh...

oh, and

"I don't think you've thoroughly thought out your last post, Greg."

coming from him...

Edited by Glenn Nall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We still have solid indications that THREE shots from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle WERE fired from that very same sixth-floor location in the southeast corner. The THREE spent bullet shells on the floor [CE510] pretty much seal the deal on that point."

really? seal the deal, huh...

oh, and

"I don't think you've thoroughly thought out your last post, Greg."

coming from him...

You got that right Glenn, anywhere there are 3 spent shells, you can be sure that it was LHO up there firing away and picking up the shells, making sure they have his finger prints on them and lining them up neatly . Oh, and crimps the end of one of them (that's his trademark). That trademark move is what 'seals the deal'. Oh yeah, and he makes sure to fire at least one shot while standing up at a window that is 6 inches off the floor.

Edited by Kenneth Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...