Why Humes Thought the Back Missile Hit at a Sharp Angle -- a Hypothesis

[Cliff Varnell]

Taking it seriously doesn't mean it actually happened, Cliff.

You insist on missing the point.

I never claimed that it was certain JFK was hit with a high tech weapon, only that it was a possibility the autopsists and FBI men took seriously.

That's one of the more interesting things I find on this forum - people get hooked on ideas that some government official said and think it's gospel.

Whereas you get hooked on things you just make up and think it's gospel.

It's not.

I never presented this scenario as a fact. That's up to you Pet Theorists to claim your imaginings are fact.

Government officials can be wrong too. James Humes was a "government official" yet some here don't want to believe what he said about the wound being shallow.

And Cliff, please don't now say "it's not my theory..."

You insist on mis-representing the historical record.

Typical Pet Theorist rhetoric.

It's obvious that even though someone else came up with it, YOU believe it.

No, I acknowledge it was possible.

The bullets could have been removed prior to the autopsy. That's also possible.

You're projecting your Pet Theorist mentality onto me.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Michael Cross]

We now arrive to the idea Sandy brought up, about how things moving in the air will eventually fall to the ground and his formula he used. Yes, it does make sense but let's just forget about this for a minute and discuss the ball player in the video below throwing home. I used to do this all the time when I played in HS and college - throwing a strike from the outfield to home. If you watch the video, the player is about 25-30 feet from the 390 foot ballpark wall. So that's a rough distance from where he threw it to home of about 120 yards.

If you watch the ball he throws it and it's starting to fall as it arrives at home plate. He threw it from 120 yards away, yet if you go back up to my graphic, a shot from the DT building to the limo has a rough distance of about 66 yards. I mean here's a human being throwing a ball a greater distance than the back shot and it's just starting to fall from the straight line and there's no doubt the player threw it probably at 80 MPH to beat the runner.

Yet, based on the discussion of this thread, we're expected to believe that a bullet, even a slow moving one, would not be possible to be fired from the DT into Kennedy's back, and just going through his clothing, making a piercing wound into his back, and then just stopping where it makes a shallow wound? I'm left trying to figure out why no one thinks this is possible. I think it's very possible.

Mike,

You say that the ball starts falling as it arrives at home late. But can that be true? Gravity is what makes the ball drop. Do you think that gravity was in effect only when the ball neared home plate?

The truth is that the ball started dropping the moment it left the throwers hand. It doesn't look like it's dropping, but that's because he didn't throw the ball horizontally.... the threw it at an upward angle.

I have a question for you... don't you believe in science? If you do believe in science then you should believe what I and others have been telling you. The equation I introduced a few posts ago is a scientific equation that describes how far an object will fall due to gravity. I didn't make that equation up... it is well known to scientists, physicists, ballistics experts, and even guys like me who took Physics 101 in college. I showed you my source for the equation, which I used because I don't have it memorized. I got if from the Wikipedia article titled Equations for Falling Bodies.

Do you think that you are smarter than all the scientists and physicists in the world? Smarter than Sir Isaac Newton, the man who formulated the concepts first describing the effect of gravity on falling objects and planetary motion? (BTW, Isaac Newton also invented a whole branch of advanced mathematics, that being calculus. His estimated IQ is close to 200)

Why don't you go to Yahoo Answers or Quora and ask the people how far a 300 fps bullet will drop upon traveling 150 feet. Ask it in the Physics section. You will quickly find out that we are right and you are wrong. I am certain of that.

Sandy's correct, both about the baseball trajectory - which is true even on throw's that look "level" across the infield - they are thrown upward and immediately flatten due to gravity's effect, and about the constant and irrefutable force of gravity. Arguing this point is a waste of time.

[Michael Cross]

Here's a nice analysis of the trajectory of an incredible throw in baseball:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=23864

[Michael Walton]

Uh, no. You're both wrong. According to Sandy you have to aim the ball "150 feet" in order to make it go where you want. Think about that for a minute. That's equal to a 15-story building. Imagine a baseball field with a 15-story building sitting in the middle of it, a guy goes way out in the outfield and aims for home but projects the ball the same trajectory as the 15-story building. Somewhere along the line, his math analysis is way, way off.

There is no freaking way that you have to aim the ball the equivalent of a 15-story building to throw the ball 110 to 120 yards. It seems like Sandy doesn't care that I've actually done this numerous times before my arm fell apart.

Watch my video and your video. The most he aimed it upward is I'm going to guess 25-30 feet at the most in order to get it where he wanted. You can clearly see this when the ball is halfway there - the other players are looking up to it as it's about 25-30 feet from the ground.

And to stick to this thread's topic - I think this whole thread is a good example of others on this forum - the simple, down-to-earth reasoning behind the back wound just seems too hard for people to believe, so they come up with outlandish ways for how it happened. Researchers here say it couldn't have happened that way, but I say, "how do we know that?" Because someone said a few words and came up with a crazy alternative theory?

Until someone takes a dummy, puts a shirt and coat on it, positions it the same distance between the DT building and Z 225, and fires a number of bullets similar to C399 and 10 out of 10 bullets all go through and through the dummy and not stop shallow like Humes said, then I'll continue to believe that what Humes said was correct.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I think my dog has a better comprehension of trajectories and ballistics.

[Sandy Larsen]

Uh, no. You're both wrong.

Wow. Just wow.

According to Sandy you have to aim the ball "150 feet" in order to make it go where you want. Think about that for a minute. That's equal to a 15-story building. Imagine a baseball field with a 15-story building sitting in the middle of it, a guy goes way out in the outfield and aims for home but projects the ball the same trajectory as the 15-story building.

Somewhere along the line, his math analysis is way, way off.

I'm an engineer, Mike. I'm overqualified for this problem.

Like anybody else, engineers do make mistakes. Please, anybody, point out what mistake I've made here. I don't believe I've made any.

There is no freaking way that you have to aim the ball the equivalent of a 15-story building to throw the ball 110 to 120 yards. It seems like Sandy doesn't care that I've actually done this numerous times before my arm fell apart.

Watch my video and your video. The most he aimed it upward is I'm going to guess 25-30 feet at the most in order to get it where he wanted. You can clearly see this when the ball is halfway there - the other players are looking up to it as it's about 25-30 feet from the ground.

As the ball left the outfielder's hand, it was headed tor a point ~150 feet above the catcher's head. Halfway there, where Mike says the ball was 25 to 30 feet up, the ball would have been 150/2 = 75 feet in the air had there been no gravity acting on the ball. The reason it reached a height of only 25 or 30 feet (or whatever it is) is because the force of gravity kept it from going to 75 feet.

And it was the force of gravity that pulled the ball down to the catcher. Without gravity the ball would have passed 150 feet above the pitcher's head and would have kept rising till pulled in by the gravity of some other celestial body.

And to stick to this thread's topic - I think this whole thread is a good example of others on this forum - the simple, down-to-earth reasoning behind the back wound just seems too hard for people to believe, so they come up with outlandish ways for how it happened. Researchers here say it couldn't have happened that way, but I say, "how do we know that?" Because someone said a few words and came up with a crazy alternative theory?

No. It's because science (physics) and mathematics show us it couldn't have happened.

Until someone takes a dummy, puts a shirt and coat on it, positions it the same distance between the DT building and Z 225, and fires a number of bullets similar to C399 and 10 out of 10 bullets all go through and through the dummy and not stop shallow like Humes said, then I'll continue to believe that what Humes said was correct.

Questions for Bob Prudhomme: About how many deer have you shot in your lifetime? Of those, how many hit just muscle and stopped before hitting bone or exiting? If any, how far did these penetrate muscle before stopping?

I'm sure you've seen a lot of deer shot by others. Have you EVER seen a shallow wound made by any standard rifle fire? Where the bullet didn't break up?

[Michael Walton]

Bob - I think my dog has a better comprehension of trajectories and ballistics.

You know, Bob, while others are actually making something here and arguing their case, the most I've seen you do is copy and paste from the WR and throw around snide remarks. If you're such an "expert," why don't you take the challenge - get a gun, go out in the woods, get a dummy or a dead deer, put some clothes on it, and fire some rounds and take pictures and video of the result and publish it here. Yeah, that's what I thought.

Sandy - I'm an engineer, Mike. I'm overqualified for this problem. Like anybody else, engineers do make mistakes. Please, anybody, point out what mistake I've made here. I don't believe I've made any.

I didn't know you were an engineer so I have respect for you for going to college and learning a profession. That's great. I'm a multimedia producer (the old term for it was TV producer) and have been one for 30 years now. But anyway, here are two additional images:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxTXo1QXVBRUhfTUU

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxcUJOZndlY0M3UkE

There's just no way you have to aim to throw a ball that distance the same height as a 2-story building, Sandy. No way. I know this may not matter to you, too, but I've done this before. And I'm picturing myself standing out in the outfield with a ball in my hand saying, "Yep. I remember looking up in the air around, say, 150 feet up, and using that as my benchmark to ensure my throw reaches home plate as shown in the videos. Yep, indeed."

But back to this thread - there are just too many variables for 11/22 for us to say, "Oh, it's impossible for a shot to have just pretty much come to a dead stop in Kennedy's upper back like Humes says. It just had to have been a dart or a special concoction to cause a wound like that."

[Sandy Larsen]

We now arrive to the idea Sandy brought up, about how things moving in the air will eventually fall to the ground and his formula he used. Yes, it does make sense but let's just forget about this for a minute and discuss the ball player in the video below throwing home. I used to do this all the time when I played in HS and college - throwing a strike from the outfield to home. If you watch the video, the player is about 25-30 feet from the 390 foot ballpark wall. So that's a rough distance from where he threw it to home of about 120 yards.

If you watch the ball he throws it and it's starting to fall as it arrives at home plate. He threw it from 120 yards away, yet if you go back up to my graphic, a shot from the DT building to the limo has a rough distance of about 66 yards. I mean here's a human being throwing a ball a greater distance than the back shot and it's just starting to fall from the straight line and there's no doubt the player threw it probably at 80 MPH to beat the runner.

Yet, based on the discussion of this thread, we're expected to believe that a bullet, even a slow moving one, would not be possible to be fired from the DT into Kennedy's back, and just going through his clothing, making a piercing wound into his back, and then just stopping where it makes a shallow wound? I'm left trying to figure out why no one thinks this is possible. I think it's very possible.

Mike,

The only reason that baseball made it to home base is because the guy aimed high... way high. Using your numbers (and ignoring wind resistance for simplicity), I calculated that he had to have aimed it 151 feet high. (My calculation, using your estimated numbers, is below.)

If you draw a straight line from the point where the thrower released the ball, following the path of the ball before it has dropped appreciably, you will see that he did indeed aim very, very high.

baseball_high_aim.jpg

Now go back and watch the baseball video again. Had the thrower aimed DIRECTLY at the catcher, do you think the ball would have landed anywhere close to him? The answer is, of course not. In fact, it would have landed 98 yards short of the catcher. (I'll show you the calculation if you want to see it.) The ball would have traveled only 22 yards before hitting the ground. (For this calculation I assumed the "bullseye" was 5 ft above ground level.)

NOTE: I don't believe that the guy who threw the ball consciously aimed it 151 ft above the catcher. Of course not. He instinctually aimed it in such a way that it would arrive at home base, based upon his past experience. But regardless, the aim of the ball was roughly that high. (Again not taking air resistance into account.)

Calculation

80 mph = 117 fps

120 yards = 360 ft

drop = 16 x (d/v)^2 = 16 x (360/117)^2 = 151 feet

I decided not to wait for someone to tell me if I'd made a mistake. I compared my results with those from a projectile calculator. There was a difference between the two. Upon further investigation I discovered -- and recalled -- that in deriving my formula for bullet drop, I simplified it by assuming a constant bullet velocity.

As a bullet drops due to gravity, it's speed will increase. I decided to ignore this increase in velocity because it looked like doing so would simplify the formula considerably. It was a reasonable thing to do because bullets don't drop much in the real situations we discuss here. So the velocity of the bullet doesn't change much either.

I will continue to use that formula for bullets. (Though I do need to go back to the post where I first introduced it and note that it is an approximation that is useful only for projectiles whose velocities don't change much due to gravity.)

The mistake I made was forgetting about that simplification and using the formula for baseball projectiles. In the case of baseball projectiles, the ball's velocity will decrease significantly as the ball is rising, and then will increase significantly as the ball falls.

Now don't get me wrong... even for baseballs the formula I used is what it is... an approximation. Problem is, as I have discovered, it is not a very good approximation. It gives what technical people would call a "first order" approximation. In other words, a ballpark (forgive the pun) figure.

The result of my error is that that I calculated the wrong number for where the outfielder was aiming in Mike's baseball scenario, using his estimated distance and initial velocity. I calculated that the ball's initial destination (before gravity had any effect) was about 151 feet above the catcher.

I will now use an equation from Wikipedia's article titled Trajectory of a Projectile to calculate the precise number.

First I will use the Angle of Reach formula, which will tell me at what angle the outfielder had to throw the ball in order for it to have reached the home plate. It is

angle = 1/2 arcsin(gd/v^2)

where

g = 32 ft/s^2 (gravitational acceleration)

d = horizontal distance traveled (where initial elevation = final elevation)

v = initial velocity

Plugging in Mike's numbers (from my quoted post above), I get:

angle = 1/2 arcsin( (32)(360) / 117^2) = 28.65 degrees

The ball was thrown at a 28.65 degree angle above horizontal.

I know the horizontal distance traveled is 360 ft. I can use trigonometry to calculate the distance above the catcher's head the ball would have passed had no gravitational pull been applied:

height / 360 = tan(28.65)

height = 360 tan(28.65) = 197 ft

So, the thrower aimed the ball 197 ft above the catcher's head. Even higher than the 151 ft my first formula estimated.

So Mike, it's even higher than the number you reject. But I know it's right because I ran it through a couple of online trajectory calculators, and they both give the same answer as mine.

[Sandy Larsen]

Mike W.,

One problem with your thinking is that you believe that a thrower actually aims the ball. As I said in my earlier post, the thrower doesn't aim the ball... at least not vertically. He throws the ball with a release that he instinctually knows will land the ball where he wants it to. His is a learned instinct gained from throwing the bull numerous times and observing how far the ball traveled.

Even without resorting to physics and math, we can see with our own eyes that the thrower aims way too high (though subconsciously) because we see the ball rising rapidly at first. It's only because of gravity that it doesn't continue to rise to the heights (like197 ft) that I've calculated.

(NOTE: Again I want to point out that I am not taking air resistance into account. The effect of air resistance on a large object like a baseball could be significant.)

Edited August 26, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Ray Mitcham]

Some good examples of baseball throws.

[Sandy Larsen]

Mike,

At what angle do you think the ball could have exited from the outfielder's hand? Where 0 degrees is horizontal and 90 degrees is straight up.

Don't you think that a 30 degree angle is reasonable? Here is 30 degrees:

A ball that is thrown at a 30 degree angle would reach a height of 173 feet at the 100 yard mark if there was no gravity pulling it down. So a thrower who releases the ball at a 30 degree angle would be aiming 173 feet high if the catcher were 100 yards away.

BTW, if the outfielder threw the ball faster, let's say 100 mph instead of 80 mph, he would have to throw the ball at only 13.3 degrees to reach the same 100 yard distance. And he would be aiming only 71 feet above the catcher. So speed makes a big difference on how high the thrower must aim.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Robert Prudhomme]

If the outfielder threw the ball at 80 mph in an arc or "trajectory" (that's a big word, Michael, just like marmalade - go look it up) aiming at the catcher's mitt and expecting the ball to impact the catcher's mitt as it descended in a parabolic curve, where would the ball impact if it left the outfielder's hand travelling only 15 mph?

Remember, the outfielder is aiming and throwing in such a fashion expecting the ball to be travelling 80 mph as it leaves his hand, and has no idea the velocity of the departing ball is going to be only 15 mph.

Trajectories of a projectile with air drag and varying initial velocities

Edited August 26, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Michael Walton]

Yes, you're right it's all instinct. I, too, never stood out there making calculations. Neither did these guys. The point though is look at many of Ray's videos. It would take miles and miles for the ball, based on the speed they throw it at and if by some miracle the ball held a constant speed, to keep angling upward to reach a height of 150 feet. That's why that calculation has to be wrong.

These guys are throwing the ball anywhere from 80 to 90 mph. I could throw the ball no harder than 87 mph. Either way, that's hardly a blip in speed to even the slowest moving bullet. This whole discussion of balls and bullets started when I said that, yes, there CAN be a bullet or a gun out there that fires an ordinary bullet (not a gizmo concoction) that would have enough speed to move constantly at the target from the DT building, go through clothing and hit gristle and muscle but come to a stop without penetrating.

If you look here:

https://doc-0g-bk-docs.googleusercontent.com/docs/securesc/ha0ro937gcuc7l7deffksulhg5h7mbp1/o444a3359kuf9vbqq5opsnfkhhlq7226/1472220000000/12170580501158663845/*/0B7Hr9Lrku-CxZ08yMUVXcHhtdEU

...that distance was only 70 odd yards away. So we're expected to believe that there was no ordinary bullet on the face of the Earth that day that could not travel 70 yards, go through clothing and muscles and gristle, and just stop at whatever distance Humes said it was during the autopsy?

Was that the Bad Guys' plan all along? Was the shot supposed to be closer to the neck? We just don't know. Just like we also don't know how in the world these same sharp shooters fired a shot way down beyond the car and hit the curb. *

* And I know some are going to say that that shot hit the oak tree and richocheted but I don't believe that either. The reason is because I don't think ANY shots came from the TSBD. I thought it was there mainly to just be the "evidence" show for Crazy Kid because he worked there.

[Michael Cross]

Uh, no. You're both wrong. According to Sandy you have to aim the ball "150 feet" in order to make it go where you want. Think about that for a minute. That's equal to a 15-story building. Imagine a baseball field with a 15-story building sitting in the middle of it, a guy goes way out in the outfield and aims for home but projects the ball the same trajectory as the 15-story building. Somewhere along the line, his math analysis is way, way off.

There is no freaking way that you have to aim the ball the equivalent of a 15-story building to throw the ball 110 to 120 yards. It seems like Sandy doesn't care that I've actually done this numerous times before my arm fell apart.

Watch my video and your video. The most he aimed it upward is I'm going to guess 25-30 feet at the most in order to get it where he wanted. You can clearly see this when the ball is halfway there - the other players are looking up to it as it's about 25-30 feet from the ground.

And to stick to this thread's topic - I think this whole thread is a good example of others on this forum - the simple, down-to-earth reasoning behind the back wound just seems too hard for people to believe, so they come up with outlandish ways for how it happened. Researchers here say it couldn't have happened that way, but I say, "how do we know that?" Because someone said a few words and came up with a crazy alternative theory?

Until someone takes a dummy, puts a shirt and coat on it, positions it the same distance between the DT building and Z 225, and fires a number of bullets similar to C399 and 10 out of 10 bullets all go through and through the dummy and not stop shallow like Humes said, then I'll continue to believe that what Humes said was correct.

My god. Did you look at the analysis I provided in that link. Or is your opinion the final word?

[Robert Prudhomme]

"Bob - I think my dog has a better comprehension of trajectories and ballistics.

You know, Bob, while others are actually making something here and arguing their case, the most I've seen you do is copy and paste from the WR and throw around snide remarks. If you're such an "expert," why don't you take the challenge - get a gun, go out in the woods, get a dummy or a dead deer, put some clothes on it, and fire some rounds and take pictures and video of the result and publish it here. Yeah, that's what I thought."

Say what you want, the dog still gets it, and you don't.