Mike Williams
-
Posts
1,023 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Mike Williams
-
-
''Greg,
There is no postulation. I am a professional shooter. Had this been the work of a professional shooter it would have been one shot. Escape would have been much simpler, as i doubt his location would have been identified any where near as quickly. (A professional would not have the damn rifle sticking out of the window!). I never did agree that LHO was the sniper. I said the facts are , what the facts are. Circumstantial at best. I do not in anyway believe he was incapable of this shooting. These shots were less than 100 yards. This is easy pickins as it were.
I would suspect that he got out unmolested because he fit in. He was not out of place in that area. This does nothing to help the LHO cause.
Best to you!
Mike''
(A professional would not have the damn rifle sticking out of the window!) - EXACTLY!
If it was from the 6th floor window it was with the sniper standing behind the pipes, but according to witnesses it was not so.
However, imo, the point is not to help the LHO cause, whatever that may be, but to prove to satisfaction that there was no conspiracy. That has not been done.
At the same time, if you haven't the training and a cutdown rifle, with unpredictable behaviour, a scope out of alignment, it might be easy pickins for a pro, but LHO can hardly be said to coming close to being that? What about a pro who sets it up so that it doesn't look like a pro, wouldn't that be even more pro?
John,
I am not sure what you mean by unpredictable behavior. Frazier managed 3 shots inside a 3/4" circle in 6 seconds. That seems pretty good to me. Oswald had the ability to make the shots, that is rather well documented, however this does not mean of course that he did make the shots. A pro setting this up to look like a non pro is something that just does not make sense to me at all. Why take more shots than needed and give away your location? Why do so while using a place that would be difficult to extract from if you were to be out of place there? This makes no sense to me.
Mike
-
There are some of us that do not hold that every thing is faked forged or altered.
I didn't say "everything was faked or forged."
On the contrary, it is YOU who disputes every witness to the back wound,
who disputes the physical evidence found in the clothing defects, who disputes
reliable evidence in favor of the patently unreliable.
Did the Dozen plus witnesses all suffer the same hallucination, Mike?
How do you account for the location of the bullet defects in the clothes?
I simply point out that there is medical evidence which was not prepared according
to proper autopsy protocol, and there is evidence which WAS prepared according to
proper autopsy protocol.
You and others insist that the improperly prepared medical evidence
TRUMPS the properly prepared medical evidence.
There is no logic to this conclusion of yours whatsoever.
Cliff,
Whoa there cowboy. Who was disputing the evidence? I believe I posted this in an effort to discern evidence.
Where did I dispute testimony?
I have insisted nothing.
I believe the holes in the clothing and the wounds present a clear and evident path, to one that knows how to follow the trail.
Mike
-
Hey Mike,
Do you believe all the shots were fired by a single assassin?
Martin
Martin,
Absolutely unequivocally YES.
Those shots and their trajectory lead to a point of origin within a 20" circle of the 6th floor window in the TSBD.
Mr. Mike,
A statement and a few more questions.
Since Oswald can't be placed within that 20" circle in the 6th floor window in the TSBD at the time of the assassination 12:30 PMCST, as he has an alibi - being on the second floor at the time, do you think the Sixth Floor Sniper, whoever he was, do you think he was a local Texan hillbilly loser hick who got lucky, or do you think he was a highly paid, well trained and competent clandestine covert operative who killed on assignment before and has done so since? Was the sniper a hillbilly or jackal?
And if you insist on Oswald being the Sixth floor sniper, do you think he suddenly decided to kill the President because he was given the opportunity and was mad at Marina or did he plan it out in advance and get the job at the TSBD and set up the Sniper's Nest and carry out a plan he thought of in advance. If Oswald was the sniper, was he a hillbilly or a jackal?
And as part of official US military sniper's training, are you trained on how to protect yourself in the Sniper's Nest and how to get out of there after the job's done?
Thanks for your knowing and honest response,
Bill Kelly
Mr. Kelly,
I have my issues with LHO being our man quite frankly. The evidence against him is circumstantial at best, and inadmissible at worst.
My very honest opinion is this is NOT a professional shooter. If it had been there would have been a single round fired. Game. Set. match.
I would not even presume to surmise what Oswald would do. The boy had issues that is sure enough, but to what I am not qualified to give any better guess than anyone else.
In normal operations we have a spotter, he is our security, and is generally armed with an m4 or some variant. We also have a pistol. Basically the snipers best security is a damn good "hide", his own ability to enter and leave an area undetected, and his insistence that one shot be fired.
Think if you will about a bird in your back yard chirping. If he chirps just once we often cant locate him, however if he continues to chirp he is soon located, and so it is with a sniper. One shot, then relocate.
One of the main things in considering location is escape. This is and should always be preplanned.
Best to you SIR,
Mike
This is the first post you have made that I agree with almost 100%-- But, it does bring us back to the sniper's nest. Even if we agree that LHO as the sniper was an unlikely scenario, what about that location? This is not a point of probable extraction, by any stretch of the imagination, for anyone under the circumstances. Moreover, if the TSBD sniper (if there was one) was an amateur as you postulate, HOW DID HE GET OUT UN-MOLESTED in the aftermath?
Greg,
There is no postulation. I am a professional shooter. Had this been the work of a professional shooter it would have been one shot. Escape would have been much simpler, as i doubt his location would have been identified any where near as quickly. (A professional would not have the damn rifle sticking out of the window!). I never did agree that LHO was the sniper. I said the facts are , what the facts are. Circumstantial at best. I do not in anyway believe he was incapable of this shooting. These shots were less than 100 yards. This is easy pickins as it were.
I would suspect that he got out unmolested because he fit in. He was not out of place in that area. This does nothing to help the LHO cause.
Best to you!
Mike
-
Witness testimony to me will ALWAYS take a back seat to hard fact. The shape and size of the wounds coupled with the angle of said wounds through the victims clearly allows for a reverse trajectory to be plotted.
Hard fact: the bullet hole in the jacket is 4.125" below the bottom of the jacket collar,
a location consistent with an in-shoot about the level of the third thoracic vertebra.
Hard fact: more than a dozen witnesses placed the back wound in the vicinity of the
third thoracic vertebra or lower.
Hard fact: two pieces of properly prepared medical evidence -- Burkley's
death certificate and Boswell's autopsy face sheet diagram -- were both
signed off as "verified" and both indicated the back wound was "about the level of
the third thoracic vertebra."
Hard fact: the 7mm X 4mm measurement written on the autopsy face sheet
was written in pen, a violation of proper military autopsy protocol which
dictates that measurements must be recorded in pencil.
Fact takes a back seat to unreliable evidence in this discussion, I'm afraid.
Cliff,
I am not arguing any of that! I am simply saying I do not think there was any alteration or forgery. Yes I do think there were errors.
You look at those pictures posted earlier and tell me which you think they are trying to measure, the upper or the lower wound?
I have seen, with my own eyes, more gunshot wounds than I care to and that bottom one is a text book bullet wound in my honest opinion.
Further Martin there seems to have proven it measures almost exactly as is recorded.
I hate to say it Cliff, but this may be one I have to agree with you on.
Oh yea, Do not know that we have posted to E/O before so it is a pleasure to meet you Sir!
I hope you are having a fantastic night.
Mike
-
Hey Mike,
Do you believe all the shots were fired by a single assassin?
Martin
Martin,
Absolutely unequivocally YES.
Those shots and their trajectory lead to a point of origin within a 20" circle of the 6th floor window in the TSBD.
Mike,
As a point of logic, you are speaking of "shots" as though that terminology [as you infer it to mean] is relevant to this discussion! In other words, it is a circular argument. Your conclusion includes "facts not in evidence" outside of the original inquiry, yet incorporates them within your conclusion as though they were arrived at independently from the original debate.
Are you relying on medical/wound forensics at all? Are you considering eyewitness and earwitness testimony at all? It appears that you are not including data in your analysis that in any way might challenge your pre-determined conclusions.
Greg,
This entire discussion is based on the illogical assumption that improperly
prepared medical evidence (the autopsy photos, the notations on the autopsy
face sheet written in pen) trump properly prepared medical evidence
(Burkley's death certificate, the autopsy face sheet notations written in pencil).
These assumptions also ignore the physical evidence of the "low" back wound indicated
by the bullet holes in the clothes, the sworn testimony of a half-dozen Federal agents and
the statements of more than a half-dozen witnesses among the Bethesda staff -- all of
whom put the back wound in the vicinity of T3.
The HSCA pathology panel concluded the back wound was "high" on the basis
of the Fox 5 autopsy photo, which Mike put into evidence up-thread.
Here's what they also said about the autopsy photos (emphasis added),
from Vol. 7 of the HSCA report:
Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives is a series ofnegatives and prints of photographs taken during autopsy. The deficiencies
of these photographs as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have
been described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:
1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.
2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner that it is nearly
impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.
3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present, were positioned
in such a manner to make it difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of
critical features (such as the wound in the upper back) from anatomical landmarks.
4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim; such as his name,
the autopsy case number, the date and place of the examination.
What a scam the HSCA pulled! Their conclusion on the "high" back wound
was based on a "deficient" photograph of such poor quality that accurate
measurements were "difficult or impossible to obtain."
By what tortured logic is such inferior evidence deemed dispositive?
To render the autopsy photos even more unreliable, the woman on record as having
developed the extant autopsy photos, Saundra Kay Spender, testified before the ARRB
and insisted the extant autopsy photos were not the ones she developed.
From the ARRB deposition of Saundra Kay Spencer, June 5, 1997:
Q: Ms. Spencer, you have now had an opportunity to view all of the colored images,both transparencies and prints, that are in the possession of the National Archives
related to the autopsy of President Kennedy.
Based upon your knowledge, are there any images of the autopsy of President Kennedy
that are not included in the set you have just seen?
A: The views that we produced at the (Naval) Photographic Center are not included.
Q: Ms. Spencer, how certain are you that there were other photographs of President
Kennedy's autopsy that are not included in the set you've just seen?
A: I can personally say they are not included...
...I had brought along a photograph that was produced approximately 10 days prior
to the time that we printed the autopsy photographs that we produced at NPC, and
because of the watermark and stuff on it does not match those that I viewed, and NPC
bought all of a run, which meant that every piece of paper within the house would
have the same identical watermark and logo on it. I can say that the paper was not
a piece of paper that was processed or printed out of the Photographic Center within
that time frame.
There was obviously no chain of possession for the extant autopsy photos,
a well-ignored fact in these parts.
By what stretch of logic does anyone draw conclusions on the basis of poor quality,
improperly prepared photographs for which there is no chain of possession, or any
evidence whatsoever that the subject of the photo was JFK?
There are some of us that do not hold that every thing is faked forged or altered.
-
Hey Mike,
Do you believe all the shots were fired by a single assassin?
Martin
Martin,
Absolutely unequivocally YES.
Those shots and their trajectory lead to a point of origin within a 20" circle of the 6th floor window in the TSBD.
Mr. Mike,
A statement and a few more questions.
Since Oswald can't be placed within that 20" circle in the 6th floor window in the TSBD at the time of the assassination 12:30 PMCST, as he has an alibi - being on the second floor at the time, do you think the Sixth Floor Sniper, whoever he was, do you think he was a local Texan hillbilly loser hick who got lucky, or do you think he was a highly paid, well trained and competent clandestine covert operative who killed on assignment before and has done so since? Was the sniper a hillbilly or jackal?
And if you insist on Oswald being the Sixth floor sniper, do you think he suddenly decided to kill the President because he was given the opportunity and was mad at Marina or did he plan it out in advance and get the job at the TSBD and set up the Sniper's Nest and carry out a plan he thought of in advance. If Oswald was the sniper, was he a hillbilly or a jackal?
And as part of official US military sniper's training, are you trained on how to protect yourself in the Sniper's Nest and how to get out of there after the job's done?
Thanks for your knowing and honest response,
Bill Kelly
Mr. Kelly,
I have my issues with LHO being our man quite frankly. The evidence against him is circumstantial at best, and inadmissible at worst.
My very honest opinion is this is NOT a professional shooter. If it had been there would have been a single round fired. Game. Set. match.
I would not even presume to surmise what Oswald would do. The boy had issues that is sure enough, but to what I am not qualified to give any better guess than anyone else.
In normal operations we have a spotter, he is our security, and is generally armed with an m4 or some variant. We also have a pistol. Basically the snipers best security is a damn good "hide", his own ability to enter and leave an area undetected, and his insistence that one shot be fired.
Think if you will about a bird in your back yard chirping. If he chirps just once we often cant locate him, however if he continues to chirp he is soon located, and so it is with a sniper. One shot, then relocate.
One of the main things in considering location is escape. This is and should always be preplanned.
Best to you SIR,
Mike
-
Hey Mike,
Do you believe all the shots were fired by a single assassin?
Martin
Martin,
Absolutely unequivocally YES.
Those shots and their trajectory lead to a point of origin within a 20" circle of the 6th floor window in the TSBD.
Mike,
As a point of logic, you are speaking of "shots" as though that terminology [as you infer it to mean] is relevant to this discussion! In other words, it is a circular argument. Your conclusion includes "facts not in evidence" outside of the original inquiry, yet incorporates them within your conclusion as though they were arrived at independently from the original debate.
Are you relying on medical/wound forensics at all? Are you considering eyewitness and earwitness testimony at all? It appears that you are not including data in your analysis that in any way might challenge your pre-determined conclusions.
Mr Burnham,
Witness testimony to me will ALWAYS take a back seat to hard fact. The shape and size of the wounds coupled with the angle of said wounds through the victims clearly allows for a reverse trajectory to be plotted. This reverse trajectory initially was used to eliminate shooting positions. Such as. If the impact angle and the angle of entry were to represent 45* then we know the shooter has to be the same height above the target as the distance horizontally between the target and the shooter. This eliminates shooting positions.
However in this instance the trajectory data is quite conclusive.
But then again it has been said I am not very scientific
Best to you SIR,
Mike
-
Hey Mike,
Do you believe all the shots were fired by a single assassin?
Martin
Martin,
Absolutely unequivocally YES.
Those shots and their trajectory lead to a point of origin within a 20" circle of the 6th floor window in the TSBD.
-
Mike, I suggest, when looking at it, see if you can see on the color photos of the spent cartridges when scaled properly whether the dented one is slightly less discolored indicating less heat generated and : not as expanded by the firing. I found it is less discolored and not as bulged, but noone has confirmed or debunked this so it's an observation in limbo.
John,
Oh there is much more to it that that. Bolt face markings etc etc.
I have some very good scans of excellent quality Tink sent me a couple years ago.
Mike
-
Ok, Mike, (that reminds me of an incident like that where the cops were called but even tho it was a couple of streets away it was loud, but turned out to be firecrackers.) Did many mention how loud the ''fire crackers'' were among those who used that description?
It seemed like many said "very loud firecrackers".
-
Yeah, thats where fire crackers come in.
The five shot pattern of a sneeze punches out three to four holes not unlike the backwound.
I'm pretty doubtful about it but it is a Baltic invention for poaching (and assassination) at close range with minimal collateral damage.
edit:edit
John,
Firecrackers is also the most common description of witnesses hearing gunshots.
Mike
-
Does this sound like " an author who respects genuine data"?
It sure sounds like it to me, comparing Lifton's research to Pamela's research is like comparing a Porsche to a Yugo
Dean,
Thats odd I would discredit someones work based on their work, not based on how I felt about them personally. But then again, that is rational thinking, something so few seem to have.
-
On a personal note, and one unrelated to the matter of Judyth: if you want to know when it became evident to me that your research on the windshield could be safely set aside, and that Doug Weldon had in fact nailed down the facts in that area--the tipping point came with your false accusations against me regarding Judyth.
Does this sound like " an author who respects genuine data"?
I should think the data would stand for itself regardless of personal animosity.
-
John Armstrong emailed me that he would like to join the forum,
but that when he tried to sign up, he got a message that the forum
is no longer accepting members.
What is going on?
John wants to correct some misconceptions about Harvey&Lee which
are being posted by people who have not read the book. Why is he
not allowed to join?
Jack
As you've probably noticed, new members are still being accepted. (Greg Burnham, Doug Weldon, and Martin Hay are all new members.) If you send Armstrong's email address to John Simkin, I suspect there'll be no problem.
True Story!
Even when I joined it was closed and that has been about 2 years!
(betcha wish ya locked the door now lol)
-
WHAT ABOUT THE BALTIC CATS SNEEZE RELOAD
John,
It seems that the majority heard 3 shots, and I am thinking they were to loud to be Sneezers.
Ill have to give this some though.
Hope you are well!
Mike
-
Martin you are exactly correct. I have always held, and still do that this was the exit of a fragment.
Mike
Mike,
So does that you mean you have an alternative explanation for the apparently shallow back wound or do you also think it was a short shot?
Martin
Martin my friend,
I think it was a short shot. This is one area Tom Purvis and I cant get together on. I think the key is in looking very closely at the dented lip cartridge casing head stamp! Im working on something about this, but there are indications that this round was NOT at full velocity when fired.
I want it to be clear though, at this point it is SPECULATION, as I have not satisfied my toughest critic, myself.
Best to you SIR
Mike
-
Martin,
I had planned on doing something similar. Thank you, this is interesting indeed. Would you mind if I used these for something I am working on?
Best,
Mike
No problem Mike. Feel free to use it.
John, thanks for confirming that.
best
Martin
Martin,
You are a Gent Thank You very much!
Mike
-
Hi Pat, is that a centimeter ruler?
Thank you forward
Martin
Ok, i try to help myself.
I tweaked the contrast/curves/exposure of the ruler to make the marks visible.
To me it looks like a centimeter ruler although i'am not familiar with inches ruler.
Given that, the size of shape #1 would be 11x9mm and shape #2 would be ~4x6mm.
Mhhh
Martin,
I had planned on doing something similar. Thank you, this is interesting indeed. Would you mind if I used these for something I am working on?
Best,
Mike
-
Martin,
Compared to the rear view mirror dimensions the dent in the chrome fits a 6.5mm rather well. I do not think the projectile left JFK and went straight to JT. I believe that bullet passed through JFK and hit that Chrome. (I could calculate the velocity) And shattered and a fragment of that struck JT. I should have made that a bit more specific than just saying "from the head shot" So if that projectile struck the chrome at over 1000 FPS, then I have every confidence it could make the trip. The Distance from 313 to Tague is 282', if the fragment weighed just 5 grains, it would still be at 972 feet per second when reaching JT.
So the bullet leaves the muzzle at 2165fps, reaches JFK @ 1889 FPS/1268ft-lbs, passes through a 12" head losing 30ft-lbs per inch.so it exits JFK @ 1598fps or 900 ft-lbs. So even considering the impact to the chrome cast off is still plenty fast enough to hit JT and give him a nick, or much worse.
I would say that would be sufficient to leave a scratch, and very likely just tells us that JT may have been a pretty lucky man that day.
Best to you Martin!
Mike
Mike,
just to make sure i got it correct, here's an illustration of your scenario.
You said: I believe that bullet passed through JFK and hit that Chrome. (I could calculate the velocity) And shattered and a fragment of that struck JT
This fragment would make a turn around the windshield frame in order to hit James Tague:
Sorry mate, thats beyond my imagination power. LOL
What i miss in your calculations is.....what about the curb with the fresh chip damage south of Main?
What's with that?
best to you Mike
Martin
Martin damage to the curb does not have to come from the same fragment that injured JT. You are assuming that the fragment would carry a direct trajectory. This would actually be a very slight chance. It is far more likely that this fragment was in irregular shape, and there for would have unknown flight characteristics. All we can accurately calculate is the velocity, after that any conclusion would be pure speculation based on the amount of unknown factors. Such as shape of the fragment. There is sufficient evidence to prove it had the velocity. That is really all we can prove. We do know that this was not the impact of a direct projectile, as it had lead and no copper in the mark. Had it been a direct strike it would have contained copper.
Mike
-
Martin,
Well I would have to say that it is not a highly likely occurrence. I believe I read some tests where they tried this and had very few (if any) short rounds. This is not to say it could not have happened. If that Ammo were European it would be far more likely.
This is not to say that it is impossible. Several factors could cause this. Such as a rifle being buried and susceptible to moisture.
The interesting issue here is the statement that it would have come out his heart or sternum. This is really conjecture. If we made two shots, one a short round and one a full velocity round,they would have different trajectories. The effects of passing through the flesh would be more severe on a short round than a full velocity round. The trajectory through would be different, simply because of the rapid loss of inertia caused by the initial lack of velocity.
I am not convinced that Mr. O'Connor would be wrong in any event. Chiefly because I have no evidence of what they used to determine this.
If they used the size of the wound, they could be correct if they in fact calculated the impact angle correctly. If they used the angle found by probing the wound they could be incorrect because as stated the wound path would be effected by loss of velocity, inertia etc.
The affect of the short round passing through would effect the trajectory path. So it would be hard to determine.
Interesting even more is him stating as fact not only did the round not pass through, but even that THEY SPECULATED AS TO WHY! To me that is epic.
Last I heard I thought he was still in Florida....hmmmmm
Mike
Mike,
All indications from witnesses to the autopsy are that Humes and Boswell were certan at the the close of the autopsy that the bullet did not transit. And there's a clue in the record that not only did they speculate why, but at some point they offered an explanation for the throat wound. From the Jan 27, 1964, Warren Commission executive sesssion:
Rankin: Then there is a great range of material in regard to the wounds, and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck...We have an explanation THERE IN THE AUTOPSY that probably A FRAGMENT CAME OUT THE FRONT OF THE NECK, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, the angle, it seems quite apparent now, SINCE WE HAVE THE PICTURE of where the bullet entered in the back, that THE BULLET ENTERED BELOW THE SHOULDER BLADE, to the right of the backbone, which is BELOW THE PLACE WHERE THE PICTURE SHOWS THE BULLET CAME OUT IN THE NECKBAND OF THE SHIRT IN FRONT. [Emphasis mine]
The idea that a fragment of bullet or bone from the head shot exited the throat appears to be partially supported by FBI agent Frazier's testimony regarding the hole in the shirt:
"The hole in the front of the shirt does not have the round characteristic shape caused by a round bullet entering cloth. It is an irregular slit. It could have been caused by a round bullet, however, since the cloth could have torn in a long slitlike way as the bullet passed through it. But that is not specifically characteristic of a bullethole to the extent that you could say it was to the exclusion of being a piece of bone or some other type of projectile" (5H61)
Martin
Martin you are exactly correct. I have always held, and still do that this was the exit of a fragment.
Mike
-
Martin,
I disagree. A projectile fragment could well have traveled to Tague. Given that we do not know what the projectile did once it hit the chrome, we could not possibly rule this out.
Mike
Hi Mike. No problem to disagree. That happens most of times on forums. Isn't it?
You talking about a proctile hit the chrome.
I asssume you are familiar with that image:
What i see is a serious damage to the the chrome caused by a bullet/bullet fragement in the center of the metal windshield frame.
I see a serious intact portion of the windshield metal above of the damage. An inch? Maybe.
I cannot imagine how a fragment could travel over this bulge damage.
But if that really happend at what degree and what power loss?
That projectile would most likely falling down back into the limousine.
best to you
Martin
Martin,
Compared to the rear view mirror dimensions the dent in the chrome fits a 6.5mm rather well. I do not think the projectile left JFK and went straight to JT. I believe that bullet passed through JFK and hit that Chrome. (I could calculate the velocity) And shattered and a fragment of that struck JT. I should have made that a bit more specific than just saying "from the head shot" So if that projectile struck the chrome at over 1000 FPS, then I have every confidence it could make the trip. The Distance from 313 to Tague is 282', if the fragment weighed just 5 grains, it would still be at 972 feet per second when reaching JT.
So the bullet leaves the muzzle at 2165fps, reaches JFK @ 1889 FPS/1268ft-lbs, passes through a 12" head losing 30ft-lbs per inch.so it exits JFK @ 1598fps or 900 ft-lbs. So even considering the impact to the chrome cast off is still plenty fast enough to hit JT and give him a nick, or much worse.
I would say that would be sufficient to leave a scratch, and very likely just tells us that JT may have been a pretty lucky man that day.
Best to you Martin!
Mike
-
I guess not Paul Died in 2006
-
Martin,
Same here my friend. I have to be honest with ya. I'd be looking more in the direction of why they could not probe that wound more than 2"!
The pleasure is all mine Martin!
Mike
Mike,
What do you think of what autopsy assistant Paul O'Connor told William Law?:
"And another thing, we found out, while the autopsy was proceeding, that he was shot from a high building, which meant the bullet had to be travelling in a downward trajectory and we also realized that this bullet - that hit him in the back - is what we call in the military a 'short shot,' which means that the powder in the bullet was defective so it didn't have the power to push the projectile - the bullet - clear through the body. If it had been a full shot at the angle he was shot, it would have come out through his heart and through his sternum." (In The Eye Of History, p41)
How likely is a "short shot" to occur?
Martin
Martin,
Well I would have to say that it is not a highly likely occurrence. I believe I read some tests where they tried this and had very few (if any) short rounds. This is not to say it could not have happened. If that Ammo were European it would be far more likely.
This is not to say that it is impossible. Several factors could cause this. Such as a rifle being buried and susceptible to moisture.
The interesting issue here is the statement that it would have come out his heart or sternum. This is really conjecture. If we made two shots, one a short round and one a full velocity round,they would have different trajectories. The effects of passing through the flesh would be more severe on a short round than a full velocity round. The trajectory through would be different, simply because of the rapid loss of inertia caused by the initial lack of velocity.
I am not convinced that Mr. O'Connor would be wrong in any event. Chiefly because I have no evidence of what they used to determine this.
If they used the size of the wound, they could be correct if they in fact calculated the impact angle correctly. If they used the angle found by probing the wound they could be incorrect because as stated the wound path would be effected by loss of velocity, inertia etc.
The affect of the short round passing through would effect the trajectory path. So it would be hard to determine.
Interesting even more is him stating as fact not only did the round not pass through, but even that THEY SPECULATED AS TO WHY! To me that is epic.
Last I heard I thought he was still in Florida....hmmmmm
Mike
-
Martin,
Quite the opposite actually. That wound is basically the undoing of the SBT.
Mike,
What you posted earlier, about how the bullet must have been nose-first coming out of JFK's neck, got me thinking along the exact same lines.
It's been very informative and enjoyable discussing these issues with you.
Cheers!
Martin
Martin,
Same here my friend. I have to be honest with ya. I'd be looking more in the direction of why they could not probe that wound more than 2"!
The pleasure is all mine Martin!
Mike
Help with the back wound please
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Mr. Burnham,
Might I suggest sticking to checkers. I frankly do not care if it was a conspiracy or not. My interest is in the how, not the who. The who is pure speculation, the how is not.
The argument does not follow that path. The argument follows the path that since it was not a professional shooter, it had to have been an amateur. Seems logical to me.
Mike