Mike Williams
-
Posts
1,023 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Mike Williams
-
-
this is why I keep harping on bullet stabilisation and the yaw and drift of the MC bullet after leaving the internal ballistics field to the external one. as presented as the assasination weapon, what with its rifling is the expected path of a bullet for each particular shot from the snipers nest. Is it all covered in basic training? I get the idea from posts that a kid could do it.
John,
Yes Sir a kid could do it.
The MC is a very stable deep penetrating round, it is not prone at all to yaw and drift, unobstructed of course.
Best,
Mike
-
Martin,
I would tell you that given the sectional density and ballistic coefficient of the bullet we KNOW that the projectile, unhampered by bone, loses 30ft-lbs of energy for every inch of tissue it perforates. This can be used to precisely calculate velocity loss. It works rather like the angles we discussed previously.
Example. If the projectile only penetrated 2" then we know it struck with 60 ft-lbs of force. We can then know that it struck with a velocity of 409 feet per second. (We can calculate this based on a 161 grain bullet and the numbers for SD BC). We can then determine that it left the muzzle at 436fps. (If we have a know distance to target).
What I am getting at with all my yammering, is that is it possible to calculate these things. To be honest I have not calculated this for myself, but may at some point give their numbers the once over.
Before I even get into deformation of the bullet I want to explain my basic issue.
The bullet enters JFK at an alleged 21*, fine (except that the evidence, wound size, do not bear this out but lets overlook that for now)
The bullet then exits JFK at the neck leaving a circular 4-6mm wound. (indicating as we have discussed that the projectile was nose first)
The bullet then strikes JBC and makes a 150mmx6mm wound. (This indicates a 2* impact angle which means the long axis of the bullet is almost parallel to the stricken surface.)
If that projectile left JFK stable, as a 4-6mm circular hole would represent, then what in Hades happened to it to make it start to tumble before hitting JBC? (bear in mind in diminished velocity the projectile was still very fast and obviously stable at that speed.)
Are we to believe that this projectile lost stability to such an extent that it flipped 90* in the distance between JFK and JBC? What caused this instability, it surely was NOT loss of velocity.
Ok so the obvious question at this point is could that bullet have been tumbling through JFK and just by pure luck exit nose first on its twirling path to JBC?
Yes it could have. Well that wraps it up then right? Not even close.
If that projectile had been tumbling through JFK it would have left an ENORMOUS primary wound path, heck that bullet was 1 1/8" long!
Why were the multiple probe attempts during autopsy unsuccessful? It should have been a piece of cake with a wound channel like that.
We are left to wonder.
Something I would further like to add is the the calculated loss of 30ft-lbs is based on a nose first projectile, if that bullet were tumbling it would lose velocity at a much higher rate as the resistance area would never be less than -30ft-lbs per inch,and would at its parallel be as much as 5 times greater. Simply put the long axis of that bullet is about 5 times its diameter. Striking a target at 2* (nearly parallel) would change out energy loss to 150ft-lbs per inch. I am not convinced this was taken into account in the diminished velocity theory.
One can only wonder if this may be scientific enough for Mr. Burnham.
Best to you Sir,
Mike
Mike,
Interesting stuff, I'm not sure we'll ever truly get to the bottom of it all now though.
Regarding Connally's back wound, was the bullet tumbling when it struck? A couple of the experts testifying for the Warren Commission were unconvinced:
Dr Frederick Light, wounds ballistics expert from Edgewood Arsenal:
Mr. SPECTER: Do you have anything to add by way of any detail to the findings reported by Dr. Olivier in his testimony here earlier today?
Dr. LIGHT: No; I think he covered it very thoroughly.
Mr. SPECTER: And as to the conclusions and opinions which he expressed, do you agree or disagree, to some extent, on his conclusions?
Dr. LIGHT. I agree in general at least. I am not quite so certain about some of the things, but generally I certainly agree with what he said.
Mr. DULLES: What are the things on which you are not quite so certain?
Dr. LIGHT: For example, I am not quite as sure in my mind as I believe he is that the bullet that struck the Governor was almost certainly one which had hit something else first. I believe it could have produced that wound even though it hadn't hit the President or any other person or object first. (5H95)
And then again a couple pages on:
Dr. LIGHT: Yes; I don't feel too certain that it was yawing. The measurements were not particularly precise as far as I could tell. You wouldn't expect them to be in an operating room. So I think it is difficult to be sure there that the missile wasn't presenting nose on. It undoubtedly struck not at normal instance, that is to say it was a certain obliquity, just in the nature of the way the shoulder is built. (5H97)
And Dr Robert Shaw, one of Connally's attending surgeons:
Dr. SHAW: The wound entrance was an elliptical wound. In other words, it had a long diameter and a short diameter. It didn't have the appearance of a wound caused by a high velocity bullet that had not struck anything else; in other words, a puncture wound. Now, you have to also take into consideration, however, whether the bullet enters at a right angle or at a tangent. If it enters at a tangent there will be some length to the wound of entrance.
Mr. SPECTER: So, would you say in net that there could have been some tumbling occasioned by having it pass through another body or perhaps the oblique character of entry might have been occasioned by the angle of entry.
Dr. SHAW: Yes; either would have explained a wound of entry. (6H95)
Interestingly, the size and shape of Connally's back wound is the same as the entrance wound in the back of JFK's head and nobody has ever claimed that that bullet was tumbling. From the autopsy report:
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to theright and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is alacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
Cheers!
Martin
I discuss the significance of Connally's back wound in in chapter 11 at patspeer.com:
Ovoid? Oy Vey!
Despite the problems presented by Connally's wounds discussed above, the Warren Commission, in its report, cited the size of Connally's back wound as possible evidence the bullet had first struck Kennedy. This was clearly spin, however. On page 92, the report claims "Because of the small size and clean-cut edges of the wound on the Governor's back, Dr. Robert Shaw concluded that it was an entry wound." Then, on page 109 it claimed "the large wound on the Governor's back would be explained by a bullet which was yawing, although that type of wound might also be accounted for by a tangential striking." The report failed to note that the expert stating that the back wound was large and that the bullet may have been yawing, Dr. Olivier, did so under the impression the back wound was 3cm in its largest dimension, and that the doctor claiming the back wound was small and a tangential strike, Dr. Shaw, testified that this 3cm measure was not the actual measurement of the wound, but the measurement made after he'd cut away the damaged skin along its edge.
By the time of the HSCA, unfortunately, the Warren Commission's use of the back wound size as possible evidence had ballooned into its use as conclusive evidence. The HSCA's Dr. Baden, almost certainly under the influence of a November 1974 article by Dr. Lattimer in Medical Times, cited the shape of Connally's back wound as clear-cut evidence for the single-bullet theory. In his testimony before the committee, Dr. Baden testified that "the panel concluded, based on the enlarged nature of the entrance perforation in the Governor's back, that the bullet was wobbling when it struck him and had to have struck something before striking the Governor." The HSCA's Final Assassinations Report further relates that when concluding that Kennedy's and Connally's wounds were "consistent with the possibility that one bullet entered the upper right back of President Kennedy, and, after emerging from the front of the neck, caused all the Governor's wounds...A factor that influenced the panel significantly was the ovoid shape of the wound in the Governor's back, indicating that the bullet had begun to tumble or yaw before entering" because "An ovoid wound is characteristic of one caused by a bullet that has passed through or glanced off an intervening object."
The problem with this is that Dr. Baden misled the Committee about the significance of this ovoid wound. As previously mentioned, and as discussed in Milicent Cranor's excellent online article, Trajectory of a Lie, Dr. Robert Shaw, Governor Connally's doctor, testified before the Warren Commission in 1964 that Connally's back wound was about 1.5 x 5/8 centimeters (4H104), but that he later removed the damaged skin around this entrance and enlarged it to about 3 cm (6H188). By 1974, Dr. Lattimer, noticing that 3 cm was the same size as a 6.5 mm Mannlicher/Carcano bullet traveling sideways, seized upon this second measurement and started claiming in his articles that this was the actual size of the wound. Not surprisingly, he asserted that the size of Connally's wound demonstrated the bullet was traveling sideways and not merely at an angle to Connally's back, as testified to by Shaw. As demonstrated by Cranor, Lattimer let out a big smelly lie in the process.
This, of course, would have been the word of but one sloppy researcher/zealot had Baden and others not fallen under Lattimer's smell/spell. Not only did Dr. Baden oversell the significance of this ovoid shape to the HSCA, he produced a smelly lie of his own in his 1989 book Unnatural Death. While an HSCA report written by Baden records the length of Connally's back scar as 1 1/8 inches (or 2.9 cm), Baden told Unnatural Death's readers the back wound scar was 2 inches long (or 5 cm).
The impact of Lattimer's and Baden's fibs upon the single-assassin theory has been palpable. In 1992, in the mock trial of Oswald put on by the American Bar Association and televised on Court TV, Dr. Martin Fackler, testifying for the prosecution, repeated the 3 cm lie, and made matters worse by incorrectly testifying, when it was pointed out to him that Dr. Shaw had told the HSCA that the wound was really 1.5 cm, that Dr. Shaw had only changed his recollection "later on." (Dr. Shaw had, in fact, insisted since first asked that the bullet hole was 1.5 cm long, and that the 3 cm measurement on his report reflected not the size of the bullet hole, but the size of the wound after skin had been removed.) Since then, "researchers" (more like single-bullet theory aficionados or Lattimerites) such as Gus Russo and Dale Myers have also misrepresented the back wound as 3 cm or more in their work. Myers, on his website, actually links to an HSCA report to support that the wound was 3 cm, failing to tell his readers that just below the statement by Shaw in this report is another statement, in which Shaw clarifies his earlier statements, and insists the 3 cm measurement was the measurement of the wound after he'd cut away some of Connally's skin.
Not only do these theorists misrepresent the size of Connally's back wound to sell their theory, they miss that the hole on Connally's jacket and shirt were, according to the HSCA, 1.7 x 1.2 cm and 1.3 x .8 cm, respectively, an impossibility if the wound was truly 3 cm wide, as they propose.
While acknowledging this 1.7 cm tear, HSCA ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan, in his 2005 book The JFK Myths, argues that a 1.5-1.7 cm entrance is still ovoid and is therefore still an indication that the bullet struck something--such as a President--before striking Connally. He, as Baden before him, fails to acknowledge that the HSCA determined the defect in Kennedy's jacket was even more ovoid (1 by 1.5 cm) than Connally's jacket (1.7 x 1.2 cm) and that the defect in Kennedy's shirt was also an ovoid .8 x 1.2 cm (to Connally's 1.3 x .8 cm). He also overlooks that the entrance on Kennedy's back was originally measured at an ovoid .7 x .4 cm and that the entrance on the back of Kennedy’s head was measured at an absolutely ovoid 1.5 x .6 cm. While the ovoid nature of these entrances could indicate that the bullets were tumbling, they more probably indicate that the bullets entered at an angle, exactly as proposed by Dr. Shaw way back in 1964.
Still, there's another possibility. Papers by Ronchi and Ugolini (Zacchia, 1980) and Menzies et al (Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1981) found that a bullet wound of abnormal length or width can be taken as an indication that the weapon firing the projectile was equipped with a silencer. This assertion has been repeated, furthermore, in books such as 1997's Ballistic Trauma, by South African forensic pathologists Jeanine Vellema and Hendrik Johannes Scholtz.
Just a little something to think about.
As is this... When the Discovery Channel attempted to replicate Kennedy's and Connally's wounds for their 2004 program Beyond the Magic Bullet, the wound on the Connally torso's back created by the tumbling bullet in the program was not ovoid at all, but "keyhole" shaped, and measured 50 x 45 mm.
Ovoid? Oy Vey!
Pat,
Good Gravy Pat. I just caught my error The wound on JBC was 15mmx6mm. Now dont I feel red in the face!
Ovoid OY VEY!
Hey if ya cant laugh at yourself who can ya laugh at!
Best to ya buddy!
Mike
-
Martin,
I would tell you that given the sectional density and ballistic coefficient of the bullet we KNOW that the projectile, unhampered by bone, loses 30ft-lbs of energy for every inch of tissue it perforates. This can be used to precisely calculate velocity loss. It works rather like the angles we discussed previously.
Example. If the projectile only penetrated 2" then we know it struck with 60 ft-lbs of force. We can then know that it struck with a velocity of 409 feet per second. (We can calculate this based on a 161 grain bullet and the numbers for SD BC). We can then determine that it left the muzzle at 436fps. (If we have a know distance to target).
What I am getting at with all my yammering, is that is it possible to calculate these things. To be honest I have not calculated this for myself, but may at some point give their numbers the once over.
Before I even get into deformation of the bullet I want to explain my basic issue.
The bullet enters JFK at an alleged 21*, fine (except that the evidence, wound size, do not bear this out but lets overlook that for now)
The bullet then exits JFK at the neck leaving a circular 4-6mm wound. (indicating as we have discussed that the projectile was nose first)
The bullet then strikes JBC and makes a 150mmx6mm wound. (This indicates a 2* impact angle which means the long axis of the bullet is almost parallel to the stricken surface.)
If that projectile left JFK stable, as a 4-6mm circular hole would represent, then what in Hades happened to it to make it start to tumble before hitting JBC? (bear in mind in diminished velocity the projectile was still very fast and obviously stable at that speed.)
Are we to believe that this projectile lost stability to such an extent that it flipped 90* in the distance between JFK and JBC? What caused this instability, it surely was NOT loss of velocity.
Ok so the obvious question at this point is could that bullet have been tumbling through JFK and just by pure luck exit nose first on its twirling path to JBC?
Yes it could have. Well that wraps it up then right? Not even close.
If that projectile had been tumbling through JFK it would have left an ENORMOUS primary wound path, heck that bullet was 1 1/8" long!
Why were the multiple probe attempts during autopsy unsuccessful? It should have been a piece of cake with a wound channel like that.
We are left to wonder.
Something I would further like to add is the the calculated loss of 30ft-lbs is based on a nose first projectile, if that bullet were tumbling it would lose velocity at a much higher rate as the resistance area would never be less than -30ft-lbs per inch,and would at its parallel be as much as 5 times greater. Simply put the long axis of that bullet is about 5 times its diameter. Striking a target at 2* (nearly parallel) would change out energy loss to 150ft-lbs per inch. I am not convinced this was taken into account in the diminished velocity theory.
One can only wonder if this may be scientific enough for Mr. Burnham.
Best to you Sir,
Mike
Mike,
Interesting stuff, I'm not sure we'll ever truly get to the bottom of it all now though.
Regarding Connally's back wound, was the bullet tumbling when it struck? A couple of the experts testifying for the Warren Commission were unconvinced:
Dr Frederick Light, wounds ballistics expert from Edgewood Arsenal:
Mr. SPECTER: Do you have anything to add by way of any detail to the findings reported by Dr. Olivier in his testimony here earlier today?
Dr. LIGHT: No; I think he covered it very thoroughly.
Mr. SPECTER: And as to the conclusions and opinions which he expressed, do you agree or disagree, to some extent, on his conclusions?
Dr. LIGHT. I agree in general at least. I am not quite so certain about some of the things, but generally I certainly agree with what he said.
Mr. DULLES: What are the things on which you are not quite so certain?
Dr. LIGHT: For example, I am not quite as sure in my mind as I believe he is that the bullet that struck the Governor was almost certainly one which had hit something else first. I believe it could have produced that wound even though it hadn't hit the President or any other person or object first. (5H95)
And then again a couple pages on:
Dr. LIGHT: Yes; I don't feel too certain that it was yawing. The measurements were not particularly precise as far as I could tell. You wouldn't expect them to be in an operating room. So I think it is difficult to be sure there that the missile wasn't presenting nose on. It undoubtedly struck not at normal instance, that is to say it was a certain obliquity, just in the nature of the way the shoulder is built. (5H97)
And Dr Robert Shaw, one of Connally's attending surgeons:
Dr. SHAW: The wound entrance was an elliptical wound. In other words, it had a long diameter and a short diameter. It didn't have the appearance of a wound caused by a high velocity bullet that had not struck anything else; in other words, a puncture wound. Now, you have to also take into consideration, however, whether the bullet enters at a right angle or at a tangent. If it enters at a tangent there will be some length to the wound of entrance.
Mr. SPECTER: So, would you say in net that there could have been some tumbling occasioned by having it pass through another body or perhaps the oblique character of entry might have been occasioned by the angle of entry.
Dr. SHAW: Yes; either would have explained a wound of entry. (6H95)
Interestingly, the size and shape of Connally's back wound is the same as the entrance wound in the back of JFK's head and nobody has ever claimed that that bullet was tumbling. From the autopsy report:
"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to theright and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is alacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
Cheers!
Martin
Absolutely! I believe I posted something about this very characteristic just a bit ago. It does leave one wondering.
-
Mike, what's your opinion on the remarkable condition of CE399? The common Warren supporter explanation for CE399's condition is yet another theory - what John Hunt calls the "Diminishing Velocity Theory." According to this theory, the bullet was significantly slowed down by its passage through JFK's back/neck so that it did not suffer distotion when it struck bone. Ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan testified before the HSCA that a Carcano bullet would deform at 1400 feet per second (fps) if striking nose-on or 1000 fps if striking sideways (1HSCA396). According to tests performed at Edgewood Arsenel for the Warren commission, the average muzzle velocity of "Oswald's" Carcano rifle was 2165 fps (3H400). The bullet would have lost some of its velocity as it travelled from the muzzle to President Kennedy's back. Dr Olivier testified before the WC that the average striking velocity for Oswald's rifle at 60 yards or 180 feet was 1904 fps (5H77) - the presumed moment of impact for the SBT is usually frame 224 of the Z film which is roughly 175 feet from the TSBD so the figure of 1904 fps is pretty much spot-on. Sturdivan testified that “this bullet if only encountering a few inches of soft tissue [in traversing Kennedy’s neck] would go through losing almost no velocity, 100 feet per second or thereabouts.” (1HSCA407) This would give us an exit velocity of around 1804 fps.
Martin,
I would tell you that given the sectional density and ballistic coefficient of the bullet we KNOW that the projectile, unhampered by bone, loses 30ft-lbs of energy for every inch of tissue it perforates. This can be used to precisely calculate velocity loss. It works rather like the angles we discussed previously.
Example. If the projectile only penetrated 2" then we know it struck with 60 ft-lbs of force. We can then know that it struck with a velocity of 409 feet per second. (We can calculate this based on a 161 grain bullet and the numbers for SD BC). We can then determine that it left the muzzle at 436fps. (If we have a know distance to target).
What I am getting at with all my yammering, is that is it possible to calculate these things. To be honest I have not calculated this for myself, but may at some point give their numbers the once over.
Before I even get into deformation of the bullet I want to explain my basic issue.
The bullet enters JFK at an alleged 21*, fine (except that the evidence, wound size, do not bear this out but lets overlook that for now)
The bullet then exits JFK at the neck leaving a circular 4-6mm wound. (indicating as we have discussed that the projectile was nose first)
The bullet then strikes JBC and makes a 15mmx6mm wound. (This indicates a 23* impact angle which means the long axis of the bullet is almost parallel to the stricken surface.)
If that projectile left JFK stable, as a 4-6mm circular hole would represent, then what in Hades happened to it to make it start to tumble before hitting JBC? (bear in mind in diminished velocity the projectile was still very fast and obviously stable at that speed.)
Are we to believe that this projectile lost stability to such an extent that it flipped 90* in the distance between JFK and JBC? What caused this instability, it surely was NOT loss of velocity.
Ok so the obvious question at this point is could that bullet have been tumbling through JFK and just by pure luck exit nose first on its twirling path to JBC?
Yes it could have. Well that wraps it up then right? Not even close.
If that projectile had been tumbling through JFK it would have left an ENORMOUS primary wound path, heck that bullet was 1 1/8" long!
Why were the multiple probe attempts during autopsy unsuccessful? It should have been a piece of cake with a wound channel like that.
We are left to wonder.
Something I would further like to add is the the calculated loss of 30ft-lbs is based on a nose first projectile, if that bullet were tumbling it would lose velocity at a much higher rate as the resistance area would never be less than -30ft-lbs per inch,and would at its parallel be as much as 5 times greater. Simply put the long axis of that bullet is about 5 times its diameter. Striking a target at 23* (nearly parallel) would change out energy loss to 120ft-lbs per inch. I am not convinced this was taken into account in the diminished velocity theory.
One can only wonder if this may be scientific enough for Mr. Burnham.
Best to you Sir,
Mike
-
Martin,
Lemee see if I can whip something up for ya here.
He does appear to be upright, however the lines do not indicate a 90* striking surface to the horizontal plane at all.
This is pretty critical when all things are considered.
Mike
Hey Mike,
Well, nobody's back is ever a flat 90 degrees surface but I think I see what you're getting at. The unasked question is "was Kennedy leaning forward enough to allow for the SBT?" And I thnk we can safely say the answer to that is no.
The diagram prepared for the HSCA pathology panel (http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0055b.htm) shows the amount of forward lean necessary and there's nothing like that in Croft 3. Turning an upward pathway through the back/neck into a 17 degrees downward one would require more than a little curvature of the back! Rather than relying on lines drawn on 2D images, as many tend to do, I think the best thing to do is conduct a real life experiment using a stand-in. I've done this myself (Pat Speer has too and you can see it on his website). Just use the HSCA's work and the autopsy photo as a guide and plot the wounds on your stand-in. Have them sit in the approximate postion JFK was sitting in and have a look at the trajectory - and you will immediately demolish the single bullet theory.
Cheers!
Martin
Martin,
I look at the SBT kind of like eating an elephant. One bite at a time, and with the realization that some bites are sure gonna taste better than others. However the real issue here is could the shape of the wound and its impact angle implications match a shooting location?
If we know an angle and we know an elevation we can then determine distance. Vice Verse. If we know a distance and an angle we can determine elevation. ETC.
So if:
(i)=impact angle
then
4/7-1sin=(i)
(i)= 34*
This would mean the rifle had to be pointing down at an angle of 34* assuming that the target plane was 90* to the horizontal.
As an example.
If the target were leaning forward 34* and the rifle were pointed down 34* then the rifle is 90* to the target surface, and should inflict a circular wound that would be a symmetrical circle. However as the target leans forward (or back) this wound becomes ovial in nature as the impact angle increases. This my friend opens up a whole new can o' worms.
Mike
-
:ice Now its getting interesting.
-
Would this be 1cm below if Kennedy were in an upright sitting position, or in the position he was in when struck?
Thanks,
Mike
Kennedy was in an upright sitting postion when he was struck, was he not?
Martin,
Looking at croft 3 I would not think so.
And pleasure to meet you Sir
Best,
Mike
Mike,
It's a peasure to meet you too.
Ok, I just took another look at Croft 3 and he appears to be sitting upright to me. Relaxed but upright.
Martin,
Lemee see if I can whip something up for ya here.
He does appear to be upright, however the lines do not indicate a 90* striking surface to the horizontal plane at all.
This is pretty critical when all things are considered.
Mike
-
Would this be 1cm below if Kennedy were in an upright sitting position, or in the position he was in when struck?
Thanks,
Mike
Kennedy was in an upright sitting postion when he was struck, was he not?
Martin,
Looking at croft 3 I would not think so.
And pleasure to meet you Sir
Best,
Mike
-
Thought:
The back wound marked here as no. 2 would line up nicely with the throat wound just below the Adam's apple on the other side. Not only is it vertically in line with it, but also matches the size fairly nicely....
...too bad "it's not a bullet hole".
Hmmm.....
I am in need of some help with an issue regarding the back wound. I write a hearty disclaimer that I am in no way totally familiar with aspects of the autopsy. If someone could help me out it would be much appreciated. Please consider this photo:
Questions:
1) In the photo attached is #1 the WC location of the back wound? This would seem odd considering the contact ring on #2.
2) Is #2 the generally accepted entry? This would seem to make sense.
3) If #1 is the WC location, then I can assume this is the wound that measured 7mmx4mm on the final autopsy report?
4) If #3 is correct then what are the estimated dimensions of hole #2?
Any help is much appreciated.
My best to you all,
Mike
Antti, you're scaring me. Have you been reading single-assassin theorist propaganda, LOL? The HSCA pathology panel concluded that wound #1 was a cm below the vertical level of the throat wound. This would put hole #2 quite a bit below this wound, at the level of the sternum.
Please don't tell me you're with the lone-nutters, and really think hole #1 is above the throat wound, and in line with a shot coming from the TSBD... My brain's still hurting from Mike's siding with Baden on the break-up of the bullet...
Pat
"The HSCA pathology panel concluded that wound #1 was a cm below the vertical level of the throat wound."
What's the citation for that?
Thanks.
Todd
Would this be 1cm below if Kennedy were in an upright sitting position, or in the position he was in when struck?
Thanks,
Mike
-
Cmdr. Humes to the Commission: "I can't conceive of where they came from this missile."
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Connally_Wounding
Thank you for your reply.Good to see that we are on the same page on FMJ rounds and fragmenting.
I'll skip over the "magic bullet" the very slightly deformed one found for now.
However, considering your reply on FMJ's and fragmenting, do you not find it rather bizarre, that there were bullet fragments in both Kennedy's brain as well as Connally's wrist?
As far as I can discern, these were two seprate bullets, and therefore two unusual FMJ rounds pertaining to this case.
I just can't get over how an FMJ round (let alone two) would leave all that led and metal behind, having only struck human tissue?
Just raises a big red flag in my mind.
Any further education on this would be appreciated.
Antti
Sir,
Yes sir I would be glad to.
The 6.5mm Carcano round is a copper jacketed bullet. The reason these are jacketed at all, is because at velocities over 1100fps the lead begins to heat and deform. This can cause serious trajectory issues.
However. When these projectiles are in flight and hit a target, it is not uncommon to lose some lead from the tail of the projectile. It is common given two facts. One the lead is very soft and mailable, so if the jacket deforms at all it squeezes the soft lead out of the tail.
Second, I have seen examples of projectiles that are non jacketed on the bottom, and ones that are jacketed on the bottom. If this projectile had a copper jacket on the bottom as well it would still not necessarily preclude the escape of lead out of the bottom.
It seems at one time someone told me that they were not jacketed on the bottom, but I have been out of the game for a couple years and do not recall.
I hope this has helped and if there is anything I can do I remain
At your service,
Mike
Mr. Hynonen,
I thought CE842 was a single 1/2 grain fragment?
I also found the article that tells us the base of CE399 does have an open core.
Mike
-
Thought:
The back wound marked here as no. 2 would line up nicely with the throat wound just below the Adam's apple on the other side. Not only is it vertically in line with it, but also matches the size fairly nicely....
...too bad "it's not a bullet hole".
Hmmm.....
I am in need of some help with an issue regarding the back wound. I write a hearty disclaimer that I am in no way totally familiar with aspects of the autopsy. If someone could help me out it would be much appreciated. Please consider this photo:Questions:
1) In the photo attached is #1 the WC location of the back wound? This would seem odd considering the contact ring on #2.
2) Is #2 the generally accepted entry? This would seem to make sense.
3) If #1 is the WC location, then I can assume this is the wound that measured 7mmx4mm on the final autopsy report?
4) If #3 is correct then what are the estimated dimensions of hole #2?
Any help is much appreciated.
My best to you all,
Mike
Mr. H,
Looking at Croft 3 what do you imagine the forward lean angle of JFK is? I think if we consider this, and analyze the size of said wound, we might be very close to resolving when that shot was fired.
(i)=impact angle
4/6 -1sin=(i)
34*=(i)
Consider this in relation to Croft3, and then from that point let Pythagorean theorem be your guide.
This would be for hole #1
Now if you do the same for hole #2, then its a whole new ball game.
My best to you Sir,
Mike
-
..... if I'd been Oswald's defense attorney, my first act would have been to introduce into the record the sworn affidavits of officers Boone and Weitzman, who both identified the rifle found on the sixth floor as a German mauser. Since the prosecution could not have even introduced the carcano into the record, because the only legal record of the search identified the alleged murder weapon as something else entirely, I would have then asked for all charges to be dismissed. Legally speaking, the state had no case against Oswald.
Don,
You should run this by Doug Weldon and see how a former prosecutor reacts.
I'm sure Doug wouldn't have had any trouble getting the rifle into evidence in 1964 Texas.
Jerry
Mr. Logan,
Nice to see you again.
I agree. Prints, Fibers, Paper Trail....what more could you want than a picture of the assassin holding the rifle?
Best Sir,
Mike
Mr. Williams,
I'm glad to see you're back! I hope all is well with you and yours.
There'd be lots of problems with a case against Oswald, but getting the rifle into evidence is definitely not one of them.
On a totally different topic, do you have an opinion about the sound of a high-powered round penetrating a windshield?
Assuming a suppressor - do you think the round through the glass would sound like a firecracker?
Our local SWAT commander had some thoughts but I'd like to get your view before I share his reaction.
From now on I'll be Jerry if you'll be Mike.
Best regards,
Jerry
Jerry,
You betcha! It is good to see an old friend.
Initially I would tell you that suppressing a high-powered round is not practical. What you are suppressing is the blast of the muzzle, once the projectile reaches the speed of sound, the crack experienced by those near the path of the bullet would be extremely loud. Most military ammo is loaded to sub sonic standard for use with suppressors.
Now a word about windshields. One I believe the sound could be likened to a firecracker, using sub sonic rounds, were you using full velocity rounds, I assure you the sound of that glass would be the least of your concerns lol.
Windshields present all kinds of issues. They distort the perception of your view on the target, if they have any angle on them at all. While this does not make them impossible to shoot through, it does offer negotiation issues for the shooter.
Glass can deflect even high power rounds. We used a tactic in the Military which involved a small charge on the glass and a detonator to eliminate the glass at almost the same instant as the shot. It was effective, but not to practical on a vehicle.
I assume your addressing the hole in the windshield issue. I would like you to read my post from old titled "A Hole In One". I believe I made some good analysis in that post and the final conclusion to my satisfaction was that there was in fact no hole. I have never bought into the hole theory, and wanted to put the issue to rest, if only for myself. many support the work, many did not. I did and frankly that was enough for me.
I hope I have helped you out here a bit.
If not I am at your service Jerry and again it is great to be back and see you again.
Mike
-
Thank you for your reply.
Good to see that we are on the same page on FMJ rounds and fragmenting.
I'll skip over the "magic bullet" the very slightly deformed one found for now.
However, considering your reply on FMJ's and fragmenting, do you not find it rather bizarre, that there were bullet fragments in both Kennedy's brain as well as Connally's wrist?
As far as I can discern, these were two seprate bullets, and therefore two unusual FMJ rounds pertaining to this case.
I just can't get over how an FMJ round (let alone two) would leave all that led and metal behind, having only struck human tissue?
Just raises a big red flag in my mind.
Any further education on this would be appreciated.
Antti
Sir,
Yes sir I would be glad to.
The 6.5mm Carcano round is a copper jacketed bullet. The reason these are jacketed at all, is because at velocities over 1100fps the lead begins to heat and deform. This can cause serious trajectory issues.
However. When these projectiles are in flight and hit a target, it is not uncommon to lose some lead from the tail of the projectile. It is common given two facts. One the lead is very soft and mailable, so if the jacket deforms at all it squeezes the soft lead out of the tail.
Second, I have seen examples of projectiles that are non jacketed on the bottom, and ones that are jacketed on the bottom. If this projectile had a copper jacket on the bottom as well it would still not necessarily preclude the escape of lead out of the bottom.
It seems at one time someone told me that they were not jacketed on the bottom, but I have been out of the game for a couple years and do not recall.
I hope this has helped and if there is anything I can do I remain
At your service,
Mike
-
Jim,
"JFK was hit in the throat and in the right temple by shots that were fired from in front." These are not irrefutable facts of this matter. I'm sure you would like them to be, but they're not. They never were.
I appreciate Mr Williams approach to ballistics in this thread, as he's basically trying to make his own calls on a number of subjects others may consider set in stone. In my opinion, such an approach is what is needed in many areas of the JFK case.
Mr. Viklund,
Thank You kindly Sir.
I do try and form my own conclusions. Some I base on practical experience, and some on good old fashion science.
The clear fact is that in order for JFK to be "thrown back violently" as some would claim, he would have to be hit with a howitzer.
I suspect as Fetzer claims to be a former Artillery Officer, that perhaps he has been "shell shocked" and is no thinking clearly. I prefer to think this, as my only other option is to recognize the fact that he either A) Truly is as mentally flaccid as he appears, or
He is nothing more than a snake oil salesman.I would like just once for one of these "frontal shot supporters" to give me specific numbers on the amount of kinetic energy transferred to a target by a perforating bullet. (here is a hint its .1to.3%) A 30-06 firing at 2600fps would impact with 2298 ft lbs of energy at 100 yards. This means if the bullet transits that only .1-.3% or 2.298ft lbs to 6.89 ft lbs of energy would be transferred. An average human punch is 110 ft lbs. So you see Sir it is impossible that a transiting bullet caused that violent rearward reaction.
MY best to you Sir,
Mike
-
..... if I'd been Oswald's defense attorney, my first act would have been to introduce into the record the sworn affidavits of officers Boone and Weitzman, who both identified the rifle found on the sixth floor as a German mauser. Since the prosecution could not have even introduced the carcano into the record, because the only legal record of the search identified the alleged murder weapon as something else entirely, I would have then asked for all charges to be dismissed. Legally speaking, the state had no case against Oswald.
Don,
You should run this by Doug Weldon and see how a former prosecutor reacts.
I'm sure Doug wouldn't have had any trouble getting the rifle into evidence in 1964 Texas.
Jerry
Mr. Logan,
Nice to see you again.
I agree. Prints, Fibers, Paper Trail....what more could you want than a picture of the assassin holding the rifle?
Best Sir,
Mike
-
You appear to bascially be a lone nutter now. I don't believe you presented yourself as such a few years ago. That exact same kind of change seems to be epidemic in the research community.
Oh I dont know about that. I have changed positions on some issues, but this is just because I have had significant more time to evaluate and determine some things. I do not think that is such a bad thing.
Harold Weisberg covered the missed shot that nicked Tague extensively in "Whitewash II." You should read his irrefutable research- it's essential to understanding this case.While I have not read this writing, I would love to. The one thing I can tell you is when dealing with as many variables as a ricochet, or round coming apart, there can be no "irrefutable" research. No disrespect to Mr, Weisberg intended. If this book available on the internet?
As Jim notes, these are the same tired arguments we've heard ad nauseum. Shots were easy, gun was fine, Oswald was a good shot, "no evidence" that shots were fired from anywhere else, etc. Dr. Perry's belated claims that the throat wound was one of exit are belied by his initial description, which was unequivocally that it was an entrance wound. Anyone in the legal system will tell you that initial testimony is the most valuable.I beg to differ, informed testimony is the most valuable. Perry had no idea at that time of the full circumstances. I do believe it is fully possible for the 6mm to leave an exit of this type(that is not to say that in this case I believe it DID).
I would suggest that the reason some maybe tired of these same old arguments is because they have no defense for them. The shots were easy, I have 24 years experience not just shooting but training others to do so as well. There are many things I do not know, this is not one of those lol. Oswald would have been a more than fair shot in comparison to the average civilian. Lat but not least, there is no indication whatsoever of a shot from anywhere but the 6th floor. The back and to the left foolishness only reveals those who do and do not remember basic physics, nothing more.
Anyhow I hope you are having a super night.
Mike
-
Okay, I'll post this before Cliff does. There is absolutely no mystery about where the back wound was located.
The bullet holes in JFK's shirt AND coat, which align perfectly with each other, are the best form of evidence one is likely to get. They are corroborated by the original location marked by Boswell on the autopsy face sheet, the location indicated by Burkley on the death certificate and the testimony of witnesses like Sibert & O'Neill. Obviously, the entrance point is far too low to have exited from the throat, assuming a shot from above and behind.
There are few things less clear than this in this case.
Thanks Don,
If I am understanding this correctly, that relates to #1 on my photo?
Sorry for the ignorance here, but this issue is very convoluted and I am uncertain.
Thanks again.
Mike
-
Mr.Hynonen,
Pleasure to see you again Sir.
FMJ rounds by design do not fragment in tissue. This was mandated by the Geneva Convention. It was considered inhumane in a time of war. (Go figure). The 6.5mm MC round is a well known (and well liked in Europe), for its exceptional stability. They have a sectional density and ballistic coefficient that makes them deep penetrating, and very stable. Having said that I am of course surprised that this projectile would fragment inside the head. This is contrary to all that we know about the Carcano round. While it is not surprising that the projectile shed fragments from its open end, one would seriously have to consider that the projectile hit something very hard upon exit, and this is what caused it to shatter. Now in the case of the CE399 bullet, I have other issued, namely its lack of deformity. I would certainly not have expected it to fragment on its way through both men (alleged), however, I would certainly expect to see some deformity of the projectile.
The one true anomaly I see is the lack of deformity of the CE399 projectile. I firmly believe that the projectile exiting the head, struck the window chrome and shattered.
I hope this helped and answered your questions to your satisfaction.
Best to you Sir,
Mike
Mike, Dr. Baden of the HSCA medical panel shared your opinion that the bullet must have shattered upon hitting the windshield strut, as it would be unlikely to shatter in skull. This was due in part to the large fractures at the supposed exit, which would be unlikely should the bullet really have exited in pieces. The problem with this is that this doesn't fit the other evidence. There were two bullet fragments found in the front section of the car, and two impacts--one on the windshield strut, and one on the windshield itself, noted. One of these fragments was the nose of the bullet, the other was the base. Roughly half the bullet was missing...from the middle. This suggests the recovered fragments exited separately. In addition, a cross-section of this missing middle--or slice--is supposedly visible on the x-rays between the tables of the skull on the far back of the head. This, then, would suggest the bullet broke up upon impact with the back of the head.
Or do you think, as Baden, it makes sense for a 6.5 mm slice to rub off the back of a bullet upon impact with a human skull?
Mr. Speer,
I would think that Baden might just be onto something here. I have always held that it is possible for fragments to be left in the head from the rear of the bullet. It would not seem that the wounds are consistent with a projectile fragmenting in the head. This would he highly unlikely with this type of round. I have also further thought that this projectile shattered impacting the chrome. I believe it is very possible that once shattering the crack in the glass was caused by a fragment of that. The inside of the glass had lead, not copper, as I recall. I believe it is very possible that a fragment came off that projectile once it impacted the chrome and cracked the glass.
Hop you are having a great day!
Mike
Mike, you're forgetting about Tague. If the bugger didn't miss then Tague must have been wounded by the missing middle of the bullet impacting on the skull. If the bullet exited in pieces it would seem possible one of the pieces would sail over the windshield and down toward Tague. If the bullet exited intact and only broke up on the windshield strut, this possibility seems more an impossibility.
Mr. Speer,
Oh I have not forgotten good ole JT. But to answer your question, I fully believe that projectile exited intact and struck the chrome. The certainly could have sent a fragment that scratched Tague.
Mike and Pat, no bullet fragment or projectile from the fatal head shot could you have gotten to Tague, except through the windshield (which is doubtful).
There is no straight trajectory for that scenario.
A bone piece flying a curve over the windshield? Mhhh, over how many yards have this solid piece have to fly against the wind to cause this injure of Tague's cheek?
Some 90 yards so far. And what about the damaged curbstone on Main? This tiny damage atop of the curb which is certainly not caused by a car wheel.
The only logical explanation to me is: A shot missed the SS-100-X and the first impacted surface was the curb south of Main, deflecting to James Tague.
best to you
Martin
Martin, a bullet fragment deflecting off the top right side of Kennedy's head at frame 313 could pass over the windshield and be on an almost straight course to Tague's position. A fairly large section of the bullet--larger than an M-16 bullet--is missing. If that fragment deflected off largely intact it would have the mass and speed to chip the curb.
If the bullet actually passed through the head, and broke up upon impact with the windshield strut, however, I would agree that it's doubtful that a piece of the bullet could somehow curve through the air over the top of the windshield and chip the concrete by Tague. It's doubtful, IMO, that an M/C would even shatter upon impact with a chrome strip. No one has ever tested this, as far as I know.
Pat,
It is far more unlikely for the projectile to break up inside the head. I would suggest a look at the chrome strip that has a nice circular indentation, roughly the size of a 6.5mm impact. I would suggest that if the tail and nose are in the car, that the bullet shattered on the chrome. Once this happens there is no way to predict the flight paths of those fragments. It would depend largely on the size of the fragment, the spin of the fragment, and certainly and most importantly the shape of the fragment. Nothing can be ruled out here, just because of its sure unpredictability.
Hope your having a great night,
Mike
-
Mr.Hynonen,
Pleasure to see you again Sir.
FMJ rounds by design do not fragment in tissue. This was mandated by the Geneva Convention. It was considered inhumane in a time of war. (Go figure). The 6.5mm MC round is a well known (and well liked in Europe), for its exceptional stability. They have a sectional density and ballistic coefficient that makes them deep penetrating, and very stable. Having said that I am of course surprised that this projectile would fragment inside the head. This is contrary to all that we know about the Carcano round. While it is not surprising that the projectile shed fragments from its open end, one would seriously have to consider that the projectile hit something very hard upon exit, and this is what caused it to shatter. Now in the case of the CE399 bullet, I have other issued, namely its lack of deformity. I would certainly not have expected it to fragment on its way through both men (alleged), however, I would certainly expect to see some deformity of the projectile.
The one true anomaly I see is the lack of deformity of the CE399 projectile. I firmly believe that the projectile exiting the head, struck the window chrome and shattered.
I hope this helped and answered your questions to your satisfaction.
Best to you Sir,
Mike
Mike, Dr. Baden of the HSCA medical panel shared your opinion that the bullet must have shattered upon hitting the windshield strut, as it would be unlikely to shatter in skull. This was due in part to the large fractures at the supposed exit, which would be unlikely should the bullet really have exited in pieces. The problem with this is that this doesn't fit the other evidence. There were two bullet fragments found in the front section of the car, and two impacts--one on the windshield strut, and one on the windshield itself, noted. One of these fragments was the nose of the bullet, the other was the base. Roughly half the bullet was missing...from the middle. This suggests the recovered fragments exited separately. In addition, a cross-section of this missing middle--or slice--is supposedly visible on the x-rays between the tables of the skull on the far back of the head. This, then, would suggest the bullet broke up upon impact with the back of the head.
Or do you think, as Baden, it makes sense for a 6.5 mm slice to rub off the back of a bullet upon impact with a human skull?
Mr. Speer,
I would think that Baden might just be onto something here. I have always held that it is possible for fragments to be left in the head from the rear of the bullet. It would not seem that the wounds are consistent with a projectile fragmenting in the head. This would he highly unlikely with this type of round. I have also further thought that this projectile shattered impacting the chrome. I believe it is very possible that once shattering the crack in the glass was caused by a fragment of that. The inside of the glass had lead, not copper, as I recall. I believe it is very possible that a fragment came off that projectile once it impacted the chrome and cracked the glass.
Hop you are having a great day!
Mike
Mike, you're forgetting about Tague. If the bugger didn't miss then Tague must have been wounded by the missing middle of the bullet impacting on the skull. If the bullet exited in pieces it would seem possible one of the pieces would sail over the windshield and down toward Tague. If the bullet exited intact and only broke up on the windshield strut, this possibility seems more an impossibility.
Mr. Speer,
Oh I have not forgotten good ole JT. But to answer your question, I fully believe that projectile exited intact and struck the chrome. The certainly could have sent a fragment that scratched Tague.
Mike and Pat, no bullet fragment or projectile from the fatal head shot could you have gotten to Tague, except through the windshield (which is doubtful).
There is no straight trajectory for that scenario.
A bone piece flying a curve over the windshield? Mhhh, over how many yards have this solid piece have to fly against the wind to cause this injure of Tague's cheek?
Some 90 yards so far. And what about the damaged curbstone on Main? This tiny damage atop of the curb which is certainly not caused by a car wheel.
The only logical explanation to me is: A shot missed the SS-100-X and the first impacted surface was the curb south of Main, deflecting to James Tague.
best to you
Martin
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
-
Mr.Hynonen,
Pleasure to see you again Sir.
FMJ rounds by design do not fragment in tissue. This was mandated by the Geneva Convention. It was considered inhumane in a time of war. (Go figure). The 6.5mm MC round is a well known (and well liked in Europe), for its exceptional stability. They have a sectional density and ballistic coefficient that makes them deep penetrating, and very stable. Having said that I am of course surprised that this projectile would fragment inside the head. This is contrary to all that we know about the Carcano round. While it is not surprising that the projectile shed fragments from its open end, one would seriously have to consider that the projectile hit something very hard upon exit, and this is what caused it to shatter. Now in the case of the CE399 bullet, I have other issued, namely its lack of deformity. I would certainly not have expected it to fragment on its way through both men (alleged), however, I would certainly expect to see some deformity of the projectile.
The one true anomaly I see is the lack of deformity of the CE399 projectile. I firmly believe that the projectile exiting the head, struck the window chrome and shattered.
I hope this helped and answered your questions to your satisfaction.
Best to you Sir,
Mike
Mike, Dr. Baden of the HSCA medical panel shared your opinion that the bullet must have shattered upon hitting the windshield strut, as it would be unlikely to shatter in skull. This was due in part to the large fractures at the supposed exit, which would be unlikely should the bullet really have exited in pieces. The problem with this is that this doesn't fit the other evidence. There were two bullet fragments found in the front section of the car, and two impacts--one on the windshield strut, and one on the windshield itself, noted. One of these fragments was the nose of the bullet, the other was the base. Roughly half the bullet was missing...from the middle. This suggests the recovered fragments exited separately. In addition, a cross-section of this missing middle--or slice--is supposedly visible on the x-rays between the tables of the skull on the far back of the head. This, then, would suggest the bullet broke up upon impact with the back of the head.
Or do you think, as Baden, it makes sense for a 6.5 mm slice to rub off the back of a bullet upon impact with a human skull?
Mr. Speer,
I would think that Baden might just be onto something here. I have always held that it is possible for fragments to be left in the head from the rear of the bullet. It would not seem that the wounds are consistent with a projectile fragmenting in the head. This would he highly unlikely with this type of round. I have also further thought that this projectile shattered impacting the chrome. I believe it is very possible that once shattering the crack in the glass was caused by a fragment of that. The inside of the glass had lead, not copper, as I recall. I believe it is very possible that a fragment came off that projectile once it impacted the chrome and cracked the glass.
Hop you are having a great day!
Mike
Mike, you're forgetting about Tague. If the bugger didn't miss then Tague must have been wounded by the missing middle of the bullet impacting on the skull. If the bullet exited in pieces it would seem possible one of the pieces would sail over the windshield and down toward Tague. If the bullet exited intact and only broke up on the windshield strut, this possibility seems more an impossibility.
Mr. Speer,
Oh I have not forgotten good ole JT. But to answer your question, I fully believe that projectile exited intact and struck the chrome. The certainly could have sent a fragment that scratched Tague.
-
Fetzer: " For an expert in ballistics, he doesn't even know that the Mannlicher-Carcano only has a muzzle velocity of 2,000 pfs, which means it is not a high velocity weapon and therefore cannot have fired the shots that took out JFK."
Jim, not that I don't have my own disagreements with Mike, but the "high velocity weapon" argument is a flawed one. In my study of dozens of articles and books on wound ballistics and shooting, I discovered that before recent times weapons were classified as either as high-velocity weapons (basically military and hunting rifles...anything firing projectiles over 1100 fps) and low velocity weapons (handguns and varmint rifles). The term medium velocity weapon, and the Carcano's classification as such, only came about in the 60's and 70's, when some writers on the subject sought to distinguish WW2-era rifles from the M-16's and AK-47's of more modern times.
Mr. Speer,
You are very correct and to confuse the issue further there are many types of ammunition sold today labeled as High Velocity while firing at just over 1200fps. Apparently that 1100fps standard still exists somewhere.
Best to ya Pat,
Mike
-
Glenn,
This guy is peddling ancient rubbish. JFK was hit in the throat and in the right temple
by shots that were fired from in front. They were widely described on radio and TV on
the afternoon and evening of the assassination. Malcolm Perry, M.D., explained three
times during the Parkland press conference that the bullet had been "coming at him".
Monk is right that this guy is bizarre. For an expert in ballistics, he doesn't even know
that the Mannlicher-Carcano only has a muzzle velocity of 2,000 pfs, which means it is
not a high velocity weapon and therefore cannot have fired the shots that took out JFK.
This is one of "16 Smoking Guns" in the Prologue of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000).
His line reminds me of Gerald Posner, CASE CLOSE (1963), where, in the space of one
page--104--he commits no less than ten mistakes about the weapon. It was published
in THE FOURTH DECADE and here: http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html
If you want to stick around, great, but you'd learn much more from the Judyth thread.
Jim
Greg,Fascinating. Leaving this "absurdity", in order to rush in to join Fetzer/Judyth instead?
Mike,
I can only say that I am too, glad you're stickin' around.
Thanks.
Jim,
One really should know the subject matter.
The Carcano fires at an average of 2165FPS as tested by Frazier. (WCH3p400)
The throat wound has more ballistic issues than the magic bullet. Throat entry indeed.
The MC was perfectly capable of firing those shots. This is beyond question.
In fact it was so capable that it was the only weapon that day that left even a shred of ballistic evidence.
The sectional density and ballistic coefficient make it a very suitable and deadly round. Thats why they are a European favorite for big game to this day.
I could not help but wonder when you would be at this thread spewing just this type of nonsense.
Would you be speaking of the same Dr. Perry that testified that those wounds could have been exits as well? Or had you forgotten that?
Jim this thread is for reasonable discussion, not snake oil salesmen. I suggest you let me stick to ballistics which I know, and I let you stick to snake oil.
Mike
-
I am in need of some help with an issue regarding the back wound. I write a hearty disclaimer that I am in no way totally familiar with aspects of the autopsy. If someone could help me out it would be much appreciated. Please consider this photo:
Questions:
1) In the photo attached is #1 the WC location of the back wound? This would seem odd considering the contact ring on #2.
2) Is #2 the generally accepted entry? This would seem to make sense.
3) If #1 is the WC location, then I can assume this is the wound that measured 7mmx4mm on the final autopsy report?
4) If #3 is correct then what are the estimated dimensions of hole #2?
Any help is much appreciated.
My best to you all,
Mike
A straight answer, Mike. #1 is the supposed entry wound. #2 is, according to the doctors, not a wound at all, but a speck of dried blood. While some look at the location and shape of #2 and conclude it looks more like a wound than #1, they fail to note that this "hole", should it be a hole, would be tiny, and approximately 3mm by 3mm.
Pat,
Much appreciated. Would not a hole that is 3mmx3mm be consistent with a entry from a 6.5mm bullet? There are many instances when a projectile leaves a much smaller hole than its true diameter.
Best to you my friend,
Mike
Would not a hole that is 3mmx3mm be consistent with a entry from a 6.5mm bullet? There are many instances when a projectile leaves a much smaller hole than its true diameter.
Simple Answer: Yep!
Too bad you were not around when I long ago posted the photographic evidence of actual ballistic testing, which included a normal entrance wound as compared with a "flat-nosed"/Wadcutter type wound of entry.
Sorry! No more scans as these postings are coming from the Library Computer, in which the ability to scan and thereafter post the scan are not an option.
Mike, while it's true some entrance wounds are smaller than the width of the bullet, this is not what one would expect. In my days of research at the UCLA Bio-med library, I read dozens of articles on gunshot wounds, going back to WW1. Many of these I found in military journals, such as Military Medicince.
Anyhow, I don't recall one instance in which the entrance wound of a bullet was reported to be half the size of the bullet. Not one.
The lower mark is not a bullet hole.
2 cases
-
I am in need of some help with an issue regarding the back wound. I write a hearty disclaimer that I am in no way totally familiar with aspects of the autopsy. If someone could help me out it would be much appreciated. Please consider this photo:
Questions:
1) In the photo attached is #1 the WC location of the back wound? This would seem odd considering the contact ring on #2.
2) Is #2 the generally accepted entry? This would seem to make sense.
3) If #1 is the WC location, then I can assume this is the wound that measured 7mmx4mm on the final autopsy report?
4) If #3 is correct then what are the estimated dimensions of hole #2?
Any help is much appreciated.
My best to you all,
Mike
A straight answer, Mike. #1 is the supposed entry wound. #2 is, according to the doctors, not a wound at all, but a speck of dried blood. While some look at the location and shape of #2 and conclude it looks more like a wound than #1, they fail to note that this "hole", should it be a hole, would be tiny, and approximately 3mm by 3mm.
Pat,
Much appreciated. Would not a hole that is 3mmx3mm be consistent with a entry from a 6.5mm bullet? There are many instances when a projectile leaves a much smaller hole than its true diameter.
Best to you my friend,
Mike
Would not a hole that is 3mmx3mm be consistent with a entry from a 6.5mm bullet? There are many instances when a projectile leaves a much smaller hole than its true diameter.
Simple Answer: Yep!
Too bad you were not around when I long ago posted the photographic evidence of actual ballistic testing, which included a normal entrance wound as compared with a "flat-nosed"/Wadcutter type wound of entry.
Sorry! No more scans as these postings are coming from the Library Computer, in which the ability to scan and thereafter post the scan are not an option.
Tom,
Thanks! I am starting to form up on this idea. I appreciate the help.
Mike
:ice 
He is nothing more than a snake oil salesman.
Help with the back wound please
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Martin,
Quite the opposite actually. That wound is basically the undoing of the SBT.