Robert Prudhomme

And, after all that, you still don't get why the shallow back wound was a myth, right?

Of course he won't believe you, Sandy, he's a TV producer; he knows better.

Sure explains the quality of TV documentaries lately.

You see, Michael, 600 fps is a very low velocity, even for a handgun yet, at point blank range, a bullet fired at this velocity will make much more than a shallow wound.

When you say 409 mph (or 600 fps) is that the velocity the bullet is travelling, leaving the Dal-Tex Building, or the velocity it is travelling when it hit JFK?

The main problem with your theory is that you are assuming there was nothing wrong with the cartridge the back wound bullet originated from, and that the bullet was travelling at its expected velocity.

If it only made a shallow back wound, don't you think the people planning the assassination would be professional enough to understand that such a low powered bullet might not have the ability to do enough damage to kill JFK? Why would they even consider using such a weapon?

To give you an idea of just what a low powered weapon you are speaking of, look at this chart put together by Chuck Hawks:

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

Under the heading "MV" (muzzle velocity) you will see the muzzle velocities for most known handguns listed. Surprisingly, even the humble .22 Long Rifle rimfire cartridges are listed as travelling from 975-1262 fps. You have to go quite far down the list to find a bullet with a muzzle velocity less than 600 fps, that being the .38 Special with a 2" barrel, firing a 158 grain round-nosed lead bullet at 587 fps.

However, looks can be deceiving. Despite its low velocity, its heavier mass gives it a Muzzle Energy of 200 ft. lbs., as compared to a 40 grain .22 Long Rifle bullet with a muzzle velocity of 975 fps and muzzle energy of only 81 ft. lbs.

Coincidentally, the revolver Jack Ruby used to kill Lee Harvey Oswald was a Colt "Cobra" snub nosed revolver chambered for the .38 Special cartridge. In 1963, about the only ammo available for this revolver would have been the RNL (round nosed lead) 158 grain bullet we just discussed, with a muzzle velocity from Ruby's snub nosed Colt close to the 587 fps given.

Did this low velocity bullet make a shallow wound in Oswald's left side, and later fall out at the hospital? No, this bullet passed from the left side of Oswald's abdomen to the right side, passing through almost every major organ and blood vessel on its way, before almost exiting the right side of his chest.

Here is the account of Oswald's wounds, as related by Dr. Tom Shires, Parkland Memorial Hospital:

"Dr. Tom Shires, chief of surgery at Parkland, said however that Oswald had an outside chance.

Shires made this formal statement:

"We first saw Mr. Oswald in the Parkland emergency room No. 2 around 11:30 a.m. (CST) Sunday, Nov. 24. At that time, he was unconscious, had no blood pressure, but made agonal respiratory efforts (dying gasps).

"The endotracheal tube was placed (in his throat to aid breathing) by Dr. M.T. Jenkins, chief of anesthesia. Intravenous fluids and blood were started (in the veins).

"There was a gunshot wound entrance over the left lower lateral (lower left rids) chest wall and the bullet could be felt in the subcutaneous tissue (beneath the skin) on the opposite side of the body, over the right lower lateral chest cage.

"It was probable, from his condition, that the bullet had injured the major blood vessels, aorta (main artery from the heart) and vena cava below the diaphragm. Consequently, he was taken immediately to the operating room and through a mid-line abdominal incision, the abdomen was exposed.

"Several liters (a liter is 1.057 quarts) of blood were immediately encountered. Exploration revealed that the bullet had gone from the left to right, injuring the spleen, pancreas, aorta, vena cava, right kidney and right lobe of the liver. The bullet then came to rest in the right chest wall.

Have you ever done target shooting at 66 yards with a weapon firing bullets at 600 fps? Did you know that a handgun firing a bullet at your back at point blank range, with a muzzle velocity of 600 fps, is going to do a lot more than make a shallow wound?

Now take a look at this diagram, Michael. As you can see, the "bore axis" of the rifle is still pointing way above the target (just like the outfielder) but, due to gravitational forces on the bullet, the bullet cannot follow the "bore axis" or "line of departure" and impacts the target instead.

The most important thing about this diagram, though, as it relates to the shallow back wound myth, is the thing called the "line of sight". In this diagram, they are using the rear and front sight of a rifle. A rifle scope would be the same set up.

Adjusting the line of sight, while shooting at one particular distance, to make the bullet hit a target, is known as "sighting in" or "zeroing" a rifle. Having ammo that is well manufactured is very important, as changes in the velocity of successive bullets will cause the bullets to impact at various places vertically on the target. With less velocity, the bullet will not go as far, and the bullet paths will look like this:

Trajectories of a projectile with air drag and varying initial velocities

With a muzzle velocity of 2200 feet per second, the 6.5mm Carcano 162 grain FMJ bullet has a tremendous amount of penetrating power. Not only is it more than capable of passing right through the ribcage (plus his clothes) of a man, if another man were standing directly in front of him, it would likely pass right through his ribcage, too, and have enough energy left to seriously injure a 3rd person.

This is a very difficult thing to estimate but, in order to produce the kind of shallow wound described in JFK's back, as described by Humes, the muzzle velocity of the bullet would have to be reduced from 2200 fps to at least 400 fps, and more likely 300 fps.

Looking at the top diagram, if the shooter had sighted his rifle in using bullets travelling at 2200 fps, what would happen if, after aiming in a normal fashion, he UNEXPECTEDLY fired a bullet with a muzzle velocity of only 300-400 fps, an 82-87% reduction in muzzle velocity?

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

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

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

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

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

Take a good look at this diagram, Michael, and let me know if you can establish a relation between the "Bullet Departure Line/Bore Axis" and the point in space above the catcher the outfielder is throwing the ball at.

He might have said he was a patsy but, did he say who was making him a patsy?

FYI, Michael.the majority of what is proposed on this forum is speculation, as the majority of the evidence presented has been altered or is an outright lie, such as the shallow back wound lie that you cling to so dearly.

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

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

More than I can recall.

The only bullets I've ever seen that did not penetrate deeply into a deer's body were low velocity .22 Short Rifle bullets likely fired at such a range their initial low velocity was even further slowed down. Bullets travelling at typical hunting bullet velocities will go through hide and meat like it was not even there.

No, I have never seen a shallow wound made by a bullet travelling at a velocity in the normal range of velocities most rifle bullets travel at.

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

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

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

Trajectories of a projectile with air drag and varying initial velocities

We think alike on this matter, Sandy.

I believe certain people dearly wanted a conspiracy to be "discovered"; why else risk a shot from the front that left a gaping exit wound in the back of JFK's head?

At the last minute, maybe cooler heads did prevail, and the thought of millions of Americans and Russians disappearing in a thermonuclear flash was just a bit too much to handle, and it was decided to place the blame on a "lone nut" who, up to that point, had only been one of several conspirators, and not even a shooter.

Why did Oswald not proclaim innocence, Lance? C'mon now, a smart fellow like you should have no trouble figuring this one out, or are you just pretending to have trouble with it?

Shortly after his arrest, I would imagine a message was put through to Oswald to just sit tight and keep his mouth shut, things would change at the last minute and he would be set free. Now, he might have thought about telling everything he knew about a conspiracy but, what good would that do?

1. No one would believe a commie, and the agencies would go into automatic denial.

2. This would guarantee his getting terminated early.

With nothing to lose, and everything to gain, he would have decided his best option was to sit still for the moment and see which way the wind blew. He might have already been told that people near him on the steps, such as Frazier, were about to develop amnesia and would be unable to provide him an alibi, or it might not have been discovered immediately that such a minor player in the assassination was even out on the steps. Look how many years it took us to find him.

Two days after the assassination, Oswald might have begun to suspect he really was the patsy and was going to be convicted for the assassination. He might even have been ready to tell everything he knew, and have privately expressed this intention within earshot of those behind the conspiracy, only to find himself shot to death in the basement of the DPD.

Sometimes, when you're in a bind with no options, the only thing you can do is sit tight, keep your mouth shut and hope the Cavalry shows up.

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

According the Wikipedia article linked below, there were somewhere between 2,063,750, and, 3,000,000 Carcano rifles of all variants produced between 1890 and 1945.

The maximum number of unique serial numbers using four numbers only, would be 9,999, and adding just one letter would bring the possibilities up to 259,974 - about a quarter of a million. Adding a second letter would allow for nearly seven million unique serial numbers.

I too would be interested in an informed answer to Sandy’s question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcano

What's really interesting is that none of these Carcanos sold off by the Italian Government were supposed to have a serial number or any other identifying mark on them, outside of "Made Italy" and CAL 6,5".

Despite claims to the contrary on this thread, virtually all Carcano serial numbers consisted of a single letter followed by four numbers. If two identical serial numbers were stamped on a Carcano, the name of the factory (Terni, Brescia, etc.) was the final determination.

The REALLY odd thing about C2766 is it seems to be the only Carcano ever manufactured after 1922 with a single date on it; that being "1940". Below is an example of a more typical Carcano made around that time.

As can be seen, the date is written as "1940 XIX". Mussolini's "March on Rome", in which the dictator came to power in Italy, took place from October 22-29, 1922. It was Mussolini's decree that all dates from that time on be also measured in the "Fascist Date". If this rifle had been made before October, 1940, it would have been stamped with "1940 XVIII" signifying it was made eighteen years after the March on Rome. The XIX, however, indicates this rifle was made after the anniversary date of the March on Rome, nineteen years later.

Why is C2766 the only Carcano made after 1922 that does not have the Fascist Date? Why does the date on C2766 look painted on, while other rifles have their dates stamped into the metal?

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTIPoO8wA_NeWffH4DkPYwxjwvBr7Wl83iRzL6CkgDG_-61fxaj

Not that common, as it never showed up on the other x-rays.

Bob - I can see you are another who has the inability to grasp the simple ballistical concept I have been trying to explain. Long live the shallow back wound myth, and those gullible enough to believe it!

Bob, Jim Humes said it was shallow and it could not be easily probed. Yes there was bruising on the tip of the lung and in the inside portion of the surrounding tissue. I'd expect that to be the case when a fast-moving bullet would go into someone. But that's how Hume described it.

I don't know why you consider that a myth. I don't consider it a myth because that's the best and only testimony we have from someone who actually handled the body. None of us here on this board were in the room that night. But he was along with the agents, the other doctors, and the military guys who said (according to Finck) to keep it moving and don't dissect the wounds.

Like your Koolaid?

I would imagine in 1963 a frangible bullet that disintegrated into a cloud of metal dust in a wound and did not exit would be considered a "high tech weapon".

Why didn't it show up on the x-ray?

You don't remember the "dirt" that appeared only on the chest x-rays that looked like fragments of a bullet but, of course, were not?

Michael Walton said:

"Sandy, we'll have to agree to disagree. I've never bought into the umbrella having a dart, nor do I think there was a need to use high-tech bullets. I do find it interesting that the back wound bullet was never found. Maybe C399, the so-called Magic Bullet, was the actual bullet that hit Kennedy in the back, it fell out, and then they "projected" it as the bullet that went through both JFK and JCC. When you think about it, it's not that far-fetched. The wound was shallow and according to Humes didn't penetrate very far and didn't hit anything that would have broken it up too much. Maybe that first shot was just a way to plant the evidence of the Carcano rifle - hit him in the back where the bullet could be retrieved and prove it came from Oswald's gun. Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way for them, the bullet got lost in the shuffle, the Zapruder film proved that the shot sequence was way too close, the wounds didn't match up, and the SBT was born."

I can see you are another who has the inability to grasp the simple ballistical concept I have been trying to explain. Long live the shallow back wound myth, and those gullible enough to believe it!

I would imagine in 1963 a frangible bullet that disintegrated into a cloud of metal dust in a wound and did not exit would be considered a "high tech weapon".

Even in 2016, the majority of autopsists would be baffled if they found an entrance wound, no exit wound and no bullet inside the body.

Personally, I've always been baffled by Humes continuing to search the thorax and abdomen for a bullet, or fragments thereof, long after the x-rays failed to show any such thing. Did he think the x-ray machine was broken? At what point do we call everything done by Humes by its proper name, that being bizarre?

I've grown tired of attempting to explain how it is ballistically impossible for a rifle bullet to make such a shallow wound, and still be able to hit its target. If you wish to continue to believe this foolishness, that is your business.

Bob,

Let me try to explain it. Amateur to amateur, in very simple terms.

Hey Bob,

I didn't know you were an amateur that required an explanation in simple terms! Stupid me considers you an expert!

BTW, what was that comment you made a few posts ago about the people who just don't get this SIMPLE concept?

Sandy,

You've already proven to me that you don't believe anything I say, so why don't you critique my explanation as to my Bob is 100% correct on this issue and doesn't require your "amateur" explanation?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22956&p=332008

Tom

Hi Tom

I don't really mind. Compared to many learned men in the field of ballistics, I would call myself an amateur, too.

I did call it a simple concept a while back but, when I thought about it a bit, I realized it might not be that simple to someone without knowledge or experience in firearms. It's like me and computers. My kids constantly tell me how simple they are, but I still break into a cold sweat every time I have to do something new on them.

Sometimes all it takes is a simplified explanation, such as Sandy presented, to help others grasp a concept. And, in the long run, isn't that what it's all about?

Oversimplifying can cause more problems than it solves. We'll see if it helps anyone that didn't get it before...

IMO, the issue is primarily that their mind is made up before they even begin reading - a slow bullet makes a shallow hole - everyone knows that; it's common sense! I think anyone here that makes the effort can understand your explanation and mine, so I didn't dumb it down.

The issue that I focused on with Craig in my response to him, was that the shooter is unaware that he is about to fire a defective bullet. He will be aiming at a target expecting to get the 2,000 fps typical velocity. When he gets a shot at say 1,000 fps the bullet will indeed make a shallow hole and cause less damage, but the bullet will fall far short of the targer.

The only way to hit the target at all is to aim the rifle much higher - higher than the sights are telling you - than you would with good ammo. If you do that, yes, you can hit the target at the slower velocity. But the shooter doesn't aim higher because he doesn't know he has defective ammo, so the bullet never reaches the target.

I told Craig if he had any issue with my statement to reply. He never did, so presumably that explanation sufficed.

Tom

Precisely, Tom. You summarize the situation very well.

As you say, the shooter is not expecting the 1 in 10,000 cartridge that is not going to propel the bullet at the expected 2200 feet per second, and is aiming at a spot that will accurately place only a bullet travelling that precise velocity.

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

Dr. Humes was reported to have said during the autopsy that the bullet entered JFK's back at a 45 to 60 degree angle. For example, FBI agent Francis O'Neill reported this in his 1978 HSCA affidavit. How could a bullet have entered at such a steep angle?

The first thing to ask is, what made Humes think the bullet entered at that angle. Given that Humes apparently found no missile track other than the wound running through JFK's flesh (skin and shallow muscle), I would think that at some point during the autopsy he probed the wound. Probably not with his finger -- it being too large to fit -- but probably with a metal probe. At which time Humes found the angle of that track to be 45 to 60 degrees... quite a steep angle that cannot easily be explained.

Groundwork

Before presenting my hypothesis, I need to lay a little groundwork. (Please be patient. If you don't want to read the groundwork, jump ahead to the hypothesis.)

Many of you know that I -- having studied Robert Prudhomme's case for a frangible bullet being the explanation for this disappearing bullet -- am quite convinced that a frangible bullet was used on the back shot. Since reading Robert's descriptions of these bullets, I've done some reading about them on my own. Here are a few things I've learned from Robert and elsewhere:

• Due to the fact that frangible bullets break up into numerous particles upon hitting a substance of sufficient hardness and resistance, each particle will contain just a small fraction of the whole bullet's kinetic energy.

• The energy per unit surface area will decrease greatly upon fragmentation. This means the penetration depth will be greatly diminished.

• The finer the powder comprising the bullet, the more diminished the penetration will be, and the broader the spread.

• Frangible bullets can be designed to fragment more or less easily. Even so, there can be great variation from bullet-to-bullet as to what it takes to fragment the bullet.

One thing I set out to find for this presentation was how a bone would react to being hit be an already-fragmented frangible bullet. Unfortunately I couldn't find anything specific to that topic. I did, however find some related materials that I feel confirmed what I already thought about this. It is my contention that a fragmented bullet would be much less likely to shatter a bone than would be a whole bullet of the same mass.

I will give an analogy to demonstrate this.

Suppose we have a pane of glass, and that this represents a bone. A one pound rock represents a whole bullet. A pound of pebbles represents a fragmented frangible bullet. And a pound of sand represents a fragmented ultra-frangible bullet.

First we "shoot the bone" by throwing the rock at the glass with all our might. The glass breaks. Just like a whole bullet would break a bone.

Next we throw the pebbles at the glass. (A new pane of glass.) The glass flexes and gets pitted, but does not break... this time. Maybe it will break next time.

Finally we throw the sand at the window. Very little happens to the glass. The grains of sand merely bounce off. Despite the fact that they carried the same amount of energy as the rock did.

I hope you will now agree with me that a bone will be far less affected by a fragmented frangible bullet than by a whole bullet.

But before leaving this analogy, let's try one more thing. Let's throw the sand at the glass, but this time at a slight angle. What will the sand do? Analyzing this situation can be very daunting, as several factors would need to be taken into account. For example, the fact that early reflected particles could collide with later oncoming ones, depending upon the diameter of the spray. Also, the degree to which each of the many collisions are elastic. ("Elastic" and "inelastic" are technical terms used in physics to classify and describe collisions.) After studying this for some time, I decided that another approach was necessary.

Suppose we dropped a rock on a sidewalk. Would it bounce, or would it stay on the sidwalk upon impact? If the collision were a perfectly elastic one, the rock would bounce up to the same height from which it was dropped. If it were perfectly inelastic, the rock would drop to the ground without bouncing.

I can tell you one thing from experience... a rock won't bounce very high. And it's not just because of gravity. If you've ever played with a Super Ball, you know what a good elastic collision is. And a rock landing on concrete ain't one of them. (Wikipedia describes a Super Ball as "an extremely elastic ball made of Zechron.) But a rock does bounce a little. The reason a rock doesn't bounce high like a Super Ball is because it loses a lot of its kinetic energy when impacting the concrete.

Now, suppose you threw the rock at the concrete at a slight angle. What would it do? It would bounce a little, as before. But this time it would travel in the direction you threw it, till its kinetic energy was depleted. If it were thrown at a smooth surface it would travel quite far. Ever skipped a rock on calm water?

Okay, having gone through that thought experiment, I want to determine what would happen if you threw sand instead of a rock at concrete, again at a small angle. I can't remember every throwing sand at a sidewalk, but I imagine it would behave in a way similar to a single rock. I am confident it wouldn't bounce much at all.... I think even less so than a rock. I'm equally confident that it would move across the surface in the direction thrown, especially if the surface is smooth.

Okay, now it's time to translate this back to bullets and bone. One major difference between the two is that bone is more flexible than concrete, is less rigid, and is surrounded by muscle. The effect of these factors is that the bone would absorb a lot more energy than concrete does. So any collision with bone would be a lot less elastic than with concrete. That is to say, the projectile would bounce much less.

I readily admit that I haven't proven what I'm about to say. But I contend that if a fragmented frangible bullet hits a bone at an angle, the particles will tend to skim along the surface of the bone. The particles won't all be in contact with the bone, but will travel near the surface of the bone, perpendicular to its surface.

Hypothesis

Here is what I envision happened:

The frangible bullet hit Kennedy's back and began to fragment immediately after hitting the surface of the skin. That it fragmented so near the surface may have been by design, or may have been a fluke.

The angle of the shot was, of course, downward... on the order of 20 degrees. The bulk of the particles hit the bottom portion of a rib and skimmed along its surface toward Kennedy's butt. But the bottom portion of the particle spray passed below the rib and punctured the lung.

The particles that were deflected downward, and those that passed below the rib, created a channel that Humes found with a probe. The angle of the channel was estimated by Humes to be 45 to 60 degrees.

You can see this in the following illustrations.

Related Images

Following are photos, x-rays, and CT scans of a pig's hind leg that has been shot with a frangible bullet. Note that this bullet fragmented immediately after striking the skin. The bullet used was a so-call "hyper-frangible." Due to its small particle size and low velocity (~500 fps), penetration was very shallow.

It would have been useful for this presentation had the bullet been aimed at the bone and been of greater velocity.

This is a CT scan of the leg. It is a cross-sectional view. The white circle is the bone.

(Source for images: Forensic and clinical issues in the use of frangible projectilea.)

Hi Sandy

I'm still planning to respond to this. However, being a new hypothesis (or speculation), I find it very intriguing and I've been going over it in my mind the last few days as I work. You might almost say I am savouring it LOL.

I think by the weekend I should be writing something about this.

Sandy Larsen wrote:

"It will take twice as long for the slow bullet to arrive at the target. This means that after the first bullet hits the target, the slow bullet will still be dropping. And so it will hit too low once it arrives. It may miss the target altogether. And that's bad."

Oops! Just spotted this.

The slow bullet might take twice as long (going half the speed) to arrive at the "target" (point of aim) but, if it hits the earth halfway out to this intended target, it will impact the earth at the same moment as the faster bullet impacts the target, assuming the earth and the target are the same distance vertically from the line of sight of the rifle, because it has only travelled half the distance.

An example of this is to mount the barrel of a rifle perfectly level with the earth, and to arrange to have a bullet fall to the earth, from the height of the barrel at the exact moment a bullet exits the muzzle of the rifle barrel. In fact, you can mount several barrels in this fashion, from a handgun with a muzzle velocity of just 500 feet per second, to a .308 deer rifle with a muzzle velocity of 2800 feet per second, right up to the M256 Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore tank gun mounted on the M1 Abrams tank, with a muzzle velocity of 5200 to 5700 feet per second.

If all three weapons are fired at precisely the same moment, and a bullet is dropped, from the height of the barrels, at the moment the projectiles begin travelling through their respective barrels, all three fired projectiles, plus the dropped projectile, will impact the earth at precisely the same moment, proving that gravity is still the prime determining factor in ballistics.

I've grown tired of attempting to explain how it is ballistically impossible for a rifle bullet to make such a shallow wound, and still be able to hit its target. If you wish to continue to believe this foolishness, that is your business.

Bob,

Let me try to explain it. Amateur to amateur, in very simple terms.

Hey Bob,

I didn't know you were an amateur that required an explanation in simple terms! Stupid me considers you an expert!

BTW, what was that comment you made a few posts ago about the people who just don't get this SIMPLE concept?

Sandy,

You've already proven to me that you don't believe anything I say, so why don't you critique my explanation as to my Bob is 100% correct on this issue and doesn't require your "amateur" explanation?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22956&p=332008

Tom

Hi Tom

I don't really mind. Compared to many learned men in the field of ballistics, I would call myself an amateur, too.

I did call it a simple concept a while back but, when I thought about it a bit, I realized it might not be that simple to someone without knowledge or experience in firearms. It's like me and computers. My kids constantly tell me how simple they are, but I still break into a cold sweat every time I have to do something new on them.

Sometimes all it takes is a simplified explanation, such as Sandy presented, to help others grasp a concept. And, in the long run, isn't that what it's all about?

I've grown tired of attempting to explain how it is ballistically impossible for a rifle bullet to make such a shallow wound, and still be able to hit its target. If you wish to continue to believe this foolishness, that is your business.

Bob,

Let me try to explain it. Amateur to amateur, in very simple terms.

Back in elementary school we all learned that when Galileo dropped both a heavy and a light object from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, they both hit the ground at the same time. (More specifically, they accelerated at the same, constant rate. But don't worry about that.) The two objects stayed side by side as they fell and hit ground at the same time.

Well, the case of a dropping bullet is as easy as that.

Suppose you shoot a bullet and drop another one from the same height, both at the same time. The two bullets will hit the ground at the same time. Why? Because horizontal motion and vertical motion are independent of each other.

The important thing to learn from this is that the distance a bullet drops will be the same no matter what speed it is shot at.

Now let's look and see what happens when you shoot both a high-speed and a low-speed bullet at a target that's quite a distance away. Let's say the high-speed bullet is twice the speed of the low-speed bullet.

It will take twice as long for the slow bullet to arrive at the target. This means that after the first bullet hits the target, the slow bullet will still be dropping. And so it will hit too low once it arrives. It may miss the target altogether. And that's bad.

There are formulas and online calculators you can use to see how far a bullet will drop. It can be surprising how much more a low-speed bullet will drop than a high-speed one. The difference can be several feet.

With a little thought you'll come to realize that you must always aim higher than the bulls-eye. Because the bullet will start dropping the moment it's left the barrel. However, if you use a sight, the distance the bullet drops will be accounted for automatically. That is to say, if you aim at a target using the site, it will actually make you aim high.

But compensation for bullet drop has its limits. Can you imagine trying to aim a gun five or ten feet above a target? It is because of this that high-speed ammo is necessary for long-distance shooting.

So, why does this mean that the shallow wound in Kennedy's back is impossible? It's because a high-speed bullet is far too powerful to be stopped so easily. Only a low-speed bullet could cause such a shallow wound. But as discussed above, a low speed bullet can't be used from a distance because it will hit too low.

So, the only way a conventional bullet could have caused the shallow wound described by Humes, would be if a low-speed (i.e. low power) bullet were shot at Kennedy from a short distance. In other words, if a handgun were used.

Still, even if a handgun were used, I'm not sure that such a shallow wound could be created. It's hard to stop bullet... even a low-speed one.

(Disclaimer: I ignored wind resistance and probably other minor factors. Also, what I said about guns and ammo is probably flawed to some extent given that I know very little about them. I know only some physics, and I have shot a few guns in my lifetime. I even bagged a couple deer before realizing that it wasn't necessary for me to carry on that family tradition.)

How'd I do, Bob?

Hi Sandy

Pretty good. You were able to sum up the basic ballistic concept and put it in quite simple terms. Anything that helps to get the message across is good!

I think this thread is an example of one of many I've read here where researchers try to speculate on what happened. There's actually nothing wrong with speculating. Cops do it all of the time when they're investigating a crime. But it seems like some researchers call out others for speculating where as their own information they post is also speculation (e.g., my speculation is right; yours is wrong). So does speculation on both sides of the aisle just basically cancel out everything? Perhaps.

Meanwhile, I wanted to comment on the plastic/powder/frangible/not frangible bullet theory. I think we're giving the Bad Guys way too much credit regarding using some super-secret, super-exotic bullet/dart/projectile to kill the president. That's not to say they didn't plan this very well - my own speculation runs along the lines of Oswald was either supposed to be killed near the TSBD or, having failed that, be killed in the Texas Theater. When all of that failed, they said to hell with it and just sent in their Mobster to do it on live TV no less.

But as far as the mechanics of the shooting itself, weren't there metallic fragments found all over the inside of the car? To me, it flies in the face of common sense to think that they'd mix the bullets up, using metal ones in some of the guns, and plastic/powdery/dart ones in the other guns. I think this is just one of several examples of researchers over-thinking what may have happened.

As for the "he sat there between shots because toxins froze him" theory - I really don't think that happened either because, as I said earlier, no one can predict how one is going to react to gunshot wounds. I would encourage other researchers to look around on the internet because there are plenty of videos out there showing a variety of victims being shot. Some just collapse while others continue to stand or sit as if they're shocked.

I think it's a really, really big leap of faith to think that the Bad Guys would use some kind of poison or toxic chemical to "freeze" Kennedy in place. As I also mentioned, Jackie was not shot or sprayed with anything but she looks confused and "frozen" too until Z 313.

Okay, Michael, here is a question for you. If the back wound at thoracic vertebra T3 was not made by a frangible bullet, care to speculate on what type of bullet made this wound? Do you think it penetrated the chest cavity or was it just a shallow wound?

Robert,

As i have pointed out numerous times, I believe the wound to the back was a shallow wound that never penetrated the chest cavity. It is true that Sibbert OR O'Neill left the autopsy room to check on “Ice bullets” [ they have testified that happened but always made clear that one always remained in the room to witness all that occurred there ] but that had nothing to do with the back wound. The enquiry about “Ice Bullets” was with regard to the throat wound and particularly the damage to the apex of the lung.

I know that it is a common belief that the wound to the back was at T3. As I have demonstrated a number of times, I believe it was higher. JFK's body and particularly the protrusion of his Scapular showing through his back, make it clear that wound was higher [ quite significantly higher ] than the outer edge of the Scapular spine which can be seen on the autopsy image. The outer edge of the Scapular spine is just below T3. As I view it anatomy physiology that ought to be beyond dispute. I have argued that according to anatomy physiology the wound appears very close to T2. It could even be argued [ based on how far one believes the wound is in relation to the Scapular spine's edge ] that the wound could be between T2 and T3.

In my view anatomy physiology trumps speculation and rough guidelines on an autopsy chart.

I am happy for you to argue that I am wrong, but I would like to to address the position of the wound in relation to the position of the scapula spine. Why do you feel that the wound is still close to T3 when it is well above the position of the Scapular spine's edge?

James.

I believe it goes without saying that the back wound would have to be between thoracic vertebrae T2 and T3. If it was precisely at the level of T3, it would have struck the 3rd rib, or the costal cartilege attaching the 3rd rib to T3. This also prevents the entrance wound from being at the level of T2, unless you have proof the 2nd rib was struck. It is referred to as being at the level of T3 simply because that is easier to write than between T2 and T3. Nonetheless, this still places the entrance wound well below the apex of the right lung. I might add, though, that there is not much difference in the two positions.

I've grown tired of attempting to explain how it is ballistically impossible for a rifle bullet to make such a shallow wound, and still be able to hit its target. If you wish to continue to believe this foolishness, that is your business.

I think this thread is an example of one of many I've read here where researchers try to speculate on what happened. There's actually nothing wrong with speculating. Cops do it all of the time when they're investigating a crime. But it seems like some researchers call out others for speculating where as their own information they post is also speculation (e.g., my speculation is right; yours is wrong). So does speculation on both sides of the aisle just basically cancel out everything? Perhaps.

Meanwhile, I wanted to comment on the plastic/powder/frangible/not frangible bullet theory. I think we're giving the Bad Guys way too much credit regarding using some super-secret, super-exotic bullet/dart/projectile to kill the president. That's not to say they didn't plan this very well - my own speculation runs along the lines of Oswald was either supposed to be killed near the TSBD or, having failed that, be killed in the Texas Theater. When all of that failed, they said to hell with it and just sent in their Mobster to do it on live TV no less.

But as far as the mechanics of the shooting itself, weren't there metallic fragments found all over the inside of the car? To me, it flies in the face of common sense to think that they'd mix the bullets up, using metal ones in some of the guns, and plastic/powdery/dart ones in the other guns. I think this is just one of several examples of researchers over-thinking what may have happened.

As for the "he sat there between shots because toxins froze him" theory - I really don't think that happened either because, as I said earlier, no one can predict how one is going to react to gunshot wounds. I would encourage other researchers to look around on the internet because there are plenty of videos out there showing a variety of victims being shot. Some just collapse while others continue to stand or sit as if they're shocked.

I think it's a really, really big leap of faith to think that the Bad Guys would use some kind of poison or toxic chemical to "freeze" Kennedy in place. As I also mentioned, Jackie was not shot or sprayed with anything but she looks confused and "frozen" too until Z 313.

Okay, Michael, here is a question for you. If the back wound at thoracic vertebra T3 was not made by a frangible bullet, care to speculate on what type of bullet made this wound? Do you think it penetrated the chest cavity or was it just a shallow wound?