Robert Prudhomme

I cannot log in to that site.

No, I haven't seen that, Thomas. What is the date on the thread?

Robert,

That's too bad. You mean there was no "debate" at JFKAF as to whether or not Prayer Man could have been Oswald? The only link I can see that Duncan provided was to the website itself.

Now for a little humor -- Hopefully you can engage Duncan in a conversation and convince him that Baker did't run up the steps and through the front door, but sprinted down to the corner to question a witness or another policeman for ten minutes, instead. LOL

--Tommy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

McRae doesn't seem to debate very well. He is more apt to have a hissy fit and take his ball away and go home. Does not play well with others.

The frame is from the Malcolm Couch film, and not the Jimmy Darnell film.

The man is not Oswald as Baker has not even reached the entrance of the TSBD at this point in the film.

Finally, this man has been discussed many many times at http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/board,2.0.html and many enhancements have been made there and are still available for viewing.

Still waiting for this guy to produce the "many discussions" and "many enhancements" he claims to have occurred over at his forum. (sounds like BS to me) I checked the link out and it amounts to nothing.

Why not post some of that stuff here, Dunc?

I agree Bob. In fact didn't Paul May (aka Photon) say that Duncan had debunked PM months ago? Still waiting for Paul's link to Duncan's evidence too.

So how about we see your debunking on here Duncan.

Yeah Dunc,

what the Bobster and Nessa said.

LOL...the Bobster??

...the bullet was gaining velocity on the first half of its journey which was, of course, uphill.

Robert,

Question: What force was causing the bullet to gain velocity while traveling "uphill"?

Tom

I have no idea, Tom. In fact, I have never seen this on a ballistics calculator before, and I wonder if it is not an error in their computer. The laws of inertia state that a body in motion tends to stay in motion, but it doesn't say anything about gaining velocity; at least, not in this universe, anyways.

I agree. It must be an error in the calculator. Velocity should be decreasing. Air resistance will reduce the bullet's velocity uphill or downhill, and an upward traveling bullet will have its vertical velocity component reduced by gravity.

I read some material which suggested that a completely spent bullet, fired straight up and returning to Earth backwards, will fall around 300 fps, and be unlikely to kill someone, due to the relatively slow speed and wide area of impact, but that a bullet fired at an angle will fall at over 300 fps, and hit nose first, and be more problematic. As bullets falling nose first are more aerodynamic, they have a greater terminal velocity.

And your point is........

Ollie

Look at these photos. Do you see a problem here?

Western Cartridge Co. 6.5mm Carcano cartridge

.30-06 cartridge on left

Take note of the "Oswald lean" in the photo on the left below. It's remarkably similar to the "leaning" posture that many conspiracy theorists think was physically impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to achieve in the backyard photos:

Quite a difference when the perspective is corrected. don'tcha think, Dave?

And still the nose shadow remains straight down.

Good job, Ray.

But they will also show up on an xray.

Yes they will, Kenneth, and so will the cloud of metal powder from the frangible bullet. Think about the "hundreds of dust like metal particles" seen in the x-rays of JFK's skull. As lead is malleable, and not brittle, a solid lead bullet (even a hollow point) is not going to turn to dust in a head wound.

The "hundreds of dust like particles" is the signature of a frangible bullet.

The frame is from the Malcolm Couch film, and not the Jimmy Darnell film.

The man is not Oswald as Baker has not even reached the entrance of the TSBD at this point in the film.

Finally, this man has been discussed many many times at http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/board,2.0.html and many enhancements have been made there and are still available for viewing.

Still waiting for this guy to produce the "many discussions" and "many enhancements" he claims to have occurred over at his forum. (sounds like BS to me) I checked the link out and it amounts to nothing.

Why not post some of that stuff here, Dunc?

I agree Bob. In fact didn't Paul May (aka Photon) say that Duncan had debunked PM months ago? Still waiting for Paul's link to Duncan's evidence too.

So how about we see your debunking on here Duncan.

Why not make Paul May do it?

All Duncan said is that it's been discussed many times on the JFK Assassination Forum website. Has anyone gone there and done a "search"?

I must admit, however, that I don't understand Duncan's logic when he says, "[Prayer Man] is not Oswald as Baker has not even reached the front entrance of the TSBD at this point in the film."

--Tommy

I followed the links McRae provided, and found nothing. All talk and deception.

At 640 fps (436 mph), our 162 grain bullet has a drop (according to the calculator), from a rifle fired from a level position, of 11.22 inches. Considering again that, at 2200 fps, this bullet is .77 inches above the line of sight at 50 yards, we can subtract .77 from 11.22, giving us a drop of 10.45 inches or the distance from the centre of JFK's head to the entrance wound on his back.

Looking again at the calculator, we see this bullet, slowed down to 630 fps at 50 yards, still possesses 143 ft/lbf or 194.5 Joules of energy.This is comparable to a .22 long rifle bullet weighing 38 grains with a muzzle velocity of 1260 fps and possessing 182 Joules of energy.

This bullet is going to do quite a bit more than just break the surface.

http://www.handloads.com/calc/index.html

Robert,

Using the above link I entered the info you provided, and produced identical results

using the default "Muzzle Elevation" of 0 degrees. With the gun sighted in at 100

yards the tabulated data shows that at 100 yards the target has been hit with 0 error,

as it should if the sights have been placed precisely on the target.

The definition of "Muzzle Elevation" provided in the "Inputs:" section is "Horizontal

Inclination of gun in degrees". If the actual inclination of the gun was 0 degrees, there

would be no compensation for bullet drop and the shot would fall considerably short of

the target. So this cannot be the correct definition.

It appears that the calculator is computing whatever actual gun elevation above horizontal

is required to hit the target using the other entered parameters and calling that number

0 degrees Muzzle Elevation. So a "Muzzle Elevation" of 3 degrees in this calculator would

be relative to the angle with the sights on the target, rather than the actual elevation

above the horizontal.

I have never used a calculator to determine this type of data before, so I certainly could

be missing something relevant here.

What I'd like to do is calculate the gun elevation angle that would impact the target at

say 100 yards using a muzzle velocity of 2200 fps and the rest of the Carcano 91/38 data

that you provided. Then, maintain the same gun elevation (the shooter would be aiming at

the target expecting a fully charged shot) but reduce the velocity incrementally until the

error is -10.5".

JFK was 6' 1/2" tall as am I. The distance from the vertical center of my head to a point

5 3/4" below the top of my shirt collar is exactly 10.5".

IF I can figure out how to do the above with this ballistic calculator, I believe it will

produce an impact velocity far in excess of what would be required to create a "shallow

back wound" and disprove the theory that a "short shot" produced the "shallow back wound."

Tom

I believe I have already done this, Tom, if you go back a few posts. I calculated for the 162 grain bullet travelling at 2200 fps and for a rifle sighted in at 100 yards.

The calculator showed this bullet to be .77 inches above the line of sight at 50 yards. As the same bullet, fired from a rifle held level, at 300 fps has a bullet drop of 48.99 inches, it was a simple matter of subtracting .77 from 48.99 to find out what the bullet drop would be from a rifle sighted in at 100 yards for 2200 fps ammo that was loaded with a defective bullet that only travelled at 300 fps.

To find out what velocity is required to have the bullet drop an amount that would equal the distance from the centre of JFK's head (aim point) to the point of impact (5 3/4" below the collar) or, as you calculated, 10.5 inches, I would keep upping the velocity factor in the calculator until the bullet drop (minus .77 inch) equalled 10.5 inches.

There is a great deal of evidence of frangible bullets being used in the assassination, as well as JFK having a serious injury to the top of his right lung.

Robert,

I don't believe it's possible with normal ammunition to aim at JFK's head and

due to "under-charged" ammo hit his upper back at a velocity that would only create

a "shallow wound". An under-charged shot that would impact only 10" or so lower than the

target would still produce a non-shallow wound, and an undercharged shot that would

arrive at a slow velocity would impact much lower than the 10" required. In other words,

either condition could be satisfied separately, but not BOTH at the same time. The available

charts don't reproduce all the conditions precisely, but are close enough to convince

me that the shallow back wound can be explained by an under-charged shot.

Considering all types of frangible bullets, would soft tissue fragment the bullet

to the degree necessary to prevent the bullet from exiting the body? Or would that

require contact with a bone, such as a rib or vertabra?

Thanks for any thoughts,

Tom

FINALLY, someone asks a REALLY intelligent question! God bless you, Tom.

A frangible bullet performs in almost exactly the same fashion as a hollow point bullet (lethal frangible bullets actually are a type of hollow point bullet) and do not need to contact bone to make them open up. In fact, both types of bullet perform better if they contact only flesh and organs.

A hollow point bullet is made of lead, and has a small deep opening in the nose of the bullet.

A hollow point frangible bullet is made from a powdered metal (not always lead) that has been compressed, glued or sintered together and encased in a copper alloy jacket.

In both bullets, there is an opening in the nose. When these bullets travel through semi-liquid matter (ie. brain, lungs, other organs) the hollow cavity in the nose fills with this semi-liquid matter, and the velocity of the bullet exerts a tremendous hydraulic pressure inside the nose of the bullet that exerts this force on the rest of the bullet.

In the standard hollow point, the nose of the bullet opens up from this force and looks something like this, if it does not break up entirely into fragments.

OTOH, the hydraulic pressure in the nose of the frangible bullet exerts enough force to disintegrate the compressed metal powder core back into a 4 inch cloud of metal powder, disintegrating it totally. Upon disintegration into powder, the bullet comes to an abrupt halt and transfers ALL of the energy of the bullet to surrounding tissue. The result is devastating and totally lethal.

P.S.

I should point out that standard hollow point rifle bullets also lose a tremendous amount of velocity as they open up and, quite often, they will not exit a wound, either.

I'm surprised that I haven't seen this hypothesis on this post, but one explanation for the back wound would be a subsonic MC round fired in a sabot shell from the roof of the Dallas County Records building (discussed in previous postings on this forum). The purpose of the shot would be to place a bullet which could be matched to the alleged Oswald MC into JFK's body. The high angle reported by the autopsy could correspond to a bullet fired from that height. The nice thing about this hypothesis is that it could actually explain the origin of CE 399 as a bullet which fell out of JKF's body. The problems with this hypothesis are that without the benefit of rifling, the bullet would likely tumble, which wouldn't square with the round hole in the clothes and back, and at 300 fps, it would be hard to hit a moving target; at 800 fps, less hard.

What cartridge would you recommend to fire the saboted 6.5mm Carcano bullet, Ollie?

P.S.

If the sabot was fired from a rifled barrel, it would be spinning rapidly as it left the barrel. This means the bullet held in the sabot would also be spinning as it shed the sabot just shortly out from the barrel.

Not quite sure what you mean by the reference to 300 fps and 800 fps.

...the bullet was gaining velocity on the first half of its journey which was, of course, uphill.

Robert,

Question: What force was causing the bullet to gain velocity while traveling "uphill"?

Tom

I have no idea, Tom. In fact, I have never seen this on a ballistics calculator before, and I wonder if it is not an error in their computer. The laws of inertia state that a body in motion tends to stay in motion, but it doesn't say anything about gaining velocity; at least, not in this universe, anyways.

Jerrol Custer stated, in his 1997 deposition to the ARRB, that upon his arrival to take his first x-rays, the "Y" incision had been made on JFK's corpse, and most of the organs had been removed.

Here is a rough idea of the kind of bullet drop we would be looking at if a "bad" round reduced the muzzle velocity to 300 fps. I went to this website

http://www.handloads.com/calc/index.html

and used the ballistics calculator they provide there. I entered 300 fps as the velocity, 162 grains as the bullet weight (6.5mm Carcano FMJ), 100 yards as the zeroed in range, .311 as the ballistic co-efficient (obtained from another calculator), and .5" as the "sight height" (vertical distance of the line of sight above the centre of the barrel, again calculated earlier). Here are the results:

Range Velocity Impact Drop Energy

0 300 -0.5 0 32

10 300 16.59 2.14 32

20 301 29.84 8.13 33

30 301 39.25 17.95 33

40 301 44.85 31.58 33

50 301 46.68 48.99 33

60 301 44.74 70.16 33

70 302 39.08 95.05 33

80 302 29.73 123.64 33

90 302 16.69 155.91 33

100 302 0 191.83 33

Note that, midway to a 100 yard target, the bullet would be 46.68 inches or almost 4 feet above the line of sight. This is just a tad more than the difference between aiming at the centre of the head and hitting JFK between the shoulder blades, I might point out. However, this is very misleading, and the actual reality is far worse, for the simple fact this table represents a rifle actually SIGHTED IN for a cartridge travelling 300 fps.

A far better indication is the column titled "DROP", which deals with nothing more than the force of gravity; expressed earlier by Mark Knight as 32 feet per second per second. This shows this bullet to have a drop of 48.99 inches at 50 yards, and a whopping drop of 191.83 inches at 100 yards.

If we use the same data for a 6.5mm Carcano bullet, but this time enter 2200 fps as the velocity (normal velocity for an M91/38 Carcano), we find a bullet impacting at 100 yards to be .77 inches above the line of sight at 50 yards. Therefore, if we subtract .77 inches from 48.99 (bullet drop at 50 yards for a Carcano bullet at 300 fps) we get a bullet that is 48.22 inches below the point of aim at 50 yards.

Whereabouts on the trunk of the limo do you think the "short" shot would have impacted?

So, I've just explained, ballistically, why the best you could expect from a "short" shot is to have the bullet hit the back bumper of the limo (if it even got that close) and my post is basically ignored. Unless you want to call Pat Speer's mathematical "deduction" (what a laugh) that the scope was shooting 23 inches high and would have compensated for a short shot a response.

Not at all, Robert. I've been intrigued at the strange confluence that

1) gravity would tend to stabilize the velocity of a bullet fired around 300 fps as it made its way across the plaza. Apparently, it would arc the bullet towards the ground, but maintain or even slightly increase its velocity.

2) a short shot fired at the ground from above would have far less bullet drop than one fired from ground level. Taken with the previous observation, then, it seems probable (at least to me at this time) that any short shot fired in the plaza and still reaching Kennedy would have to have been fired from nearby and above, most probably the upper floors of the TSBD.

3) some outside reading shows that bullets "fall" around 300 fps, which is only slightly faster than the speed at which a bullet will be able to break the skin.

Well, these three factors lead me to suspect a short shot fired from above remains a viable explanation for Kennedy's back wound.

1) Not quite. Out of curiosity, I calculated for a 162 grain bullet, with a muzzle velocity of 300 fps, shot from a rifle sighted in at 500 yards, and then at 1000 yards. In both cases, the bullet was gaining velocity on the first half of its journey which was, of course, uphill. At 500 yards, the bullet was travelling at 306 fps at 250 yards, and, at 1000 yards, the bullet was travelling 310 fps at 500 yards. I cannot think of an explanation for this. I might e-mail the web site and see if they understand it.

2) Wrong again. A bullet fired from above is subject to the same forces of gravity as one shot on level ground, or uphill. While a bullet shot uphill OR downhill will go slightly high of the aimed target, it is by no means enough to offset an almost 49 inch drop of the bullet. Your theory might be true if the bullet was fired straight down but, the angle from the 6th floor was just over 20°.

3) There is no constant velocity for the rate at which things fall to earth, until the object reaches "terminal" velocity. The rate of fall, up to this limit, is an accelerating force; hence the rate of fall being expressed as 32 feet per second per second. Outside of that, you make a nonsensical statement. What does the rate of descent have to do with a bullet's ability to break skin?

You are mistaken about 300 fps being "only slightly faster than the speed at which a bullet will be able to break the skin" and, by stating this, show your complete and utter lack of knowledge of bullets, rifles and ballistics. Muzzle energy is the measurement of a bullet's hitting power, and is a calculation of bullet mass and velocity. Heavier bullets will have more energy than lighter bullets at the same velocity.

As I pointed out earlier, the 162 grain Carcano bullet, at 300 fps, had 45 Joules of energy at 50 yards. A 29 grain bullet of .22 calibre with a muzzle velocity of 830 fps had 60 Joules of energy at the muzzle; only slightly more than the 162 grain bullet at 300 fps.

How many members besides myself have actually fired a Carcano?

This question is only for those who have: Would you place your eye anywhere near the end of a scope mounted on this "kicks like a shotgun" weapon? I have never held a Carcano that had a scope mounted on it. But, after firing it, I knew a scope would be useless--even dangerous--for the operator.

I have never shot a Carcano. Most of the military surplus fad in Canada back in the day was focused on the .303 Lee Enfield, of which I have owned a couple.

I assume you are referring to the M91/38 (Oswald's alleged rifle) or one of the carbine models. Just at a glance, the combination of a full sized rifle cartridge and a 162 grain bullet with what appears to be a light rifle should equal a noisy weapon with a bit of a kick to it.

The FBI and WC tried to pretend the misaligned scope worked to Oswald's advanatage.

Thanks, that's a good one. I guess Oswald had a lot of practice in not aiming at what he was shooting at.

The HSCA"s experts, however, took a more honest look at the situation and said the scope was more hindrance than help.

Then why didn't Oswald just take the scope off the rifle? Since I've never taken one off, is it just too much work? We all know how lazy and no-good Oswald was.

Three screws held the scope mount onto the rifle and these could be removed in a few seconds. The scope mounted on this rifle was a toy, designed to be mounted on a youth's pellet gun or .22 rifle, and practical at very close ranges only; due to its extremely limited field of view. Here is the Walmart equivalent:

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Crosman-Target-Finder-4x15-Airgun-Scope/14234828?action=product_interest&action_type=title&item_id=14234828&placement_id=irs-106

If Oswald practiced as much as the WC apologists claim he did, he would quickly realize that his scope was misaligned PLUS it was totally inadequate at target acquisition. To those of you that do not hunt, "target acquisition" is a difficult thing to explain. All I can say is that trying to find and track a target through a scope with a tiny field of view is like trying to watch TV with everything but a 3 inch circle at the centre of the screen blacked out. I do not believe Oswald could have tracked JFK with this scope to make the first shot.

Here is a rough idea of the kind of bullet drop we would be looking at if a "bad" round reduced the muzzle velocity to 300 fps. I went to this website

http://www.handloads.com/calc/index.html

and used the ballistics calculator they provide there. I entered 300 fps as the velocity, 162 grains as the bullet weight (6.5mm Carcano FMJ), 100 yards as the zeroed in range, .311 as the ballistic co-efficient (obtained from another calculator), and .5" as the "sight height" (vertical distance of the line of sight above the centre of the barrel, again calculated earlier). Here are the results:

Range Velocity Impact Drop Energy

0 300 -0.5 0 32

10 300 16.59 2.14 32

20 301 29.84 8.13 33

30 301 39.25 17.95 33

40 301 44.85 31.58 33

50 301 46.68 48.99 33

60 301 44.74 70.16 33

70 302 39.08 95.05 33

80 302 29.73 123.64 33

90 302 16.69 155.91 33

100 302 0 191.83 33

Note that, midway to a 100 yard target, the bullet would be 46.68 inches or almost 4 feet above the line of sight. This is just a tad more than the difference between aiming at the centre of the head and hitting JFK between the shoulder blades, I might point out. However, this is very misleading, and the actual reality is far worse, for the simple fact this table represents a rifle actually SIGHTED IN for a cartridge travelling 300 fps.

A far better indication is the column titled "DROP", which deals with nothing more than the force of gravity; expressed earlier by Mark Knight as 32 feet per second per second. This shows this bullet to have a drop of 48.99 inches at 50 yards, and a whopping drop of 191.83 inches at 100 yards.

If we use the same data for a 6.5mm Carcano bullet, but this time enter 2200 fps as the velocity (normal velocity for an M91/38 Carcano), we find a bullet impacting at 100 yards to be .77 inches above the line of sight at 50 yards. Therefore, if we subtract .77 inches from 48.99 (bullet drop at 50 yards for a Carcano bullet at 300 fps) we get a bullet that is 48.22 inches below the point of aim at 50 yards.

Whereabouts on the trunk of the limo do you think the "short" shot would have impacted?

So, I've just explained, ballistically, why the best you could expect from a "short" shot is to have the bullet hit the back bumper of the limo (if it even got that close) and my post is basically ignored. Unless you want to call Pat Speer's mathematical "deduction" (what a laugh) that the scope was shooting 23 inches high and would have compensated for a short shot a response.

The frame is from the Malcolm Couch film, and not the Jimmy Darnell film.

The man is not Oswald as Baker has not even reached the entrance of the TSBD at this point in the film.

Finally, this man has been discussed many many times at http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/board,2.0.html and many enhancements have been made there and are still available for viewing.

Still waiting for this guy to produce the "many discussions" and "many enhancements" he claims to have occurred over at his forum. (sounds like BS to me) I checked the link out and it amounts to nothing.

Why not post some of that stuff here, Dunc?

My claim is simply that Robert is incorrect in dismissing that a short shot could have struck Kennedy.

Pat,

Thank you for responding.

From the information you have provided, I do not see sufficient evidence to dismiss Roberts theory

as incorrect.

Giving an approximate value for the velocity of a specific bullet type that would barely penetrate the body

and stop, is only one of several data points that are required to prove or disprove your theory that

the 'shallow back shot' was caused by a lower than normal velocity bullet that was aimed at JFK's head.

Certainly an under-powered bullet could cause a shallow wound, and absolutely an underpowered

bullet would impact at a point below the aim point, but your response does not address the crux of

my question: Could a bullet aimed at the back of JFK's head hit him in the upper back at a location

only 10"-12" (I can only guess what distance you believe) below the aiming point and retain ONLY

enough velocity at impact to inflict a very shallow wound?

I have a very good theoretical and a good working knowledge of physics and ballistics, and I will be

more than a bit surprised if it's possible to achieve your trajectory AND arrive at such a low velocity

when the gun/rifle has been aimed as you say. However, science is not always intuitive, and I am

open to the possibility that this MAY be possible.

If you will provide the data I requested, I will work the problem and post the data.

Tom

I don't think we can prove it one way or the other, seeing as we're discussing theoretical bullets fired from theoretical rifles sighted in at theoretical distances from theoretical locations. But I long ago made some rough calculations relative to the Carcano and its scope. I concluded the misaligned scope would make a fully-charged bullet land about 23 inches high. As Frazier testified that Oswald would have to have led Kennedy by six inches to hit him, and as the short shot I've proposed would take about 4 times as long to reach Kennedy as a fully-charged bullet, it follows that short load would cancel out the misalignment of the scope, vertically, and the bullet would fall within inches of its intended target.

Horizontal is another issue. The limo was traveling slightly to the right in relation to the sniper's nest. A bullet traveling one fourth normal velocity might very well hit a foot or more to the left of where it had been aimed. This is yet another reason to believe this shot was fired from the Dal-Tex Building, IMO.

Show me your math that would have the rifle shooting 23 inches high. If it was shooting that high, how did it make the head shot?

This should be fun to watch.

HOWEVER, there is more to consider here, and things may look even worse for the "short" shot than I first considered.

Tom Neal brought up a good point earlier, and it has been nagging at me all day. He wondered about the lethality of a Carcano bullet travelling 300 fps as, after all, this was still going 200 mph (204.55 actually, Tom).

If you refer to the ballistics calculation I did for the 6.5mm Carcano bullet leaving the rifle at 300 fps, you will notice something a bit odd. Instead of slowing down, this bullet actually picks up velocity on its way to the target until, at 100 yards, it is moving at 302 fps. this, of course, is on level ground, and I can only imagine how much velocity the bullet would gain from six storeys up. This is assuming the bullet gained velocity due to the fact it is coming downhill from the top of a 4 foot trajectory.

Interestingly, the 6.5mm Carcano bullet is calculated on this table to have 33 ft/lbf or 45 Joules of energy at 50 yards. Would 45 Joules of energy be enough to make this bullet penetrate well into JFK's right lung? For comparison, let us look at the .22 shorts we were discussing earlier. A .22 short bullet weighing 29 grains and possessing a muzzle velocity of 830 fps is listed as having muzzle energy of a mere 60 Joules. I have seen the effect of shooting gophers with .22 shorts when I was a lad back in Saskatchewan, and I sincerely believe one of these bullets at point blank range would end up in your lung, if you were shot in the back.

So, is 300 fps too fast? I picked that number out of the air when I first started this thread but, it seems I might have been a bit to generous. Perhaps 150-200 fps would be more realistic.

and I can only imagine how much velocity the bullet would gain from six storeys up.

I still object to the assumption that a bullet was fired from 6 stories up. Never seen any proof of it.

I know, Ken but, we have to start somewhere. The "six storeys up" reference is for anyone still believing the shot came from the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD.

HOWEVER, there is more to consider here, and things may look even worse for the "short" shot than I first considered.

Tom Neal brought up a good point earlier, and it has been nagging at me all day. He wondered about the lethality of a Carcano bullet travelling 300 fps as, after all, this was still going 200 mph (204.55 actually, Tom).

If you refer to the ballistics calculation I did for the 6.5mm Carcano bullet leaving the rifle at 300 fps, you will notice something a bit odd. Instead of slowing down, this bullet actually picks up velocity on its way to the target until, at 100 yards, it is moving at 302 fps. this, of course, is on level ground, and I can only imagine how much velocity the bullet would gain from six storeys up. This is assuming the bullet gained velocity due to the fact it is coming downhill from the top of a 4 foot trajectory.

Interestingly, the 6.5mm Carcano bullet is calculated on this table to have 33 ft/lbf or 45 Joules of energy at 50 yards. Would 45 Joules of energy be enough to make this bullet penetrate well into JFK's right lung? For comparison, let us look at the .22 shorts we were discussing earlier. A .22 short bullet weighing 29 grains and possessing a muzzle velocity of 830 fps is listed as having muzzle energy of a mere 60 Joules. I have seen the effect of shooting gophers with .22 shorts when I was a lad back in Saskatchewan, and I sincerely believe one of these bullets at point blank range would end up in your lung, if you were shot in the back.

So, is 300 fps too fast? I picked that number out of the air when I first started this thread but, it seems I might have been a bit to generous. Perhaps 150-200 fps would be more realistic.

My claim is simply that Robert is incorrect in dismissing that a short shot could have struck Kennedy.

Pat,

Thank you for responding.

From the information you have provided, I do not see sufficient evidence to dismiss Roberts theory

as incorrect.

Giving an approximate value for the velocity of a specific bullet type that would barely penetrate the body

and stop, is only one of several data points that are required to prove or disprove your theory that

the 'shallow back shot' was caused by a lower than normal velocity bullet that was aimed at JFK's head.

Certainly an under-powered bullet could cause a shallow wound, and absolutely an underpowered

bullet would impact at a point below the aim point, but your response does not address the crux of

my question: Could a bullet aimed at the back of JFK's head hit him in the upper back at a location

only 10"-12" (I can only guess what distance you believe) below the aiming point and retain ONLY

enough velocity at impact to inflict a very shallow wound?

I have a very good theoretical and a good working knowledge of physics and ballistics, and I will be

more than a bit surprised if it's possible to achieve your trajectory AND arrive at such a low velocity

when the gun/rifle has been aimed as you say. However, science is not always intuitive, and I am

open to the possibility that this MAY be possible.

If you will provide the data I requested, I will work the problem and post the data.

Tom

I don't think we can prove it one way or the other, seeing as we're discussing theoretical bullets fired from theoretical rifles sighted in at theoretical distances from theoretical locations. But I long ago made some rough calculations relative to the Carcano and its scope. I concluded the misaligned scope would make a fully-charged bullet land about 23 inches high. As Frazier testified that Oswald would have to have led Kennedy by six inches to hit him, and as the short shot I've proposed would take about 4 times as long to reach Kennedy as a fully-charged bullet, it follows that short load would cancel out the misalignment of the scope, vertically, and the bullet would fall within inches of its intended target.

Horizontal is another issue. The limo was traveling slightly to the right in relation to the sniper's nest. A bullet traveling one fourth normal velocity might very well hit a foot or more to the left of where it had been aimed. This is yet another reason to believe this shot was fired from the Dal-Tex Building, IMO.

Show me your math that would have the rifle shooting 23 inches high. If it was shooting that high, how did it make the head shot?

Here is a rough idea of the kind of bullet drop we would be looking at if a "bad" round reduced the muzzle velocity to 300 fps. I went to this website

http://www.handloads.com/calc/index.html

and used the ballistics calculator they provide there. I entered 300 fps as the velocity, 162 grains as the bullet weight (6.5mm Carcano FMJ), 100 yards as the zeroed in range, .311 as the ballistic co-efficient (obtained from another calculator), and .5" as the "sight height" (vertical distance of the line of sight above the centre of the barrel, again calculated earlier). Here are the results:

Range Velocity Impact Drop Energy

0 300 -0.5 0 32

10 300 16.59 2.14 32

20 301 29.84 8.13 33

30 301 39.25 17.95 33

40 301 44.85 31.58 33

50 301 46.68 48.99 33

60 301 44.74 70.16 33

70 302 39.08 95.05 33

80 302 29.73 123.64 33

90 302 16.69 155.91 33

100 302 0 191.83 33

-0.27

Note that, midway to a 100 yard target, the bullet would be 46.68 inches or almost 4 feet above the line of sight. This is just a tad more than the difference between aiming at the centre of the head and hitting JFK between the shoulder blades, I might point out. However, this is very misleading, and the actual reality is far worse, for the simple fact this table represents a rifle actually SIGHTED IN for a cartridge travelling 300 fps.

A far better indication is the column titled "DROP", which deals with nothing more than the force of gravity; expressed earlier by Mark Knight as 32 feet per second per second. This shows this bullet to have a drop of 48.99 inches at 50 yards, and a whopping drop of 191.83 inches at 100 yards.

If we use the same data for a 6.5mm Carcano bullet, but this time enter 2200 fps as the velocity (normal velocity for an M91/38 Carcano), we find a bullet impacting at 100 yards to be .77 inches above the line of sight at 50 yards. Therefore, if we subtract .77 inches from 48.99 (bullet drop at 50 yards for a Carcano bullet at 300 fps) we get a bullet that is 48.22 inches below the point of aim at 50 yards.

Whereabouts on the trunk of the limo do you think the "short" shot would have impacted?

well, since it would take 1 sec for that bullet to travel that 300 feet, the vehicle would have moved 29 feet further down the street at 20 mph during the bullet travel. so I think lthere is a good chance the bullet would have hit behind the limo.

Excellent point, Kenneth, and one I had not considered into the calculation.

Considering that it was calculated that the top of JFK's head was 48.52 inches above the pavement while he was sitting in the limo, my question should not have been where on the trunk of the limo the bullet would have hit, it should have been where on the back bumper did it hit, if it hit the limo at all.