Robert Prudhomme

The reason I mention stabilizing fins is because, for the reasons laid out by Richard Nakka on his most fascinating website, I would assume our umbrella rocket would have to be fitted out with some form of simple stabilizing fins in order to keep it on a straight and true course to JFK's throat.

As the doctors at Parkland estimated the diameter of the throat wound to be 3-8 mm, I would assume this to be the outside diameter of the main body of the rocket, in order to allow for the internal storage of the rocket's solid fuel.

In order to be effective, the stabilizing fins need to project beyond the main body of the rocket. How much would this increase the diameter of the rocket? Could the fin diameter ultimately be, say, 13 mm?

If the rocket body was 3-8 mm, and the fin diameter up to 13 mm, the only conclusion to be drawn, given the nature of the throat wound, is that the missile halted just as the fins contacted the skin of his throat.

However, this presents a problem. If the rocket was blood soluble, it would seem the rocket would have to be in contact with blood to dissolve. If the fin-equipped base of the rocket did not enter the wound, how did it dissolve?

I guess it is possible this rocket was equipped with sophisticated stabilizing fins that folded back into the body of the rocket as it entered a wound but, this theory presents still another problem.

Did the rocket run out of fuel before it reached JFK? If it didn't, and the base of the rocket went into the wound with solid fuel still burning, shouldn't JFK have had burns on his trachea and surrounding tissue? Even if the rocket did run out of fuel before it reached JFK, rocket fuel, loaded with oxidizers such as sodium chlorate (NaClO3) and sodium perchlorate (NaClO4), burns at very hot temperatures that are elevated by forcing the combustion products through the small nozzle of the rocket motor. Wouldn't the rocket, even after it ran out of fuel, still be hot enough to burn the flesh in JFK's throat?

Getting back to the solid-fuel, rocket propelled flechette dart, here is something else to think about. While I have yet to see a photo or drawing of this rocket dart, there are certain assumptions that can be made about it, given the basic knowledge applied to rocket science.

Rockets, be they air-to-air missiles fired from F-16's or Atlas rockets coupled to thermonuclear warheads, all have one thing in common; stabilizing fins at the base of the rocket.

From Richard Nakka's Experimental Rocketry Web Site

http://www.nakka-rocketry.net/fins.html

The purpose of putting fins on a rocket is to provide stability during flight, that is, to allow the rocket to maintain its orientation and intended flight path. If a typical amateur rocket was launched without fins, it would soon begin to tumble after leaving the launcher, due to the way that aerodynamic and other forces (such as wind) act upon the rocket, in relation to the forces that are exerted upon the rocket by the motor and by gravity. The problem here is that the rocket's centre of pressure (CP) would be forward of its centre of gravity (CG). Fitting fins on a rocket serves to locate the centre of pressure aft of the CG. This begs the question -- what exactly are the centre of gravity and the centre of pressure and why the importance of these?

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

If the person holding the TLR camera is standing in the shadows, and the only light source is that which enters the lens on the front of the camera, this light will not be visible to someone looking at the front of the camera. This light will be focused on the mirror, sitting behind the lens at a 45° angle. The entirety of the light entering this lens will be reflected off this mirror and directed upward toward the viewfinder. That is the entire purpose of this mirror.

The only time light will be visible on the front of the lens will be if there is a light source above the open viewfinder. Was there a light bulb above the top of the steps, and was it turned on?

OK, Robert. Then I guess Prayer Man was using both hands to drink a bottle of Dr. Pepper, and enough light was somehow hitting it's bottom for it to glow in the shade..

--Tommy

I don't have a clue what PM was doing. I do know there is a tendency on this forum to want something to be true so badly, some are willing to ignore the basic laws of science to make it so. Unfortunately, light entering the top lens could only reflect back out of that lens if the mirror were situated vertically inside that camera. As it is not, and is instead at a 45°, light entering the lens horizontally is reflected 90° and travels vertically to the viewfinder.

If the person holding the TLR camera is standing in the shadows, and the only light source is that which enters the lens on the front of the camera, this light will not be visible to someone looking at the front of the camera. This light will be focused on the mirror, sitting behind the lens at a 45° angle. The entirety of the light entering this lens will be reflected off this mirror and directed upward toward the viewfinder. That is the entire purpose of this mirror.

The only time light will be visible on the front of the lens will be if there is a light source above the open viewfinder. Was there a light bulb above the top of the steps, and was it turned on?

According to Ms. Sanders, O.V. Campbell arrived (at the top of the stairs, I presume) shortly after Baker entered the TSBD. Assuming Baker and Truly to be telling the truth about entering the building, they are well on their way to going up the stairs as Campbell and Sanders are discussing the origin of the shots. Therefore, if Campbell sees Oswald in the 1st floor storage locker under the stairs, he is not with Truly and Baker, and Oswald cannot be in the 1st floor storage locker and the 2nd floor lunch room at the same time. However, there is no indication when Campbell entered the building, although Sanders said she re-entered the building within five minutes of the last shot. If Reid, Sanders and Campbell (plus others) entered the building as a group, as observed by one witness, this could give Oswald time to descend from the 2nd floor.

Interesting twist on the story; Oswald and Truly having lunch together on the 2nd floor.

Apperently there may be a witness who saw Baker go up the steps after sprinting from his motorcycle. Of course, it is another of those FBI "reports" which we have found to be SO reliable.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Date 11/24/63

PAULINE E. SANDERS, 4226 Delmar, a Clerk, Texas School Book Depository, 411 Elm Street, advised she arrived at work at 8:45 a.m., on November 22, 1963, and immediately reported to the main office where she was employed. She said she was aquainted with LEE HARVEY OSWALD who worked in the warehouse sectio and she has seen him three or four times during lunch breaks in the lunch room but did not talk to him on any occasion. She said he was very quiet and she had never seen him talking to any of the other employees that she could recall. She said she would not be in a position to observe what time he arrived at work or the way he arrived.

She said on the morning of November 22, 1963, she went outside to watch the Presidential parade at about 11:25 a.m. She said she did not see OSWALD during this time and she stood in the last line of spectators nearest the door to the Texas School Book Depository building. She advised she could not recall the exact time but immediately after the presidential parade passed she heard three loud blasts and she immediately realized that the shots or whatever it was came from the building above her. She said within a matter of ten seconds a uniform police officer in a white helmet ran into the building but she did not observe him any further and could not state where he went in the building.

Mrs. SANDERS advised that Mr. Campbell, Office Manager, arrived shortly after the police officer entered the building and she told him she believed the blasts came from the upper part of the building however he insisted the shots came from the embankment. She advised she did not pursue the matter any further and she entered the building within five minutes of the blast. She said she did not observe OSWALD in the lobby but the lobby was crowded with people at this time. She said she did notice a uniform police officer talking to an individual dressed in grey clothing with a silver type construction helmet and he claimed to be an engineer. She said he definitely did not work in the building and she had never seen him before. She said the police officer appeared to be taking his name and address. She said she did not observe whether the elevator was in use or not and she could not recall whether it was on the first floor but she did use the stairwell and walked to the second floor where their offices are maintained. She said she could not recall seeing OSWALD the entire day and at this time the only thing that was on her mind was whether the President had died.

Mrs. SANDERS advised that this morning she called GERALDINE REID, another employee, telephone number FE 1-6617, who told her that the police officer who had first entered the building ran into the lunch room where Mr. TRULY, the warehouse manager, and OSWALD were evidently lunching. The police officer put his gun into OSWALD's stomach but TRULY advised the police officer that OSWALD worked for him. Police officer turned turned away and evidently left the area. She said according to REID, OSWALD then went to the main office and REID, although she had not observed the initial incident with the police officer, told OSWALD that the President had been shot. According to SANDERS, Mrs. REID claimed that OSWALD just mumbled something and left the office. She said Reid did not mention how OSWALD left the office or for that matter if she knew how he might have left the building. SANDERS advised that the stairwell would probably have been the easiest way to leave without being too noticeable since the stairwell is in need of repairs and employees had been instructed not to use the stairwell.

on 11/24/63 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 89-43

By Special Agent ROBERT E. HASAM and ROBERT J. ANDERSON Date Dictated 11/24/63

I'm trying to recall, didn't Linda tell us Mrs. Reid was the only female witness out front to give her statement within a day of the assassination, and the others were interviewed in '64?

Photo posted at ROKC. Mrs. Reid again?

I don't mean to be a pest but, how did we identify that woman as Mrs. Reid?

Robert,

I refer you to post #31, this thread.

--Tommy

bumped

Box 5, Folder 2, #3 is a City of Dallas list of all the affidavits that were taken by the Dallas Police Department and the Dallas Sheriff's Department. http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box5.htm

-- [box 5, Folder 2] 3. Table of Contents, by an unknown author. Table of Contents listing affidavits by person, includes notebook page number and officer taking statement, (Photocopy Poor Quality), date unknown. 00001255 3 pages 05 02 003 1255-001.gif 1255-002.gif 1255-003.gif "

If you click on all three GIF's, you'll see that Detective James Leavelle is listed as having taken seven affidavits altogether. In alphabetical order they are: Ted Callaway, Charles Givens, Sam Guinyard, Billy Lovelady, Mrs. R. A. Reid, W. W. Scoggins, and Roy S. Truly.

Mrs. R. A. Reid is the only female whom Leavelle took an affidavit from, and according to his WC testimony, he did so on Saturday, November 23, 1963. We know from his WC testimony that he also took Roy Truly's affidavit on 11/23/63. All of the other affidavits that Leavelle took were taken on Friday, November 22, 1963.

Here's Reid's 11/23/63 affidavit:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/13/1327-001.gif

and Here's Truly's:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/13/1344-001.gif

Now, there is a photo montage in post # 31 (on page three of this thread) which shows Detective James Leavelle sitting with a woman in the Homicide and Robbery Bureau office, and it looks like he's taking a statement from her or reading the statement she's just given him. Based on what I've just spelled out, above, I believe this woman is very probably 51-year-old Jeraldean Reid (aka Mrs. Robert A. Reid).

What do you think?

Yes, that certainly does look like Mrs. Reid. I had forgotten about the montage you had put together. She is nowhere near the two khaki clad fellows.

I don't mean to be a pest but, how did we identify that woman as Mrs. Reid?

Why do you guys waste your time on this clown? If we all ignored him, he would be ranting in an empty room.

Don Roberdeau believed Truly and Campbell to be the two khaki clad short guys seen in front of the TSBD. I've always wondered how he arrived at that conclusion.

We could assume that but, I've found that to assume makes an a-s-s out of u-m-e.

"(1) Why does nobody else react to the first shot except JFK -- as if the shot were "silent"?"

I beg to differ, Paul. If we look at the Altgens 6 photo, I believe we can see more than JFK reacting to a rifle shot.

This is a fascinating photo, and there is so much to be learned from it. If we are to believe the WC, a gunman on the 6th floor, aiming his rifle downward at JFK, has fired two shots several seconds before this photo was taken.

Every single bystander in this photo would have been ahead of the muzzle of the rifle. As anyone with any experience with firearms will attest, the sound of the report of a rifle is MUCH greater if you are standing ahead of the rifle muzzle (or beside it) as opposed to being behind the rifle muzzle. The sound of these shots would have been deafening on the sidewalk (especially with that 21 inch barrelled Carcano firing a cartridge designed to be shot from a 31 inch barrel), and all of these people should have experienced instantaneous and involuntary startle reactions. (when I say "instantaneous" I do not mean 10 seconds later, I mean instantaneous, as in within a fraction of a second)

And yet the bystanders continue to smile and wave as the President succumbs to his wounds. Why?

I believe the answer to this question can be found in the two SS agents riding on the outside right of the Queen Mary, and seen craning their necks to look behind the limo at something.

On a weapon equipped with a silencer, or "suppressor", it is only possible to completely eliminate all the noise from a shot if the weapon fires a projectile at a sub-sonic muzzle velocity (less than the speed of sound - roughly 1035 fps). Many handguns fall into this category, and the depiction of completely silent silenced handguns in the movies is actually quite accurate. However, centre fire rifle cartridges propel bullets at supersonic velocities, often far in excess of the speed of sound, and while it is possible to completely eliminate the "blast" from the muzzle, nothing can be done to eliminate the sharp "crack" the bullet makes as it breaks the sound barrier on the way to its target, other than shooting from such a great distance, the bullet slows to subsonic velocities by the time it reaches its target.

Now, the neat thing about the "crack" this bullet would make is that, while being a very sharp noise, it is not a very big noise, and can be compared to the cracking of a bull whip. After all, this is a bullet breaking the sound barrier, not a jet plane, and the sonic boom it makes might not even be audible 30 feet away. Even if it were audible to the bystanders, it would likely not cause a startle reaction, and it might require some time for this "firecracker" sound to even register in their minds.

However, if the bullet was fired from behind the limo (somewhere in the vicinity of a lower floor of the Dal-Tex Building) and it was from a suppressed rifle, the bullet very likely might pass within a few feet of the heads of the two SS agents on the outer right side of the QM.

Can you imagine what that bullet must have sounded like to them? Probably not even like a bullet at all. Small wonder they are looking around to attempt to identify it.

interesting. it's never occurred to me that 2 shots have been proposed to have been shot at this point. by either the warren commission OR pee wee herman.

re the 2 SS guys looking back - that's what i've thought, too, that something got their attention and not the others because they've heard similar things before whereas others haven't - AND that coupled with a bullet passing closer to them than the others, if a silenced rifle was used, and i think the odds are good that one was either in Dal Tex or TSBD West, would explain their action in Altgens 6.

i've looked at the huge format of this pic, and you could literally lose yourself in it. hours and hours, there's so much to go over.

last night i looked at some good copies of Z frames on my Galaxy Tab - zoomed in - a MUCH better resolution than a regular PC monitor - and again got lost in the minutiae.

on another note:

i've found some other pics, and i think I've solved the crime. stay tuned for further developments.

i mean, don't hold your breath, just stay tuned.

Well, if you think about it, the WC supporters would have us believe the first shot missed, and it occurred at z160. The Altgens 6 photo has been established as being taken at z255. 255 - 160 = 95 frames. With Zapruder's camera filming at 18.3 frames per second, 95/18.3 = 5.19 seconds.

Really hard to believe a rifle has been fired downward in the direction of those bystanders 5.19 seconds before this photo was taken.

I'm staying tuned.

Who knows where his wondering will take him?

To be honest, Glenn, I'm undecided on James Files' story about the Fireball. He has made a couple of mistakes in his narrative over the years, although it is claimed, by some, that this is just his way of amusing himself by keeping all of the researchers guessing.

I've never fired a Fireball XP-100 .221 calibre with a 10" barrel before, or anything remotely like it (who would need such a thing? Must kick like a mule!). One thing I am curious about is how it could achieve a muzzle velocity of over 2700 fps with such a short barrel. Also, it would be interesting to know how accurate the Fireball is with such a short barrel.

I guess such a short shot, from the picket fence to the limo, is entirely possible, and the XP-100 would certainly explain the large cloud of "smoke" and the flash seen by Bowers.

However, Robert, if one gun can explain the puff of smoke, then I imagine other guns could also explain it. The witnesses were all ex-military men, I take it, and also believable.

Wesley Liebeler stunned David Lifton with his remark -- but Liebeler also hid vital data about Bethesda, with full awareness. So, he can't be trusted. I'm getting a general consensus from those knowledgeable about fire-arms that the puff of smoke was plausible.

Yet you also mentioned James Files. It seems to former CIA Agent Gary Shaw that James Files manufactured this legend out of his real experiences as chauffeur for Mafia leader Charles Nicoletti, who got stories and data from Johnny Roselli about the alleged Mafia role in the JFK murder. Having some real connection to the JFK murder through David Morales to Johnny Roselli to Sam Giancana to Charles Nicoletti to himself, James Files got a free ticket to write his story (much as Judyth Vary Baker got a free ticket by having a brief affair with Lee Harvey Oswald).

I don't believe James Files in the slightest. Con-men make the best fibbers.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I tend not to believe it either but, I do like to keep an open mind on this subject.

"(1) Why does nobody else react to the first shot except JFK -- as if the shot were "silent"?"

I beg to differ, Paul. If we look at the Altgens 6 photo, I believe we can see more than JFK reacting to a rifle shot.

This is a fascinating photo, and there is so much to be learned from it. If we are to believe the WC, a gunman on the 6th floor, aiming his rifle downward at JFK, has fired two shots several seconds before this photo was taken.

Every single bystander in this photo would have been ahead of the muzzle of the rifle. As anyone with any experience with firearms will attest, the sound of the report of a rifle is MUCH greater if you are standing ahead of the rifle muzzle (or beside it) as opposed to being behind the rifle muzzle. The sound of these shots would have been deafening on the sidewalk (especially with that 21 inch barrelled Carcano firing a cartridge designed to be shot from a 31 inch barrel), and all of these people should have experienced instantaneous and involuntary startle reactions. (when I say "instantaneous" I do not mean 10 seconds later, I mean instantaneous, as in within a fraction of a second)

And yet the bystanders continue to smile and wave as the President succumbs to his wounds. Why?

I believe the answer to this question can be found in the two SS agents riding on the outside right of the Queen Mary, and seen craning their necks to look behind the limo at something.

On a weapon equipped with a silencer, or "suppressor", it is only possible to completely eliminate all the noise from a shot if the weapon fires a projectile at a sub-sonic muzzle velocity (less than the speed of sound - roughly 1035 fps). Many handguns fall into this category, and the depiction of completely silent silenced handguns in the movies is actually quite accurate. However, centre fire rifle cartridges propel bullets at supersonic velocities, often far in excess of the speed of sound, and while it is possible to completely eliminate the "blast" from the muzzle, nothing can be done to eliminate the sharp "crack" the bullet makes as it breaks the sound barrier on the way to its target, other than shooting from such a great distance, the bullet slows to subsonic velocities by the time it reaches its target.

Now, the neat thing about the "crack" this bullet would make is that, while being a very sharp noise, it is not a very big noise, and can be compared to the cracking of a bull whip. After all, this is a bullet breaking the sound barrier, not a jet plane, and the sonic boom it makes might not even be audible 30 feet away. Even if it were audible to the bystanders, it would likely not cause a startle reaction, and it might require some time for this "firecracker" sound to even register in their minds.

However, if the bullet was fired from behind the limo (somewhere in the vicinity of a lower floor of the Dal-Tex Building) and it was from a suppressed rifle, the bullet very likely might pass within a few feet of the heads of the two SS agents on the outer right side of the QM.

Can you imagine what that bullet must have sounded like to them? Probably not even like a bullet at all. Small wonder they are looking around to attempt to identify it.

Not only would mounting a scope on an umbrella be difficult, there is then the problem of sighting your target through it. As anyone who has fired a scope equipped rifle knows, it is necessary to get quite close to the scope to sight through it, and the least amount of movement will spoil this view.

OK, Robert, but let's review the field so far. The first I ever heard of an umbrella dart-gun was on this very thread from Robert Mady. I was very skeptical at first, but the more I looked into the topic, the more I realized it answered multiple questions, like:

(1) Why does nobody else react to the first shot except JFK -- as if the shot were "silent"?

(2) Insofar as all doctors at Parkland agreed the throat wound was an entry wound, small and round, how could a bullet enter soft tissue like a throat, and not exit the back of the neck, and also not be found inside JFK's body?

Although a silencer could explain the first question, it cannot explain the second question. Only a dart-gun could possibly explain that. Am I still missing something?

FINALLY -- do you think that it's possible or impossible to aim an umbrella gun with accuracy sans scope?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Hi Paul

I guess, from ten feet away, it might be possible to align a point on the outer rim of the umbrella with the target, although controlling the elevation of the shot might be a bit trickier. However, I think the real problem might be in controlling the rocket once it left the launcher.

As I assume this rocket to be of a fairly simple design (remembering it is necessary for it to be blood soluble in a fairly short space of time and for it to leave NO trace of its existence) it goes without saying it could not possess any kind of sophisticated electronic guidance system that would allow it to maintain a stable and level flight on the way to its target.

Would there be any guarantee this rocket might not veer off course by a few degrees, enough to make it miss JFK?

And if a hole in JFK's throat with nothing in it was hard to explain, imagine how hard it would be to explain a paralyzed bystander with a similar hole somewhere on his/her body. Granted, as you say, the killers might not have cared if it became known there was a conspiracy. I doubt, though, whether they would want the trail leading back to the CIA; the only likely source for such a sophisticated weapon. OTOH, the Russians might also have had such a weapon, and it might have been hoped using the umbrella gun would point at the Russians as the suspects.

God, things get complicated quickly.

scopes don't help in aiming - they help in aiming at a distance.

on a rifle, from the sniper's nest, let's say - a competent shooter would not have needed that scope under normal conditions. from the picket fence, either. from the railway, maybe.

because of the magnification, other factors are then added to the equation. tracking a moving object is changed, since the motion is exaggerated. and because of the magnification, you have to have your eye right up against the device, pretty much, just like you would a microscope or telescope.

this makes the idea of one mounted, practically, to an umbrella pretty weird.

you picture UM standing on the street 10 feet from the president, pretty much in many people's peripheral vision, at least, and indiscriminately putting his eye to something in order to sight a hidden dart gun...

i don't see it. pardon the pun.

Robert may correct me.

and Robert, about the Fireball and James Files ---

a) do you think that there's any possible substance to his story?

another point is that, since the Fireball is capable of emitting smoke that would be visible to the area, then there are obviously other weapons that would do so. unrestricted to the Fireball scenario, assuming a conspiracy, this allows for the distinct possibility that the stories of seeing "smoke", etc., are quite valid, contrary to the naysayers... yes, it, or a similar weapon, could explain the testimonies of these rational, reasonable people.

To be honest, Glenn, I'm undecided on James Files' story about the Fireball. He has made a couple of mistakes in his narrative over the years, although it is claimed, by some, that this is just his way of amusing himself by keeping all of the researchers guessing.

I've never fired a Fireball XP-100 .221 calibre with a 10" barrel before, or anything remotely like it (who would need such a thing? Must kick like a mule!). One thing I am curious about is how it could achieve a muzzle velocity of over 2700 fps with such a short barrel. Also, it would be interesting to know how accurate the Fireball is with such a short barrel.

I guess such a short shot, from the picket fence to the limo, is entirely possible, and the XP-100 would certainly explain the large cloud of "smoke" and the flash seen by Bowers.

Getting forgetful. We discussed this on this forum in 2013.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354&page=40

Just read an interesting post on the ROKC forum by "Beowulf". He strongly believes that the short video of Truly (in suit and fedora), Baker (in uniform and white helmet) and others was not actually shot on 22/11/63 but, rather, during the Warren Commission reenactment the following spring. He further believes the bespectacled man on the right is WC commissioner Sen. John Sherman Cooper.

Not only would mounting a scope on an umbrella be difficult, there is then the problem of sighting your target through it. As anyone who has fired a scope equipped rifle knows, it is necessary to get quite close to the scope to sight through it, and the least amount of movement will spoil this view.

Think it remotely possible the flechette dart fired from the umbrella might have left a trail of smoke that would have been quite visible on the Zapruder film?

"The system is based on launching devices of various types, used to launch a self-propelled, rocket-like dart, or flechette. The flechette can carry either a paralyzing or fatal poison."

"It is propelled to its target by a solid-state fuel, ignited electronically at the launcher. It strikes its target, animal or human, dissolves completely in the body leaving no observable trace, and totally paralyzes its victim within two seconds."

Excellent point, Robert. That's the first time I've seen that point in print. It is the best challenge to the flechette theory I've yet seen.

It reminds me of the challenge to the eye-witness railroad workers on the Triple Underpass who all agreed that they saw a puff of smoke arise between the trees by the picket fence of the Grassy Knoll at the very moment of the JFK head-shot -- namely -- that modern rifles do not smoke. Oh! That's right!

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

It is a popular misconception that modern rifle cartridges loaded with smokeless powder do not smoke. While these cartridges do not make the great clouds of smoke that black powder rifle cartridges did, there are still combustion byproducts from smokeless gunpowder, much of them in the form of water vapour, that will, under the right atmospheric conditions, produce a cloud of what appears to be smoke. Most of this is condensing water vapour.

Robert -

THANK YOU.

I am amazed at the expertise that is revealed by members of the JFK Assassination Research Community who, having read "something" about "something", sometimes know an awful lot about an awful lot, though having never actually experienced said "something".

i've shot guns. I've seen them produce smoke. there is literature that says the powder is smokeless, but i know better.

This gets a little more interesting. There are many who believe the fatal head shot was fired from the Grassy Knoll by a fellow named James Files. Reputedly, the weapon he used was a Remington Fireball XP-100, chambered to shoot a .221 calibre rifle bullet. (in 1963, the year this weapon was introduced by Remington, it was only available in .221 calibre. The original prototypes were designed around the popular .222 cartridge, but this cartridge produced excessive noise and muzzle flash. The casing was shortened to reduce the powder volume to an amount more suited to the short barrel, and re-introduced as the .221)

For those of you not familiar with this unusual weapon, I will describe it for you. Unlike the majority of handguns loaded with much shorter cartridges and propelling bullets at much lower velocities, this handgun utilizes a bolt action normally found on a rifle, and propels a bullet at velocities approaching and exceeding 3000 feet per second. It is, essentially, a rifle sawed off to a 10-14" barrel and made into a handgun. Believe it or not, this weapon has actually been chambered for the .308 Winchester .35 Remington and .350 Remington Magnum cartridges, and the claim is made it has an effective range of 200-300 metres.

While reducing the volume of gunpowder in the cartridge helped to reduce excessive muzzle flash, it by no means eliminated it. Simply put, a 10" barrel is just to short to allow all of the gunpowder from a rifle cartridge to burn up before leaving the barrel, and the excessive flash seen is from excess powder burning outside of the barrel.

Would this explain the flash seen by Lee Bowers, and the smoke seen by those atop the Triple Underpass?

Dumb question, Paul but, just where on an umbrella would you mount a scope? If you read about this umbrella gun, why not post a link to the article?

And Glenn is correct; bullets are quite often referred to as missiles.

Well, Robert, here are two responses to your two points:

(1) Here is a fairly clear explanation about the umbrella gun on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcdMlNFL9Bk

(2) One would still expect consistency, Robert, i.e. if the same document refers to bullets as "bullets" and fragments as "fragments" then when that document also adds "missiles" one may justly expect a third type of object.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Nice video but, no mention of how and where a scope was mounted on the umbrella.

Robert, are you suggesting that Paul skirted the question about where a scope might be practically mounted to an umbrella?

(i can't believe I'm hearing myself ask that question. If my family read this, they'd be calling the guys in white coats on the double. "hey Sharon, do you have any idea how i can clamp a transaxle to this toaster oven?")

Having mounted a few scopes on rifles, I would be very interested in knowing how one mounts a scope on an umbrella.

Mounting a transaxle on a toaster oven is fairly straight forward, though.

Think it remotely possible the flechette dart fired from the umbrella might have left a trail of smoke that would have been quite visible on the Zapruder film?

"The system is based on launching devices of various types, used to launch a self-propelled, rocket-like dart, or flechette. The flechette can carry either a paralyzing or fatal poison."

"It is propelled to its target by a solid-state fuel, ignited electronically at the launcher. It strikes its target, animal or human, dissolves completely in the body leaving no observable trace, and totally paralyzes its victim within two seconds."

Excellent point, Robert. That's the first time I've seen that point in print. It is the best challenge to the flechette theory I've yet seen.

It reminds me of the challenge to the eye-witness railroad workers on the Triple Underpass who all agreed that they saw a puff of smoke arise between the trees by the picket fence of the Grassy Knoll at the very moment of the JFK head-shot -- namely -- that modern rifles do not smoke. Oh! That's right!

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

It is a popular misconception that modern rifle cartridges loaded with smokeless powder do not smoke. While these cartridges do not make the great clouds of smoke that black powder rifle cartridges did, there are still combustion byproducts from smokeless gunpowder, much of them in the form of water vapour, that will, under the right atmospheric conditions, produce a cloud of what appears to be smoke. Most of this is condensing water vapour.

God gave me my face, but he let me pick my nose.