Robert Prudhomme

I do have a sense of humour, Kenneth. I hope you don't mind these long winded posts by me. The problem is, it is a fairly complicated topic, and cannot be dismissed in a couple of sentences. I know some readers are already familiar with hollow point and frangible bullets, and a lot of these explanations are wasted on them. However, I am trying to reach the reader without an in depth knowledge of firearms and ballistics, and if I don't explain everything, the gist of my posts will be lost on them.

The Frangible Bullet

It is important to have a clear and concise understanding of what a frangible bullet is, and how it performs in soft tissue, or the entire point of my argument will be lost on you.

To begin with, a frangible bullet is a type of hollow point bullet, and relies on the same hydraulic features in a wound as the hollow point bullet does.

On right, .303 British Mk. V hollow point, early 1900's. First mass produced hollow point bullet. On left, .303 British Mk. II bullet modifed as "dum dum" bullet, late 1890's.

Contrary to popular belief, hollow point (and frangible) bullets do not break up or disintegrate when they hit skull bone. I used hollow point bullets in a .308 deer rifle for a while, and they made the same neat little entrance wound in a deer's skull as the soft tipped bullets I normally used.

Once inside the skull (or lung), the open cavity at the nose of a hollow point bullets acts much the same as trying to drag an open pail through water. The open cavity fills with soft tissue and liquid and accumulates an extremely high hydraulic pressure as more tissue and liquid packs it into the cavity. As the nose is made of malleable material, this cavity begins to open up, like the petals of a flower, and more tissue and liquid is captured. Depending on the design of the bullet, it can either open up to a mushroom shape, or the nose can be peeled right back to the base. In the latter, the bullet often breaks up into many pieces and the entirety of the bullet stays in the wound, with no part exiting.

This massive expansion which, of course, inflicts a terrific amount of damage and in many cases prevents the bullet from exiting, is the prime reason urban law enforcement agencies choose to employ hollow point bullets. They have great stopping power, and collateral damage is limited.

Before going further, I want to point out that the bullet that struck JFK in the back and the one that struck him in the head may have both been nothing more exotic than hollow point bullets, but I doubt this. The existence of hundreds of dust like particles, seen in the x-rays of JFK's skull, speaks of something a little more exotic than a hollow point. Lead is malleable, not brittle and, while a hollow point may break into fragments, it does not turn to dust.

So, what kind of bullet turns to dust in a wound? One that was dust to begin with, of

course.

Up next: The Frangible Bullet & Connally's Wrist Wound

I guess, according to your thinking, there's a good chance JFK was not even killed that day.

There was the odd clue that a rifle was used to kill JFK:

1. The sounds of rifle fire were heard in Dealey Plaza that day.

2. Gov. John Connally suffered what were diagnosed as gunshot wounds.

3. JFK was almost certainly struck in the head by a bullet from a rifle.

4. James Tague was struck in the cheek by a fragment of concrete, as the result of a bullet striking the curb just east of him.

I know you believe other exotic weapons were used that day but, for the sake of argument, I am assuming the wound made in JFK's back was made with a high powered rifle, and am attempting to explain the nature of this wound from the perspective of that assumption.

If you would like to discuss these other exotic weapons, why not start a thread about them, and extend me the courtesy of not diverting this thread?

Hi Ray

More smoke and mirrors, although we are getting a little closer to the truth. Look at this diagram below:

The parietal and visceral pleura are two very thin membranes, with fluid between them. Paul O'Connor is asking us to believe a bullet with a muzzle velocity of 2000+ fps "bounced" off of the pleural membrane. Sorry, I just don't buy it, any more than I buy into Humes' shallow back wound.

"So we didn't know the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later." If the bullet stopped at the pleura, what does this statement mean?

Something to ponder; below is a photo of a block of lye soap, cut away to reveal the results of a .223 frangible bullet, manufactured by Dynamic Research Technologies, fired into it at a range of 100 yards. Notice there is no exit trail, and that the entire bullet stays within the 4 inch cavity.

Hate to break up the party but I am going to bring things back to dealing with Greg Burnham's question: Where did the bullet that entered JFK's back go? For the sake of logical argument, I believe I have successfully ruled out the possibility of the back wound being shallow, as a result of a rifle bullet with a drastically reduced velocity.

Assuming the back wound was caused by a high powered rifle, we now have to deal with the mystery of why the bullet did not pass through JFK's chest and exit out the front of his chest.

I am going to discuss a type of bullet known as a "frangible" bullet. This is a very unique type of bullet that is often confused with fragmenting bullets but, the truth is, this bullet belongs in a category all its own.

It is my contention that the frangible bullet that entered JFK's back struck no bones, yet came to a complete stop within 3 inches of the entry point, and disintegrated into hundreds of dust like particles in the process in the soft tissue of the right lung.

While this may sound incredible, it will be more than believable once the mechanics of a frangible bullet are understood. Once the mechanics are understood, I will examine the medical evidence for clues indicating a wounding of JFK's right lung. I will also examine the medical evidence regarding the head wound, and look for similarities between the two, as I believe there was a good chance the same type of bullet struck JFK in the head.

And all this with the constant rantings from the LN corner, and non-stop attempts by others to hijack this thread.

Well, Dave, unlike some people, I don't get paid to be on this forum. I have contractual obligations that must be met, and can't spend all of my time on here.

Everything. Once it is explained what type of bullet hit JFK in the head and back, no one could think for one minute that a minimum wage earner could have pulled this thing off.

Have you suggested it was a minimum wage earner? I haven't investigated what the min wage was in 63. I would suspect the shooters were all well paid. Tell me why you think it matters what kind of bullet hit him in the back or head or throat. Whatever he was shot with was sufficient to kill him so the type is not important, only the net effect. If it turns out that he was shot with a low velocity 38, he's still gonna be dead.

Patience, please. All will be answered.

Dave has no answers. All he can do is tell us the great panels, commissions and committees said it was true so that MUST mean it is true.

Kind of sad that he can't seem to come up with any logical arguments of his own.

So, Ken, the four Clark Panel doctors (Fisher, Morgan, Carnes, and Moritz) were all liars? Is that what you think?

Or were those four men just piss-poor at evaluating X-rays and photos?

Of course they were liars. Every panel, committee and commission the US government ever put together on JFK is lousy with liars. They HAD to be liars. I don't think you could actually find people stupid enough to come up with the nonsense they did so, the only alternative is they were lying.

NOW, cut the chit chat and physically demonstrate to me how a bullet passed from back to front through JFK's neck without going through the vertebrae.

Put up or shut up.

Doesn't matter, Dave, you still don't get it. Look at the bottom cartoon on the left in your post. The bullet would be going right through the centre of the spinal column.

When will you admit the vertebrae in the neck are in the way of making the SBT work?.

See the photo on the right at the bottom? If the bullet entered that close to JFK's spine, and then continued on to go through the right side of JFK's trachea (windpipe), it had to go through the vertebrae in the neck to get there. The autopsy report, though, tells us only the transverse process of vertebra T1 was damaged.

How did the bullet avoid going through the vertebrae, Dave? Magic?

Everything. Once it is explained what type of bullet hit JFK in the head and back, no one could think for one minute that a minimum wage earner could have pulled this thing off.

"Frangible bullets? I've heard of them for at least 50 years, I only heard of you this year."

Perhaps you would like to define a frangible bullet and its construction for everyone here, Kenneth.

Robert Prudhomme,

Given what you say at post #118 (and based on some other discussions I've read), I'm inclined to believe the assassins used low-power rounds. So that there would not be too much collateral damage.

Questions for you: [1] Based on what you believe about JFK's head wound(s), do you believe it's possible such wound(s) was (were) caused by a low-powered round or rounds? [2] Based on what you believe about JBC's wounds, do you believe it's possible JBC's wounds were caused by a low-powered round or rounds?

Hi Jon

It would seem to make sense that the rounds would have to be low powered but I am going to show how a high velocity bullet could have come to a complete stop only two or three inches into JFK's lung. Believe it or not, the type of bullet I am referring to would even, at high velocities, address the problem of collateral damage.

As I pointed out, making a bullet go slowly enough to limit its lethality presents very difficult trajectory problems. The slower the bullet, the more it has to be "lobbed" in a high parabola, just to reach its target.

Now, let's get to Greg's question, that being, where did the bullet go?

If we ignore the autopsy results, it becomes clear from the other evidence (ie. death certificate, bullet holes in clothing, etc.) that JFK was struck in the back at the level of thoracic vertebra T3, about 1.5-2 inches to the right of the spinal mid line.

Looking at this diagram, we can see this location to be directly over the top section of the right lung:

Where did the bullet go? Directly into JFK's right upper lung. However, just as an underpowered bullet would not penetrate very far, a bullet, such as a 2200 fps 6.5mm Carcano, for example, would have sufficient power to not only penetrate JFK's lung, it would pass right through his chest, through the seat ahead of him and into Connally.

As far as we know, that did not happen. No Parkland doctor reported a bullet exit wound on the front of his chest. The task now becomes looking at all of the available clues, and determining what kind of bullet can enter but not exit.

Now that I have shown that it is extremely unlikely for a 6.5mm Carcano bullet to have been moving slowly enough to only penetrate JFK's back without tumbling, we should next examine how much the accuracy of such a slow moving bullet would have been affected.

For those unfamiliar with firearms, I should point out that a tumbling bullet would not have made a neat little entrance wound in JFK's back. It more than likely would have hit side on, and made a much larger messier wound.

Below is a handgun cartridge power chart put together by Chuck Hawks, listing the majority of popular handgun cartridges, their muzzle velocities and other specs:

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

If we look at this chart, we can see the lowest muzzle velocity listed is for a .38 Special firing a 158 grain round nosed bullet at 587 feet per second. Despite this low velocity, it still has a muzzle energy of 200 ft. lbs., comparable to bullets on this chart weighing only 90 grains but travelling at muzzle velocities of over 1000 fps. This, of course, proves that muzzle energy is a product of mass and velocity, or that a slower bullet of greater weight can do the same damage as a faster bullet of a lighter weight.

So, if a person shot another person in the head, at point blank range, with this .38 Special handgun and the bullet had a muzzle velocity of 587 fps and a muzzle energy of 200 ft. lbs., would it make only a superficial wound? Absolutely not. This bullet would penetrate the skull bone, and likely inflict enough damage to kill a person. If fired at someone's back at close range, it would penetrate the lung and might even have a chance of exiting the front of the chest, especially if it were also a full metal jacket bullet.

With this in mind, and considering the Carcano bullet, at 162 grains, was a heavy bullet for its calibre, how slow would this bullet have to be travelling to only penetrate JFK's back a mere inch in flesh? Just as a refresher, also consider the Carcano M91/38 short rifle is textbook rated at a muzzle velocity of 2200 fps, and that C2766 was tested by the FBI and determined to have a muzzle velocity of 2165 fps.

While it would take an incredible amount of testing on goats or cadavers to get an absolutely accurate figure, I am going to go out on a limb and state that I believe the 6.5mm Carcano bullet would have to be travelling at well under 300 fps to only penetrate JFK's back a mere inch.

Now we get to the good part. Let's say, for argument's sake, that LHO's alleged rifle was sighted in to be accurate at 100 yards. By using the ballistics calculator at this site http://www.handloads.com/calc/we find that, at fifty yards, this bullet would be .77 inches above the line of sight to the target.

Also, at 100 yards, this bullet would have a vertical drop of 4.2 inches.

However, if we do the same calculation, but replace 2200 fps with 300 fps, things change drastically. In order to hit a target at 100 yards, this bullet would now be travelling 46.68 inches above the line of sight. This bullet would also have a vertical drop of 48.99 inches at 50 yards, and a vertical drop of 191.83 inches at 100 yards.

What this means is that if you had a rifle sighted in at 100 yards, using ammo with a muzzle velocity of 2200 fps, and you unexpectedly fired a dud round that only propelled the bullet at 300 fps, you would be aiming where you normally aimed, and the bullet would impact 48.68 inches lower than where you were aiming. If a shooter was aiming at the centre of JFK's head, it likely would have hit the trunk lid of the limo, not a few inches down on his back.

The "shallow" back wound from a dud round is a fantasy. I'm not even sure the bullet would make it all the way down the barrel, only travelling at 300 fps.

P.S.

If anyone wishes to use the ballistics calculator, the ballistic coefficient for the 6.5mm Carcano bullet is about .311.

Bumped

I thought so. Who is this? You obviously are familiar with my theories if you are discussing frangible bullets already.

Anyways, I've had enough of your distracting drivel. Go annoy someone else.

Virtually impossible means it could be done but, the larger calibre rifle would have to be severely modified to accept the saboted cartridge. But why am I telling you this? You already know everything there is to know about sabots.

Didn't Hemming once say that JFK was shot in the back with what he called a sabot, which as I recall is a deliberately defective kind of bullet? I don't remember what the purpose was supposed to be, or how Hemming was supposed to know. But if Hemming was the big guy seen carrying a rifle down a Dallas street that morning, or if that's Hemming photographed along with Rip and who knows who else at the corner of Houston and Main, then maybe the big guy knew something.

That was the story about the cartridge shell that was found on the Dallas records building roof years later having a crimped edge. I think it was a 7.65 shell, but I'm not sure. It was supposedly used to fire a 'sabot' so that the bullet would retain the rifling marks of the weapon it was originally fired from but it was 'supposedly' fired using a very low velocity. Setting up the hypothesis that it was the bullet that hit JFK in the back. If it were fired from that building roof while JFK were below, it could have a downward angle around 45 %. (or any other up to 90%.)

Yes, the purpose would be to plant a bullet from the MC rifle in JFK's back. Correct?

I assumed the purpose of shooting at JFK was to kill him.

Kenneth

Do you really think it makes any difference what calibre of rifle fired the bullet that hit JFK in the back? It stuns me that this is the most intelligent comment you can come up with after reading that post.

ANY bullet will suffer severe vertical drop if you rob it of 90% of its muzzle velocity.

"It stuns me that this is the most intelligent comment you can come up with after reading that post."

I think what disturbs you is that I didn't care about your amateur analysis of rifling and tumbling of bullets because none of that has anything to do with 'who shot John'.

It has everything to do with who shot John. At the autopsy, it was not necessary yet for JFK to have a through and through wound from his back to his throat. As I stated before, Humes was either very inexperienced with bullet wounds, or he had an ulterior motive for declaring JFK's back wound to be shallow. Personally, I believe the latter to be true, and his declaration of a shallow back wound was in order to conceal the type of bullet used to shoot JFK, not only in the back, but in the head as well.

If you will just be patient, I will get to all of this in a couple of posts.

Now we are back to the sabot fantasy. I hate to say this but, I've read some of the things Gerry Hemming has said and I can tell you, the guy stretches the truth a bit.

Would you like to know what sabots are, why they are used, and why it would be virtually impossible to fire a saboted 6.5mm Carcano bullet from another rifle?

The caliber probably wouldn't make any difference, only the velocity at the time it comes in contact. That's why I wonder why you keep insisting that it was a 6.5 manlicher carcano when there is NO evidence that it was. You sure had a tough time answering Greg's question.

The proper name for the rifle is a Carcano Model M91/38. It is not called a Mannlicher by the Italians. The reason I am calling the rifle in my discussions a Carcano is merely for the sake of argument. If it makes you happy, we can start calling it a Winchester Model 94 30-30.

Which question of Greg's are you referring to?

I didn't intend to make you re-post something you've already covered. Perhaps you can instead post the link to the work?

No problem, Greg. The concept has expanded a little since I first developed it, and a fresh version is on the way.