Jump to content
The Education Forum

Robert Prudhomme

Members
  • Posts

    4,105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Robert Prudhomme

  1. 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.

  2. Ok, I'll bite:

    Where did the bullet go, Robert?

    LOL I love a good sport, Greg.

    I'm just running out to do a job but I'll respond to this later today.

    Bumped:

    Where did the bullet go, Robert? You have offered us characteristics of the bullet, such as, the tendency toward stability inherent to its length, the tendency toward turbulence in its wake resultant from the round shape of its nose and wide/flat bottom, etc.

    However, that is not an answer to the question you asked of us in your earlier post in this thread nor on my forum!

    This is a straight forward question. "Where did the bullet GO?"

    For the sake of this inquiry, based upon the implication you left that you know the answer to THAT question, please note that: I do not need to know "Why?" nor do I need to know "How?" the bullet ended up "where" it eventually came to rest. We can discuss that later. First, I only want to know where Robert Prudhomme thinks the bullet came to rest. Perhaps you think there was no bullet at all? Perhaps Humes inflicted the wound during autopsy? Perhaps there is some other explanation that you have yet to share?

    Inquiring minds want to know especially since you promised to answer the question you posed.

    Hi Greg

    Please show a little bit of patience, as while I intend to show you where the bullet ended up, and also why it did not exit the front of JFK's chest, I would like to first demonstrate why the popular belief of a shallow back wound is not possible.

    The unproven assumption here is that JFK was struck with a conventional round.

    You took the words right out of my mouth, Cliff. It was most definitely not a conventional bullet, and neither was its mate that struck JFK in the head.

    I've got a plumbing job I've got to work on most of the day, but tonight I will get into the specifics of how a bullet travelling 2000+ fps penetrated JFK's back and did not exit his chest cavity. A lot of the people here have probably already seen me explain this before but there are always newcomers who might find it interesting.

  3. 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.

    TargetShooting3.gif

    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.

  4. Ok, I'll bite:

    Where did the bullet go, Robert?

    LOL I love a good sport, Greg.

    I'm just running out to do a job but I'll respond to this later today.

    Bumped:

    Where did the bullet go, Robert? You have offered us characteristics of the bullet, such as, the tendency toward stability inherent to its length, the tendency toward turbulence in its wake resultant from the round shape of its nose and wide/flat bottom, etc.

    However, that is not an answer to the question you asked of us in your earlier post in this thread nor on my forum!

    This is a straight forward question. "Where did the bullet GO?"

    For the sake of this inquiry, based upon the implication you left that you know the answer to THAT question, please note that: I do not need to know "Why?" nor do I need to know "How?" the bullet ended up "where" it eventually came to rest. We can discuss that later. First, I only want to know where Robert Prudhomme thinks the bullet came to rest. Perhaps you think there was no bullet at all? Perhaps Humes inflicted the wound during autopsy? Perhaps there is some other explanation that you have yet to share?

    Inquiring minds want to know especially since you promised to answer the question you posed.

    Hi Greg

    Please show a little bit of patience, as while I intend to show you where the bullet ended up, and also why it did not exit the front of JFK's chest, I would like to first demonstrate why the popular belief of a shallow back wound is not possible.

    You are correct, though, in that I believe the bullet came to rest in the top of JFK's right lung, but there is so much more to it than that.

  5. It could mean a coordinated team of shooters received the Go signal and shot at the same time, or it could mean Connally was not shot at this point.

    Did you know that the medical evidence shows the bullet entered at the outside right of Connally's chest at the mid axillary line, followed the outside of his 5th rib on a downward course, and exited his chest at a point between his right nipple and the centre of his chest?

    250px-Axillary_lines.png

    media_52670_en.jpg

    Strange, it does not appear that Connally was turned to his right at the moment you claim he was shot in the back, yet for this bullet to enter at the right mid axillary line, and to exit between his right nipple and the centre of his chest, it would seem the bullet was travelling at an angle across his chest, from right to let, of about 45°.

  6. Just watch the other thread and it will all be explained.

    No, it does not show JFK's anatomy specifically but, know what, Dave? Every human is pretty much the same under the skin, and a dissection of JFK's neck would reveal things almost identical to what is seen in those diagrams.

    However, even if JFK had some freakish vertebral structure in his neck, it really makes no difference. The angles involved are so extreme, we could even sacrifice a few degrees, and the SBT would still be an impossibility.

  7. There is a third reason

    The root facts of the case:

    JFK had an entrance wound in his throat with no corresponding exit; no bullet recovered at the autopsy.

    He had an entrance wound in his back with no corresponding exit; no bullet recovered at the autopsy.

    Central question relating to the murder of JFK: what happened to the bullets causing the throat and back wounds?

    The historical record indicates two possibilities.

    Members of the Secret Service conspired with members of the US military to alter JFK's body prior to the autopsy.

    And/Or

    Members of the Staff Support Group within US Army Special Operations Division, based at Fort Detrick , Maryland, are Persons of Interest, on record as having tested high tech weaponry firing rounds which wouldn't show up in an autopsy.

    There is another possible reason. The ammunition might have been old and spent. I understand that in the early 1960's ammunition for the Mannlicher Carcano dates to the early 1950's. I understand the makers of that ammunition did not have any that was newer than the 1950's Therefore it is not impossible that it was a spent bullet that was unable to penetrate.

    When the Haag's undertook their experiment for Cold Case they used quality ammunition and we saw the penetrating power of a Carcano bullet when it was it was in top condition.

    Had the bullet that caused the back wound - especially if it was quality ammunition - would have gone right through JFK and Connally as the Haag's demonstrated and possibly still have power left.

    James.

    While Italian military surplus ammunition for the 6.5mm Carcano, mostly made by the firm SMI, was often found to be defective (mostly due to corrosive primers and poor crimping of bullets in the cartridge necks that allowed gunpowder to deteriorate), the track record for the 6.5mm Carcano ammunition made by the Western Cartridge Co. was much better, with virtually no reports of misfires, hangfires or short shots reported, even in WCC 6.5 Carcano ammo fired in the last ten years. In a well made and well sealed cartridge, age makes little difference, and the ammunition being almost ten years old at the time of the assassination should not have been a contributing factor.

    I think we are all familiar with the details of the back wound. FBI agents Sibert and O'Neil watched Commander Humes attempt to insert a finger into the back wound, fail and declare the back wound to be shallow and non-penetrating. The theory goes that the bullet fell out at Parkland during attempts to resuscitate JFK.

    It never ceases to amaze me how quickly CT's accepted this description of the back wound as Gospel. I think the main reason it was so readily accepted is that it contradicted the through and through wound that was the basis for the SBT. Unfortunately, this has prevented most researchers from taking a harder look at the "shallow" back wound story, and seeing the difficulties with it.

    Anyone that has handloaded their own rifle cartridges will be familiar with the terms "understabilized" and "overstabilized" as they are applied to bullets in flight. When a bullet travels down a rifle barrel, the spiral rifling grooves grip the bullet and impart a gyroscopically stabilizing spin to the bullet; allowing it to remain stable in flight without tumbling. Rifle manufacturers do careful research to determine exactly what rate of spin (expressed in bullet revolutions per length of barrel unit, ie. 1:7 or 1:10 or 1 turn in 7 inches or 1 turn in 10 inches) the riflings should have to give optimum bullet stability.

    However, this stability will only be there if the limits for bullet weight and bullet velocity are maintained. As any handloader knows, loading too much or too little gunpowder into a rifle cartridge increases or decreases bullet velocity, and increases the likelihood of the bullet losing stability, and beginning to tumble in flight. The same thing can occur by loading a heavier or lighter than normal bullet into a cartridge. Heavy bullets require tighter rifling grooves, such as 1:7, in order to impart sufficient spin, while lighter bullets require less tighter rifling grooves, such as 1:10 or 1:12. Once again, exceeding the parameters of the groove pattern with the wrong weight of bullet will lead to a bullet being either over or under stabilized and increase the likelihood of tumbling.

    Further complicating things is the design of the 6.5mm Carcano bullet.

    744461.jpg

    As seen above, the Carcano bullet is a "round nosed, flat based" bullet, and it is extraordinarily long for its diameter. The long length makes this bullet extremely stable in flight and in a wound BUT, only if the bullet is kept within the parameters of velocity for this bullet. Working against this stabilizing length is the round nose and flat base, making this a very un-streamlined bullet and giving it quite a low ballistic coefficent of around .311.

    The problem with the bullet design is that the round nose goes through the air like an old tugboat ploughing through the water, and the flat base does not allow air to pass by it easily. Passing air rushes in to fill the void a flat based bullet leaves behind it, and a great amount of de-stabilizing turbulence is created. This photo shows it well:

    600px-Supersonic_Bullet_Shadowgraph.jpg

    Modern bullets tend to have a much more streamlined design, such as these "spire point, boat tail" bullets:

    30LBT-1a.jpg

    The Carcano bullet is a stable bullet in flight IF the muzzle velocity is kept in the 2000+ feet per second range. The question is, how low would the muzzle velocity have to be for a Carcano bullet to only penetrate an inch or two in flesh, after travelling a mere 40-50 yards? I'll examine this in my next post.

  8. Kenneth

    Please pay attention to what I am trying to tell you. No one had to refer to the rifle as a "7.65 Argentine Mauser". The second they called it a 7.65 Mauser, the only thing it COULD be was an Argentine Mauser. Is any of this getting through to you?

    I don't know why they did it but, Mauser NEVER stamped the numbers "7.65" on any of the rifles they produced. All that was stamped on the receiver (and NOT the base of the barrel) was "Mauser Modelo Argentine 1891". Weitzman, or anyone else, for that matter, could not have read 7.65 Mauser on the base of the barrel for the simple fact that Mauser never stamped this on the 7.65 Mauser rifle.

    Roger Craig is full of it, and that's all there is to it.

  9. I do not believe a Mauser rifle was found on the 6th floor. HOWEVER, the rifle Weitzman mistook the 6.5mm Carcano for was a 7.65mm Mauser. The 7.65mm Mauser just happens to be known worldwide as the 7.65mm ARGENTINE MAUSER.

    Here is how Weitzman got fooled...

    Good. Then we're in complete agreement that Weitzman "got fooled". He thought the Carcano looked like a 7.65 Mauser. And even you agree that Weitzman was "fooled". So what do we have to argue about here? Looks like we're in complete agreement.

    You're closer to joining the LN ranks than you think, Bob. Nice job.

    The only argument I ever had with anyone is that although the 7.65mm Argentine Mauser was manufactured primarily in Germany, it was incorrect for anyone to call a Mauser of this calibre a "German" Mauser. The only two German Mausers were the 7mm and the 7.92mm.

    Not sure I'm closer to joining your ranks, but I do get annoyed at CT's who don't do their homework and end up supporting impossible theories.

  10. So, Bob P., you actually think Ron Reiland and Bob Clark examined the rifle THEMSELVES before reporting that an "Argentine" Mauser had been found in the Depository?

    Neither one of those men examined the rifle for themselves. They were merely repeating the incorrect information they received from another source (or sources).

    When the facts were finally confirmed via the DPD about what type of rifle it was (at approximately 6:16 PM CST on 11/22/63, as this CBS-TV footage proves), everyone then began reporting it correctly as an "Italian" rifle. The words "Mannlicher-Carcano" weren't heard until the afternoon of November 23rd, however.

    =============================

    GARY MACK SAID [AT 12:16 PM EDT ON 5/25/2015, VIA E-MAIL]:

    Hi Dave,

    You are quite correct about Reiland and Clark regarding the "Argentine" weapon. One has to read the AP and UPI wire reports - and I certainly have - to know that they distributed the misinformation early that afternoon. No individuals were named as sources, but they certainly weren't Reiland and Clark who were, respectively, in a news car on the way to Oak Cliff and Parkland when the Carcano was found in the TSBD.

    The only newsmen on the TSBD sixth floor when the rifle was found were Tom Alyea of WFAA and Kent Biffle of the Dallas Morning News. Weitzman identified the rifle as a Mauser while it was still on the floor and partially hidden by boxes. Later, when Lt. Day lifted it out for Capt. Fritz, Day found the rifle was an Italian weapon.

    Unfortunately, either Alyea or Biffle had already gotten word out to their newsroom and the misidentification went around the world only to be repeated by Reiland and Clark before corrections appeared. Such problems are quite normal in the news profession to this day but inaccurate information gets corrected as soon as possible.

    Gary

    DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

    Thank you, Gary. As always.

    DVP

    =============================

    IN A RELATED DISCUSSION IN EARLY 2014, MICHAEL GIAMPAOLO SAID:

    I noticed Boone, at the mock trial, said he learned the rifle was a Carcano only after the FBI had their hands on it and said it was a Carcano. He did not know Lt. Day was parading the rifle in front of the press telling them it was an Italian rifle made in 1940 on the early evening of 11-22-63...I guess.

    DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

    As far as I know, Lt. J.C. Day of the DPD never uttered a word while parading around holding the rifle over his head at 6:15 PM on November 22. Day was never interviewed by the press. He merely carried the gun in silence.

    As I said in one of my forum posts recently, I don't think very many people at the DPD had an up-close look at the rifle at all on Day #1. Lt. Day, in fact, *might* have been the only person who had a really good look at it (and perhaps Captain Fritz too, who we can see via Tom Alyea's film was examining the gun up close in the TSBD).

    But it was Lt. Day who took possession of the gun inside the TSBD, and it was Day who carried it out of the building, and it was Day who then locked it up in a lock box at City Hall for a few hours while he went back to the Depository to take pictures.

    Lieutenant Day then went back to City Hall and started examining the rifle in greater detail. Then, close to midnight, he was told to stop working on the rifle and to turn it over to Vincent Drain of the FBI, which he did.

    Ergo, the initial incorrect "Mauser" reports coming from Dallas County Deputies Weitzman and Boone became the "facts" as far as many people (and reporters thirsty for details) were concerned.

    MICHAEL GIAMPAOLO SAID:

    I've seen a couple clips of the rifle traveling through the DPD, but never see the whole thing like I wish we did. When asked what kind of rifle it was, Day said, "6.5, apparently made in Italy 1940".

    I [saw] it aired, and heard him say it on a CNN show called "The Assassination of President Kennedy" on 11-21-13.

    I recorded it and just watched it again.

    DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

    I don't recall that clip with Lt. Day saying something to the press. I wonder if I have it in my video collection? I'm not sure, but I'm sure going to look for it. Thanks, Michael. And my apologies for saying that Lt. Day never spoke to the press in the DPD corridors. I guess you just proved me wrong in that regard. Thank you.

    MICHAEL GIAMPAOLO SAID:

    Why that is not included in the clips of this historic event, I do not understand.

    DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

    Perhaps it is buried in my collection someplace. I don't know. But thanks for the info nonetheless.

    PAT SPEER SAID:

    I watched the CNN program he [Michael G.] mentions, and can verify that the quote of Day is accurate.

    DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

    Thanks, Pat.

    I just did a little digging into my video archives and verified for myself that at least one TV network (CBS) was most definitely identifying the assassination weapon as a 6.5-millimeter Italian rifle as of approximately 7:00 PM (Dallas time) on Friday, November 22nd.

    In the video clip below, which was aired live on CBS-TV on the evening of 11/22/63, Dan Rather of CBS News clearly calls the rifle being held up by Lt. J.C. Day an "Italian 6.5-millimeter" gun. We can't hear Lt. Day say anything; we only hear Rather's narration in this clip, but it is clear from the video that Lt. Day definitely is speaking to the members of the press at the crowded City Hall. He's probably identifying the rifle in just the manner confirmed by Michael Giampaolo and Pat Speer:

    http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-591.html#An-Italian-Gun

    So the conspiracy theorists who continue to say that everybody on radio or television was labelling the murder weapon as a Mauser all the way through Day 1 (November 22nd) are proven wrong (just as I was proven wrong on this issue too) by the above video alone. And if CBS was reporting that the assassination weapon was a 6.5mm. Italian rifle during the evening of November 22nd, you can bet that most of the other TV and radio networks were reporting the very same thing at that same time as well.

    Thanks again to Michael and Pat. Your confirmation of Lt. Day's statements in the 2013 CNN program prompted me to dig further myself. And the digging paid off. Much obliged.

    GARY MACK SAID:

    David,

    The original KRLD-TV video tape of Day holding the rifle is in The Sixth Floor Museum's permanent collection and it has been licensed to many documentaries over the years. The audio track includes Day's first words which were, "There's no name on it." From there, going by memory, he says, "6.5mm, made in Italy, 1940."

    As Day said in his museum's oral history, he was taking the rifle back to his office and held it overhead so reporters couldn't touch it. As the clock shows, the scene happened at 6:16pm on Friday and both AP and UPI wire services soon fed his words around the world.

    Boone and Weitzman, who both worked for the Sheriff's Department, never saw the rifle again after they or it left the TSBD. One of the two reporters present, either Tom Alyea/WFAA-TV or Kent Biffle/Dallas Morning News, presumably reported the ID information to their offices, so that must be how the Mauser story started.

    DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

    Thanks, Gary.

    GARY MACK SAID:

    By the way, the video of Day was not shown live; the scene was recorded at KRLD and fed to CBS soon thereafter for Rather to narrate on the network.

    Gary

    DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

    Yes, I know. It's obvious that Dan Rather isn't narrating a LIVE scene taking place at Dallas City Hall. That's why I phrased a portion of my forum post in this manner (knowing full well that the clock on the wall behind Lieutenant Day was showing a time of 6:16):

    "CBS was most definitely identifying the assassination weapon as a 6.5-millimeter Italian rifle as of approximately 7:00 PM (Dallas time) on Friday, November 22nd."

    Thanks.

    DVP

    January 2014

    Dave

    Listen VERY closely. I know it is difficult for you to do but, make an effort.

    I do not believe a Mauser rifle was found on the 6th floor. HOWEVER, the rifle Weitzman mistook the 6.5mm Carcano for was a 7.65mm Mauser. The 7.65mm Mauser just happens to be known worldwide as the 7.65mm ARGENTINE MAUSER.

    Here is how Weitzman got fooled:

    standard.jpg

    6.5x52mm M91/38 Carcano short rifle

    13828609_1.jpg?v=8CF5F36831D2F90

    7.65x53mm Model 1891 Argentine Mauser carbine

    P.S.

    At no time did I say these newsmen had examined the rifle themselves. Why James has not banned your instigating butt is beyond me.

    P.P.S.

    And that goes double for your buddy Dunkel.

  11. You're assuming, of course, that the wound was made at a point on Elm that would be inconsistent with such a trajectory. However, we have no reliable source to cite for the exact location of the limo.

    You are assuming, of course, that the shot that caused this wound originated from the south east corner of the TSBD. We have no "admissible" evidence to indicate that a shot was fired from that location by Oswald or by anyone else.

    You are assuming, of course, that the wound was caused by a 6.5 mm Carcano round. This has not been proved.

    If we rely on the autopsy, in order to impeach itself, if not impeach the WCR, the autopsy evidence indicates, as you have alluded--not only to the incompetence of Humes--but if he is correct in his report on this issue of the size of the wound and if Sibert and O'Neil reported accurately what they witnessed, then we have evidence that the round that caused the back wound was NOT a 6.5 mm Carcano round at all!

    IMO: This is yet another example of how micro-analyzing the evidence leads nowhere except in circles. Again, I submit, this is not the fault of the researchers attempting to discover the truth. Rather it was and remains the intent of those who conspired to "keep us busy" seeking answers to questions that may not be knowable.

    These are all very good points, Greg. I understand what you are saying, as well, about the origin of the shot and the calibre of the bullet.

    It is possible that JFK was shot earlier than when he was out of sight of Zapruder behind the Stemmons sign but, what is the probability? It is true that Zapruder claimed to have filmed the limo non-stop from turning the corner, and that JFK might have been wounded in this missing piece of film but, he does not appear to be wounded in the short film segment of him before the sign. To have him wounded right at the corner from, say, one of the other buildings, would give us the steep 45-60° trajectory, but would require alteration of the film to remove the frames from before the sign.

    Barring massive alteration of the Z film pre-Stemmons sign, I believe the greatest probability for JFK's back shot is still when he was behind the sign, totally contradicting Humes' report of a steep trajectory.

    Humes reported a 4x7 mm entry wound in JFK's back. I would say this is totally consistent with the entry wound of a small calibre rifle, such as a 6.5mm Carcano. It must be remembered that entry wounds are often smaller than the diameter of the bullet that caused them.

    This still does not tell us what became of the bullet, though.

  12. "“This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees.” A bullet entering at a downward angle could not have come out through the throat, as the single–bullet theory demanded.

    • “Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger.” It became known several years later that the pathologists had been forbidden, presumably by one or more of their military superiors, to dissect the back and throat wounds (see Clay Shaw Trial Transcript, pp.115–8). Such dissection would almost certainly have confirmed or denied the possibility that a single bullet had passed through President Kennedy’s body and had caused both wounds."

    Hi Ray

    I was hoping someone would post this. I'm afraid Humes was either very incompetent or, for some very odd reason, was attempting to mislead others with his examinations.

    Let's deal with things one at a time.

    “This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees.”

    As the 6th floor window was only 62 feet above street level, JFK would have to have been shot in the back from a helicopter (or UFO?) for the trajectory to have been 45-60°. As much as this determination of his helps the argument against a bullet exiting JFK's throat, it is not realistic, and goes a long way toward proving Humes' incompetence.

    “Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger.”

    Okay, I would like everyone reading this to take a measuring tape or ruler and measure the diameter of one of their fingers at the first knuckle. My baby finger is just under 3/4" in diameter, and the rest are over 3/4". I am not a small person yet I am by no means a giant, and I would say this is a fairly average measurement.

    Do you know how small a 6.5mm bullet is? The 6.5mm Carcano bullet is 6.8 mm or .267 inch in diameter. As .250 inch = 1/4 inch, it can be said that a Carcano bullet is a mere few hundredths of an inch over 1/4 inch in diameter.

    But how big is 1/4 inch? Well, I have in my hand a clear plastic ruler and an ordinary HB pencil, and that pencil is greater in diameter than 1/4 inch; in fact, it is just a touch over 5/16ths of an inch, or 1/16th of an inch larger than 1/4 inch.

    Another way to think of the Carcano bullet is to compare it to the humble .22 long rifle bullet, which measures .223 inch or 5.7 mm in diameter. This makes the Carcano bullet a mere .044 inch or 1.1 mm larger in diameter than the tiny .22 long rifle bullet. You would have difficulty telling the two apart just by looking at holes in a target.

    Now, skin does have a certain limited elasticity but, is it really possible to get a 3/4 inch diameter finger into a hole smaller than a pencil? Did Humes have fingers like a four year old girl?

  13. Regardless of whether we believe the bullet struck JFK at the level of thoracic vertebra T2 or T3, or perhaps even lower, the important thing is that we have pretty much established the same bullet would have had a very difficult time of exiting JFK's throat just below his larynx, and it would have been impossible, should this bullet have found its way to his throat, for it to have found its way to Connally's right armpit.

    That being said, where did this bullet go, after entering JFK's back?

  14. Ron Reiland and Bob Clark were obviously the only ones who knew their butts from a hole in the ground when it came to rifles.

    Yeah, right. Reiland and Clark got some inaccurate info from either the newswires or from some other source, and that suddenly makes them world-class rifle experts, right? Too funny.

    This is precisely what everyone on this forum cannot stand about you. Even when you are obviously wrong, you cannot admit it, and resort to childish taunts.

  15. Hi Chris

    It's very hard to make out the lags in the Bronson film but, it almost appears that the US flag is over the left fender of the limo, as opposed to being over the right fender in the Zapruder film. Is that what you are trying to draw our attention to?

×
×
  • Create New...