Tom Neal

Hi Chris, I agree with you 100% regarding the clip. That photo is from my files and had the arrow on it when I found it. If I had added the arrow myself, I would have added a question mark after the word "clip." When the clip is inserted it doesn't project below the rifle. I don't know if the clip could partially eject and get hung up, or not. More importantly, to my eye anyway, I don't believe that projection should be in such deep shadow. To me it appears that the rectangular projection is actually part of the street/sidewalk shadow that appears prominently in this photo. I'd like to see a video or additional photos before or after this was taken. It also appears to me that this "clip" is not at the proper location on the rifle to actually BE a partially ejected clip. From the film you uploaded, you can see where the clip is ejected relative to the bolt and the trigger. Unfortunately, in the photo of Day carrying the rifle, the shoulder strap completely blocks the view of this area. Tom

More likely: "Every now and then a man on a white horse rides by, and we appoint him to be our personal god for the duration. For some men it was a Senator McCarthy, for others it was a General Walker, and now it's a General Scott."[/size] One of my ALL TIME favorite movies! According to John Frankenheimer, the Producer, JFK asked him to make the book into a movie because he was afraid of a military takeover due to his many 'disagreements' with the military... Tom

Your welcome Tom. The video also demonstrates that the clip falls when the last round is chambered. So, presumably a clip should have been found with the empty shells by the window? From my files: Carl Day leaving the TSBD with rifle. I do not have the name of the [news?] photographer. Signed statement from Carl Day. CE-575: Note that it says "Clip for Mannlicher-Carcano." If found inserted in the rifle, shouldn't it state this? From the text, this could be any clip for an MC to show what the clip looks like... Tom

Thanks, Chris! That certainly answers my question without any doubts. For anyone who wants to skip to the 'loading a clip with only 4 bullets,' it begins at 5:48... Tom

Thank you, Robert!

Thanks Chris, Interesting that the shooter in the video thinks that the anniversary of JFK's murder is an appropriate time for target practice with the same type of rifle... So the 'shooter' could indeed have put 4 bullets in the clip, inserted the clip, and fired his 3 shots. Or if he did not have a clip, he could have loaded one bullet at time for each of the 3 shots, loaded a 4th and then decided not to fire it. My understanding is that no clip was listed in the inventory which is no surprise. Amen to that! WC would of course state that LHO could only afford 4 bullets. Wonder where he got it, and how long he's had it? Tom

According to the WC, the 91/38 found on the 6th floor of the TSBD contained 1 live round, and 3 shells were found on the floor of the "sniper's nest." This indicates the rifle contained 4 bullets prior to the firing of the 1st shot. A full clip holds 6 bullets. Can a clip containing only 4 rounds be inserted, or is a full clip a requirement? Of course it's possible that a full clip was inserted, 2 shots were fired, and then the rifle was transported to the TSBD, but it seems reasonable to assume a shooter would want the maximum number of shots possible to assure a kill. Before I go online seeking an owner of a 91/38, does anyone have contact information for an owner? TIA for any thoughts/info, Tom

Thank you, Jim. Tom

Hi Jim, I always read ALL of your stuff, so you've piqued my curiosity here. If you don't mind saying; who DID you vote for? Tom

Martin & Tommy, Thanks for the time references and video. Tom

Martin, Custer isn't necessarily incorrect. One of the Parkland doctors (can't remember who, but I'm sure with enough time i could drag it back) said that, after the tracheostomy, the cut made by Perry closed over and it looked quite neat. Maybe when Custer saw the body he missed the tracheostomy cut and just saw the bullet hole. Ray, I recall that statement by a doctor, also. IIRC he stated that AFTER the removal of the trach tube the 'round' wound was plainly visible and unaffected by the incision. He further stated that the thin line of the incision was difficult to discern. I don't recall who it was that made the statement either, but he was responding to a question regarding a comparison of how the incision looked after the tube was removed and the 'gash' in the throat described by Humes. Tom

Robert, Thanks for the excellent data on frangible bullets. And OF COURSE for the complement! What you have said re a frangible bullet and considering the true location of the back wound, I'm convinced that an undercharged shot did NOT cause the "shallow back wound." A frangible bullet seems the only plausible alternative. IIRC, there are X-rays available of JFK's lungs depicting no damage. OTOH we the X-ray tech (Jerrol Custer?) who insists he did NOT take x-rays of the lungs, only the empty chest cavity. This leaves us with an unexplained pneumo/hemothorax as reported by Dr. Jenkins, and the obvious evidence that the WC was able to change his opinion,with presumably false information. Given all of the above, I believe Custer's version, and I absolutely believe the Bethesda stuff has been parsed and the remaining items tampered with as necessary. Robert, and anyone else who has studied the 'throat wound': Q1. What are the chances that the throat wound caused the reported damage to the top of JFK's right lung? If so, the penetration of the membrane surrounding the lung would have caused a pneumothorax...? Q2. Is this damage to the upper part of the right lung apparent in the extant chest x-ray? (which I am currently seeking) Tom

In an effort to understand what the calculator is doing with the muzzle elev parameter; using a muzzle velocity of 300 fps to make the results of elevation changes more significant, I've tried incrementally raising the "muzzle elevation" parameter. As the elevation increases the impact occurs higher and higher above the target as I expected it would. Because the target is hit with the muzzle elev parameter set at zero, the gun must actually be elevated above horizontal, but there's no way to determine what elevation the calculator is actually using. Although the elevation angle for a 2200 fps bullet at a range of 100 yards is very small, what I was hoping to do was set the muzzle elevation to hit the target at a specific range, then alter only the muzzle velocity until a -10.5" error is produced. This would provide the most accurate results, but the program doesn't appear to allow this. I'm going to email the website and hopefully contact the author. Since the calculator is determining the muzzle elevation required to hit the target, it should be a simple matter to display this number. Robert, the calculations you have done are certainly accurate enough to prove that the "shallow back wound" was not created by an undercharged shot aimed at JFK's head. What I would like to do is to find or create a program that will utilize an adjustable muzzle elevation parameter and more importantly, a height differential parameter. This would allow the inclusion of the height of the "sniper's nest" into the results. Following a depressed trajectory from the 6th floor, the bullet will have a shorter time of flight, and without elevation compensation will impact above the target. I doubt LHO would be aware of this factor and would not realize he would have to aim lower to hit his target. So, if LHO was the shooter, why didn't the "back shot" pass above JFK's head, rather than hit him in the back? This could be evidence that a professional shooter overcompensated for the downhill shot, and aimed too low. It would be interesting to know how much elevation compensation would be required for a shot from the 6th floor. Tom

Robert, I definitely did go through your earlier post. What is preventing me from being certain as to what the results mean, is their definition of "Muzzle Elevation" (Muz Elv = Horizontal inclination of gun in degrees) and what the program is doing with that information. A different calculator refers to this as the "shooting angle" and defines this as "the angle of the firearms bore to the line that is tangent to the Earth's surface." In this case, I believe that aligning the "bore" to the horizontal, and aligning the "gun" to the horizontal have the same meaning. Using a rifle that has been sighted in at 100 yards, if I put the sights on a target that has a range of 100 yards, the bullet will hit that target. According to the calculator this will occur with a Muz Elv of zero degrees. By their definition the gun barrel will be parallel to the ground. If so, the trajectory will never rise above a line through the barrel extending to the target, no compensation for bullet drop will be produced, and the shot will impact below the target. Unless I'm missing something important here, the "Muzzle Elevation" parameter in this Calculator is not setting the elevation of the gun barrel relative to horizontal, but instead is calling the elevation of the barrel required to put the sights on the target a Muzzle Elevation of zero. Tom

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

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 NOT be explained by an inadvertently 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

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.

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

Pat, the above statement indicates that the undercharged bullet would fall short of its target - it doesn't even imply how far short of its target - but you state that it "might well" hit his back. "Might well" indicates that this impact point is more likely than if you had stated it was 'possible' that it hit him in the back. Based upon the data you have presented, please explain why the back is a more likely impact point than, for example: 10' short of the limo? The title of this thread is "The "Shallow" Back Wound and the "Short" Shot". This is the shot Robert is referring to, and the one which you claim is "incorrect." And, for the 3rd time, you have offered no evidence whatsoever that a bullet aimed at the back of JFK's head could impact his back at a velocity slow enough to create a shallow back wound due to an undercharged bullet. Use any shooter location and weapon you like, and present some evidence, not guesswork. Remember your premise as stated above is that an undercharged bullet caused the shallow back wound. Any off-road excursions into sighted-in range, or misaligned scopes, etc. has nothing to do with your premise and your claim that Robert's theory is incorrect. I didn't ask you to prove theoretical bullets, rifles, etc. because that is NOT the theory that you are stating is incorrect. You can certainly prove or disprove that a Carcano rifle fired from the alleged sniper's nest at the distance stated by the WC and aimed at JFK's head would impact his upper back due to an undercharged bullet. If you can't prove or disprove it theoretically, and you can't prove or disprove it using the data Robert is referring to, please explain how you can so confidently state that Robert is "incorrect"? Tom

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

Robert P, Considering the various materials that could have been used to construct a frangible bullet, could impact with soft tissue such as skin, muscle, or the lung itself cause the bullet to fragment? Or would that require contact with bone e.g. a vertabra, or a rib? Is it possible that a large fragment from the 'back shot' bullet could have caused the relatively small hole in JFK's throat as it exited his body? Thanks for any thoughts, Tom

Pat, Below is a re-post of reply #39 from me. I presume it was lost in the many posts occurring simultaneously and you didn't have a chance to respond. I don't have the data available that you have at hand, so could you please supply the data I've requested? With this info I believe I can at least satisfy myself as to whether or not a 'short shot' could create a 'shallow back wound.' The point I am making is that you must fulfill two simultaneous constraints for the same shot. Presuming that the gun has been sighted in at that range or compensated for a different range, and the shooter has aligned his sights to the back of the head, and the bullet departs the gun at normal velocity the bullet will hit the back of the head as planned. The shallower the penetration of the bullet the less energy/velocity it had at impact. This impact velocity is vital to any calculations. What is your source for stating that at 300 fps (more than 200 mph) a .22 bullet would barely break the skin? To prove your theory is possible: 1. The velocity required for this .22 bullet to penetrate the skin to the required depth must be calculated. 2. With the sights on the back of the head, the path of this bullet at this reduced velocity must impact the back at a point "x" inches below the aim point. Please state the following: 1. type of bullet (.22 short?) 2. normal muzzle velocity of this bullet 3. range to target 4. distance from intended body impact point to actual impact point 5. velocity of bullet at impact that would barely penetrate the skin 6. muzzle velocity of this 'short' shot With your charts and graphs it should be easy enough to calculate the impact point for both trajectories (remember that the rifle is aimed at the higher target in BOTH trajectories). If the difference between impact points equals the distance between the targeted and actual impact points then you theory has been proven. Tom

Robert, This quote from M.T. Jenkins agrees with what you are stating -- until what Specter told him convinced him to change his opinion. The testimony of Dr. Marion Thomas Jenkins was taken at 5:30 p.m., on March 25, 1964, at Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Arlen Specter Mr. SPECTER - Have you ever changed any of your original opinions in connection with the wounds received by President Kennedy? Dr. JENKINS - I guess so. The first day I had thought because of his pneumothorax, that his wound must have gone--that the one bullet must have traversed his pleura, must have gotten into his lung cavity, his chest cavity, I mean, and from what you say now, I know it did not go that way. I thought it did. Tom

Thanks Chris, That's what I thought you meant, but I wanted to be certain. Tom

Pat, The point I am making is that you must fulfill two simultaneous constraints for the same shot. Presuming that the gun has been sighted in at that range or compensated for a different range, and the shooter has aligned his sights to the back of the head, and the bullet departs the gun at normal velocity the bullet will hit the back of the head as planned. The shallower the penetration of the bullet the less energy/velocity it had at impact. This impact velocity is vital to any calculations. What is your source for stating that at 300 fps (more than 200 mph) a .22 bullet would barely break the skin? To prove your theory is possible: 1. The velocity required for this .22 bullet to penetrate the skin to the required depth must be calculated. 2. With the sights on the back of the head, the path of this bullet at this reduced velocity must impact the back at a point "x" inches below the aim point. Please state the following: 1. type of bullet (.22 short?) 2. normal muzzle velocity of this bullet 3. range to target 4. distance from intended body impact point to actual impact point 5. velocity of bullet at impact that would barely penetrate the skin 6. muzzle velocity of this 'short' short With your charts and graphs it should be easy enough to calculate the impact point for both trajectories (remember that the rifle is aimed at the higher target in BOTH trajectories). If the difference between impact points equals the distance between the targeted and actual impact points then you theory has been proven. Tom