Tom Neal

The photo in your post with the BIG Red Arrow "Clip" - I'm not certain at all that's a clip. If it were it would have to be sticking way out of the bottom and we don't see anything like that in the Ayea Film. My understanding is they get stuck inside and are therefore not visible or they eject.

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

My feelings are that the conspirators had this movie in mind when putting their killing of our president together.

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

Thanks, Chris!

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

Here's a relevant video:

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

Loading single cartridges into a Carcano is not feasible.

Thank you, Robert!

You can load any number of rounds in the clip from 1-6.

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.

The fact that they found less than a full clip's ammo has always made me think it's entirely bullsh_t.

Note: the box displayed is ammo that is 3 lots (#6003) away from Oswald's purported ammo - lot #6000.

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

In the CA primary I voted for Edwards.

In both elections, since California is a safe state, I voted for the Green candidate. I real liked voting for Cynthia McKInney since in the Green party debate, she mentioned the book The Assassinations, which I co edited.

Thank you, Jim.

Tom

FYi, in thee tries,I have never voted for either HC or Obama.

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

in rail yards approximately 1:27 to 1:29 far right of frame under some kind of fixture/sign/light this is quick

tsbd approximately1:35 until end in front of african american man

Martin & Tommy,

Thanks for the time references and video.

Tom

Jerrol Custer is not someone on whom I would rely too heavily. His ARRB testimony was frequently at odds with the known facts. For example, there is absolutely no dispute about the fact that a tracheotomy was performed on JFK at Parkland Hospital, and yet...

GUNN: Did you ever see a wound on the front of President Kennedy's throat or the anterior of the throat?

CUSTER: Yes, I did.

GUNN: Could you describe the wound that you observed?

CUSTER: A typical bullet hole.

GUNN: How large was it?

CUSTER: I would estimate, a little bigger than my little finger in dimension, across circumference - or diameter.

GUNN: Okay. So, there was not a long incision or cut on the throat that you observed; is that correct?

CUSTER: Not at that time, I didn't.

Cleary the passage of more than 30 years had diminished the reliability of Custer's recollections.

Which is to be expected.

And it proves that the whole "You wouldn't forget something like JFK's autopsy" argument is total nonsense.

Human memory is easily influenced and alters over time.

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,

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?

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

A frangible bullet performs in almost exactly the same fashion as a hollow point bullet (lethal frangible bullets actually are a type of hollow

point bullet) and do not need to contact bone to make them open up. In fact, both types of bullet perform better if they contact only flesh and

organs.

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

opens up from this force and looks something like this, if it does not break up entirely into fragments. OTOH, the hydraulic pressure in the nose

of the frangible bullet exerts enough force to disintegrate the compressed metal powder core back into a 4 inch cloud of metal powder, disintegrating

it totally. Upon disintegration into powder, the bullet comes to an abrupt halt and transfers ALL of the energy of the bullet to surrounding

tissue. The result is devastating and totally lethal.

P.S.

I should point out that standard hollow point rifle bullets also lose a tremendous amount of velocity as they open up and, quite often, they will

not exit a wound, either.

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

I have never used the Muzzle Elevation portion of that program, simply because knowing the muzzle elevation of a rifle has never been important to me. I believe you actually have to enter a value here.

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

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

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

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

Robert,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the target. So this cannot be the correct definition.

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

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

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

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

above the horizontal.

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

be missing something relevant here.

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

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

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

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

error is -10.5".

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

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

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

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

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

Tom

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

Robert,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

me that the shallow back wound can 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

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

Robert,

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

Tom

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

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

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

Robert,

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

Tom

The CIA Manual on Assassination, Robert, says that .22 caliber subsonic bullets fired from a rifle

with a sound suppressor are nearly undetectable and are accurate up to 100 yards. It follows then,

that should one of these bullets be undercharged, the person firing the weapon would insufficiently

lead the target, and the bullet would fall a bit short of its target. If a skilled shooter was

aiming at the head in such circumstance, his shot might very well hit his target on the back.

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?

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

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 don't think we can prove it one way or the other, seeing as we're discussing theoretical bullets fired from theoretical rifles sighted in at theoretical distances from theoretical locations.

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

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

Pat,

Thank you for responding.

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

as incorrect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

enough velocity at impact to inflict a very shallow wound?

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

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

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

open to the possibility that this MAY be possible.

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

Tom

...due to Parkland's Dr. Marion Jenkins remarks about "obvious signs of pneumothorax", when he observed

JFK, that the bullet entered the top of JFK's right lung and broke apart there, effectively halting

it and preventing it from exiting the front of JFK's chest, and that it caused a pneumothorax and a

haemothorax in that part of the right lung.

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

A bullet fired from the sniper's nest at 400-450 fps would lose 100-150 fps before striking the target,

and barely break the skin. Humes testified that he couldn't even find an opening beyond the fascia just

beneath the skin.

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

JFK in Trauma Room One: Last moments before his death

Thanks, Mark. When you add to this Jerrol Custer's testimony to the ARRB that JFK's chest organs were removed prior to him taking chest x-rays of JFK's chest (what would be the point after the lungs were removed?) the only conclusion I can draw is that the right lung was badly damaged, the back wound was anything but shallow and we most definitely have been fed a great whopper (in a series of whoppers) about the back wound.

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

Tom,

Sorry about that. Poorly worded.

Yes, two head shots. Approx 30ft apart.

Possibly, the extant 313 headshot on film, occurred 30ft farther west down Elm St.

chris

Thanks Chris,

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

Tom

But would this "undercharged" bullet only penetrate less than the length of Humes little finger?

A bullet fired from the sniper's nest at 400-450 fps would lose 100-150 fps before striking the target,

and barely break the skin. Humes testified that he couldn't even find an opening beyond the fascia just

beneath the skin.

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