Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ballistics


Recommended Posts

Mr. Dolva,

I would have to reexamine the window opening to really give a competent answer. I will have to look for the info on size and opening. My initial thought is that this would not hamper the scope use, however I think this is something we can easily resolve.

In your last post you asked the downward angle of "the shot" I assume we are talking about the 313 shot?

Best Sir,

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes, Mike. (313)

And I dispute Allen Eagleshams locating of the pipes. If you look at the guy sitting at the window without the boxes with the camera/rifle mounted for the shots you can see how he adjusts for the pipes in a way that in a cursory glance makes it look it like was not a problem yet he seems to hug them like a leech.

I'm looking forward to your considered reply, (and elaboration on any issues like stabilisation post internal ballistics and matters such as yaw and much else..)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mike,

I read your earlier post and noted that you said you believe that all of the shots were fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Have you read Doug Horne's book? He was the Assassination Records Review Board's "Chief Analyst for Military Records". You might find it an interesting read, if you haven't already read it. You might want to check out Jim Fetzer's books, Assassination Science and Murder in Dealey Plaza--especially the work of David Mantik, MD, PhD as well as others, which is contained therein.

Do you believe that all of the earliest statements by the doctors at Parkland Hospital who first attended JFK's wounds after the shooting, were mistaken? Do you believe that these trauma room doctors, with extensive experience dealing with gunshot wounds, mistakenly identified the throat wound as a wound of entrance? If so, (which would necessarily be your position in order for you to have concluded that all shots were fired from BEHIND JFK) upon what do you base your opinion? Or did you reach your conclusion irrespective of the opinion of the Parkland doctors?

Thanks

Mr. Dolva,

I would have to reexamine the window opening to really give a competent answer. I will have to look for the info on size and opening. My initial thought is that this would not hamper the scope use, however I think this is something we can easily resolve.

In your last post you asked the downward angle of "the shot" I assume we are talking about the 313 shot?

Best Sir,

Mike

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think at the moment we're really looking at the mechanics of ballistics. We'll get to wound ballistics as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Mike. (313)

And I dispute Allen Eagleshams locating of the pipes. If you look at the guy sitting at the window without the boxes with the camera/rifle mounted for the shots you can see how he adjusts for the pipes in a way that in a cursory glance makes it look it like was not a problem yet he seems to hug them like a leech.

I'm looking forward to your considered reply, (and elaboration on any issues like stabilisation post internal ballistics and matters such as yaw and much else..)

Mr. Dolva,

I calculate the following in regard to 313.

Horizontal distance to target: 265.54'

Elevation above target:68.4'

Downward angle of rifle:14.5*

Distance muzzle to target: 274.21'

I will have to work on a graphic in regard to the opening in the window. I will try to determine dimensions from the photos we have.

If you have any existing info on window size etc please pass it on to me.

Best Sir,

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think at the moment we're really looking at the mechanics of ballistics. We'll get to wound ballistics as well.

Well, it seems to me that wound ballistics are the direct result of the mechanics. One can tell a lot about the mechanics from the effects that were left behind.

But, if that was too far off--sorry.

Let's see: Mike said, (in Bill Kelly's unrelated thread) that he believes it was possible, if not probable, that one could "easily" have fired accurate head shots from the TSBD. He mentioned the "target" was traveling away from the sniper's position (presumptive), and only minimal lateral motion was present. He said that he was surprised that it took 3 shots to finally get a head shot.

Question:

Since it did take three shots, according to Mr Williams theory, and since the FBI determined that the minimum amount of time between shots that was required to cycle the Carcano (chamber a fresh round) was 2.3 seconds WITHOUT ALLOWING FOR ANY TIME TO AIM -- how easy (and quick) is it to re-acquire the target after having already fired a shot, and after having had to chamber a round?

Thanks

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mike,

I read your earlier post and noted that you said you believe that all of the shots were fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Have you read Doug Horne's book? He was the Assassination Records Review Board's "Chief Analyst for Military Records". You might find it an interesting read, if you haven't already read it. You might want to check out Jim Fetzer's books, Assassination Science and Murder in Dealey Plaza--especially the work of David Mantik, MD, PhD as well as others, which is contained therein.

Do you believe that all of the earliest statements by the doctors at Parkland Hospital who first attended JFK's wounds after the shooting, were mistaken? Do you believe that these trauma room doctors, with extensive experience dealing with gunshot wounds, mistakenly identified the throat wound as a wound of entrance? If so, (which would necessarily be your position in order for you to have concluded that all shots were fired from BEHIND JFK) upon what do you base your opinion? Or did you reach your conclusion irrespective of the opinion of the Parkland doctors?

Thanks

Mr. Burnham,

Pleasure to meet you Sir.

First I would tell you that while I do enjoy reading material about the assassination, I would rather form my own conclusions, based on the evidence. I would however certainly not discount anything I have read at any time without good reason.

Regarding the Parkland Doctors. One thing I can tell you is that projectiles are only predictable up to the point of impact. Anyone who has any experience in ballistics by way of practical or formal education, would tell you the same thing. I have actually observed a gunshot wound where the projectile entered the right posterior lower thorax, and exited the anterior right shin! When a person is asked if such and such is possible with a projectile, the honest answer always has to be yes, just because of the basic unpredictability of projectiles. Now we can make an educated guess, as long as we retain that it is just a guess.

I base my opinion that all shots were fired from behind for a multitude of reasons. Trajectory, blood spatter, viability of shooting locations just to name a select few. The least of which is the high amount of probability that a shot from the front was and is almost impossible to replicate head wounds sustained. Furthermore to even consider an entrance of the throat, as described by the Parkland Docs has to include more magic than a the SBT ever could. These include viability of the shot, and the epic "where did the bullet go" question. An entry of the throat is one of the least likely scenarios. Simply it is illogical.

I would further say that my time researching the assassination is restrained by lifes demands. I have little time to read material that is quite obviously disjointed and illogical. There are some out there who seem to be the type of people who work jigsaw puzzles with scissors. They have to trim and finagle to make the pieces fit. This should not be the case.

My position on witness testimony is that it is important, but no where near as important as physical evidence. Testimony should support evidence, and not the other way about.

Best to you Sir,

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pipes.

Mr. White,

Thank you for that photo, that is one I did not have.

I believe at one time we got off on the wrong foot. This was a few years ago, and I do not even suspect you remember. I do offer my apologies Sir, there was more to it than met the eye. I hope you can accept that as I look forward to discussing issues with you, and learning from your wealth of information.

Best to you Sir,

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think at the moment we're really looking at the mechanics of ballistics. We'll get to wound ballistics as well.

Well, it seems to me that wound ballistics are the direct result of the mechanics. One can tell a lot about the mechanics from the effects that were left behind.

But, if that was too far off--sorry.

Let's see: Mike said, (in Bill Kelly's unrelated thread) that he believes it was possible, if not probable, that one could "easily" have fired accurate head shots from the TSBD. He mentioned the "target" was traveling away from the sniper's position (presumptive), and only minimal lateral motion was present. He said that he was surprised that it took 3 shots to finally get a head shot.

Question:

Since it did take three shots, according to Mr Williams theory, and since the FBI determined that the minimum amount of time between shots that was required to cycle the Carcano (chamber a fresh round) was 2.3 seconds WITHOUT ALLOWING FOR ANY TIME TO AIM -- how easy (and quick) is it to re-acquire the target after having already fired a shot, and after having had to chamber a round?

Thanks

Sir,

I do not know the extent of your shooting experience, so it would be difficult for me to relate in words without expressed examples. However the recoil from a Carcano is very manageable. Reacquiring the target is a very quick process.

Frazier fired three rounds and placed them in a .75" circle in 6 seconds. (WCH3p404)

This should serve as some indication as to the ability to reacquire the target quickly. I believe there are several videos out there showing that the weapon can be cycled faster than 2.3 seconds. Frazier made one shot and then cycled the weapon 2 times and shot ACCURATELY in 6 seconds.

There is no presumption on my part in regard to the target moving away from the shooter. It is and has been solidly ballistically proven.

I would ask you Sir to please give me your best offering at evidence that shows the shooter was in front of the target.

Best,

Mike

Edited by Mike Williams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think at the moment we're really looking at the mechanics of ballistics. We'll get to wound ballistics as well.

Well, it seems to me that wound ballistics are the direct result of the mechanics. One can tell a lot about the mechanics from the effects that were left behind.

But, if that was too far off--sorry.

Let's see: Mike said, (in Bill Kelly's unrelated thread) that he believes it was possible, if not probable, that one could "easily" have fired accurate head shots from the TSBD. He mentioned the "target" was traveling away from the sniper's position (presumptive), and only minimal lateral motion was present. He said that he was surprised that it took 3 shots to finally get a head shot.

Question:

Since it did take three shots, according to Mr Williams theory, and since the FBI determined that the minimum amount of time between shots that was required to cycle the Carcano (chamber a fresh round) was 2.3 seconds WITHOUT ALLOWING FOR ANY TIME TO AIM -- how easy (and quick) is it to re-acquire the target after having already fired a shot, and after having had to chamber a round?

Thanks

Sir,

I do not know the extent of your shooting experience, so it would be difficult for me to relate in words without expressed examples. However the recoil from a Carcano is very manageable. Reacquiring the target is a very quick process.

Frazier fired three rounds and placed them in a .75" circle in 6 seconds. (WCH3p404)

This should serve as some indication as to the ability to reacquire the target quickly. I believe there are several videos out there showing that the weapon can be cycled faster than 2.3 seconds. Frazier made one shot and then cycled the weapon 2 times and shot ACCURATELY in 6 seconds.

There is no presumption on my part in regard to the target moving away from the shooter. It is and has been solidly ballistically proven.

I would ask you Sir to please give me your best offering at evidence that shows the shooter was in front of the target.

Best,

Mike

Mike...Monk is a policeman. He knows firearms.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think at the moment we're really looking at the mechanics of ballistics. We'll get to wound ballistics as well.

Well, it seems to me that wound ballistics are the direct result of the mechanics. One can tell a lot about the mechanics from the effects that were left behind.

But, if that was too far off--sorry.

Let's see: Mike said, (in Bill Kelly's unrelated thread) that he believes it was possible, if not probable, that one could "easily" have fired accurate head shots from the TSBD. He mentioned the "target" was traveling away from the sniper's position (presumptive), and only minimal lateral motion was present. He said that he was surprised that it took 3 shots to finally get a head shot.

Question:

Since it did take three shots, according to Mr Williams theory, and since the FBI determined that the minimum amount of time between shots that was required to cycle the Carcano (chamber a fresh round) was 2.3 seconds WITHOUT ALLOWING FOR ANY TIME TO AIM -- how easy (and quick) is it to re-acquire the target after having already fired a shot, and after having had to chamber a round?

Thanks

Sir,

I do not know the extent of your shooting experience, so it would be difficult for me to relate in words without expressed examples. However the recoil from a Carcano is very manageable. Reacquiring the target is a very quick process.

Frazier fired three rounds and placed them in a .75" circle in 6 seconds. (WCH3p404)

This should serve as some indication as to the ability to reacquire the target quickly. I believe there are several videos out there showing that the weapon can be cycled faster than 2.3 seconds. Frazier made one shot and then cycled the weapon 2 times and shot ACCURATELY in 6 seconds.

There is no presumption on my part in regard to the target moving away from the shooter. It is and has been solidly ballistically proven.

I would ask you Sir to please give me your best offering at evidence that shows the shooter was in front of the target.

Best,

Mike

Mike...Monk is a policeman. He knows firearms.

Jack

Mr. White,

Thank you for the info. It has been my experience that most policemen know marksmanship, this is a far cry from ballistics, unless of course one were specialized in ballistics from a forensic standpoint. Policemen too have misconceptions about ballistics and firearms. Knowing how to shoot and understanding the ballistics is very different. I have trained many civilian officers in advanced marksmanship. I have met some that were very informed, and some that know only basic marksmanship. I have met very few that had actually engaged a target.

So i am still left with the question as to Mr. Burnham's experience. I do not know his level of training nor his understanding of ballistics.

Mr. Burnham,

You do a loyal and much needed job Sir. A salute to you.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sir,

I do not know the extent of your shooting experience, so it would be difficult for me to relate in words without expressed examples. However the recoil from a Carcano is very manageable. Reacquiring the target is a very quick process.

Can you define "very quick" more precisely? Do you think it would take you less than 1 second or more than 1 second?

Frazier fired three rounds and placed them in a .75" circle in 6 seconds. (WCH3p404)

This should serve as some indication as to the ability to reacquire the target quickly. I believe there are several videos out there showing that the weapon can be cycled faster than 2.3 seconds. Frazier made one shot and then cycled the weapon 2 times and shot ACCURATELY in 6 seconds.

I was under the impression that he did not duplicate the conditions of duress that the shooter would have been under, including, the use of a tripod. I believe that is correct. While it is true that he placed a tight group within about the space of a dime, none of them were close to the target. Precision and accuracy have distinct significance in ballistics.

There is no presumption on my part in regard to the target moving away from the shooter. It is and has been solidly ballistically proven.

Not if one of the shooters were in front.

I would ask you Sir to please give me your best offering at evidence that shows the shooter was in front of the target.

Where I come from we tend to rely on doctors to determine a great deal. No disrespect intended, but IMHO you have a lot of catching up to do.

Best,

Mike

GO_SECURE

monk

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...