Ballistics

[Mike Williams]

Greg,

Fascinating. Leaving this "absurdity", in order to rush in to join Fetzer/Judyth instead?

Mike,

I can only say that I am too, glad you're stickin' around.

Thanks.

Mr. Viklund,

My pleasure Sir.

Yes I was not lost on his departing this conversation because of its absurdity to return to the Fetzer/Judyth thread. Now that is funny!

At any rate as I said before I consider myself in good company!

Best to you Sir,

Mike

[John Dolva]

Best to you too Mike.

A slowly carefully considered response is what I hope for. Take all the time needed.

I was hoping we'd get to wound ballistics later. As you, with the example of the thorax-shin, point out wound ballistics is in a category of its own. (I've read of a burglary account where the burglar murders the witnesses by shootong them in the back of the head and in one instance a victim survived by the bullet scribing a path between the brain and skull and exiting from the forehead.)

Meanwhile, be well.

[Mike Williams]

Best to you too Mike.

A slowly carefully considered response is what I hope for. Take all the time needed.

I was hoping we'd get to wound ballistics later. As you, with the example of the thorax-shin, point out wound ballistics is in a category of its own. (I've read of a burglary account where the burglar murders the witnesses by shootong them in the back of the head and in one instance a victim survived by the bullet scribing a path between the brain and skull and exiting from the forehead.)

Meanwhile, be well.

Mr. Dolva,

I have heard of similar myself, but personally witnessed the thorax shin wound.

What would help me greatly is if you could tell me exactly what you hope to learn from the work I am doing. This would better aid me in calculating and giving you what you need information wise.

Salute,

Mike

[John Dolva]

Ok Mike, no worries. There's quite a lot I'd like to learn.

For a start, in external ballistics, what is the time/distance before the type of bullet stabilises (the suggested MC and its bullets),

of course the space available to a sixth floor shooter as already talked about,

and what factors does a downwards shot introduce and is it significant in relation to Lee Oswalds training/grading?

[Pat Speer]

Mike, as I'm sure you recall, I'm with you on the shots coming from behind...

Since we last exchanged ideas, however, I did a little more reading on sniping, and am now even more convinced Oswald was not the shooter.

I explain why in chapter 9 at patspeer.com:

Views on the Sniper

Beyond the reasons already discussed, there are purely technical reasons to doubt Oswald was one among any number of shooters. The sniper's nest shooter was in a very crammed space, rapid firing on a target moving left to right, and was purported to have taken these shots while sitting on a box, using a gun rest. There are reasons to believe a man with Oswald's limited training would not only not be able to pull this off, but would not even attempt to fire shots in this manner. Consider:

* Although Oswald's shooting scores while in the Marines were adequate at the beginning of his service, Allison Folsom, the Marine Corps officer contacted by the Warren Commission to discuss Oswald's training, said that Oswald's score on the last test he took in 1959 indicated he was a "poor shot". Folsom actually went further than this, and volunteered that, due to inactivity, there was reason to believe Oswald's skills had depreciated even further since that time.

* Even worse, Oswald's Marine Corps scorebook, CE 239, reflects that he had only been trained to shoot on stationary targets, and never from elevation. It takes a bit of practice to learn how to lead a moving target, and a bit more practice to learn how firing from elevation has an effect on this lead. For one thing, there's less bullet drop. A military rifle fires slightly above its crosshairs, to account for the effects of gravity on the bullet. When firing downwards from elevation, however, the gravity effect is lessened, and an inexperienced sniper will probably aim high. The difficulty of shooting a moving target is confirmed by the 2007 book, To Be a Military Sniper, which notes "engaging a moving target is a skill that can be developed and maintained only through constant practice." Not only had Oswald never received training as a sniper, the Warren Commission found no evidence Oswald had EVER fired his rifle on a moving target.

* Military Science and Tactics, a WWII-era textbook written "Conforming to the War Department Program", which would presumably be relevant to Oswald's training 14 years later, reflects that U.S. soldiers are trained to fire from the Prone, Sitting, Kneeling, and Standing positions. The drawing for the "Sitting" position is of a soldier sitting on the ground. This makes me suspect that Oswald had never practiced shooting while sitting on a box.

* This book also asserts, in a section entitled "General Rules for Positions" "(1) To assume any position first face the target and then face half right. In any position the rifle makes an angle of about 45 degrees with the front of the body or the spine." If Oswald was the shooter in the sniper's nest, then, his training would have dictated his facing the west side of the building, and turning his upper torso and rifle to fire out the window.

* This book also asserts, in a section entitled "Marksmanship, Moving Targets", that "There is no unit of measure for leads that the rifleman can quickly apply except the target itself. That is all he sees. So the unit of measure for leads is the actual target...When the trigger is correctly squeezed the rifleman does not know when the piece will go off. Accordingly, when he has obtained the correct lead, the rifle must continue to be swung smoothly and uniformly to maintain the lead while squeezing the trigger. The tendency to stop swinging the piece when the lead has been obtained, and fire instantly by jerking the trigger, must be avoided. This is of utmost importance. The rifleman begins to squeeze the trigger as soon as he has his lead, and maintains his lead by swinging the piece while pressing the trigger." Well, this is interesting. Oswald's facing west would have made his tracking a target from directly to his left to 45 degrees to his left a bit awkward, particularly if he was using a box as a rifle rest. In fact, this passage makes me suspect that a military-trained sniper would not even use a rifle rest for such a shot, as it would only prohibit the "smooth and uniform" movement of his rifle as he tracked his target.

* A 1970's era "U.S. Marine Corps Scout/Sniper Data Book" in my possession confirms this last point. Its section on "Leads" reads: "Moving targets are the most difficult to hit. When engaging a target which is moving laterally across his line of sight, the sniper must concentrate on moving his weapon with the target while aiming at a point some distance ahead. Holding this "lead", the sniper fires and follows through with the movement after the shot. Using this method, the sniper reduces the possibility of missing..."

* Intriguingly, however, this Data Book then proceeds: "Another method of leading a target, and one which is used extensively by snipers, is known as the "point" lead. By "point lead" we mean the sniper selects a point some distance in front of his target and holds the crosshairs on that point. As the target moves across the horizontal crosshair, it will eventually reach a point which is the proper lead distance from the center. At that instant the sniper must fire his shot. This is a very simple method of hitting a moving target, but a few basic marksmanship skills must not be forgotten: The sniper must not only estimate his target range, but also its speed and angle of travel relative to his line of sight in order to determine the correct lead. The sniper must continue to concentrate on his crosshairs and not on his target. The sniper must continue to squeeze the trigger and not jerk or flinch prior to the shot being fired." To Be a Military Sniper confirms this point, noting that shooting in this manner is "the preferred method of engaging moving targets." Well, this raises a few questions: 1) when would Oswald have learned to fire in this manner?; and 2) if a shooter did use a cardboard box for a rifle rest, and fire after acquiring a "point lead" and MISS, as supposedly happened in Dallas, wouldn't this cut into the likelihood of his successfully firing two rapid-fire shots in the next 8 seconds? Let's see. He hasn't been actively tracking the target. He has already guessed wrong. Are we to believe he then re-acquired his target, tracked it successfully through a tree, and fired successfully, not once but twice, the first time in 3 seconds, and the second time in 5?

* On the next page of the data book, when discussing the lead times given walking soldiers, based upon the angle they are walking in relation to the sniper, another problem becomes clear: "The leads previously mentioned hold true for a right-handed shooter firing on a target moving from his right to his left. If the target is moving from left to right, the lead must be doubled due to a natural hesitation to follow through when swinging against the shooting shoulder. This hesitation is extremely difficult to overcome even by the most experienced shooters." Hmm... As proven on the slide above, the target car was moving from the sniper's nest shooter's left to his right. Oswald was a right-handed shooter. Now...are we to believe he somehow knew to compensate for this "natural hesitation"?

* In 1993, noted gun expert Massad Ayoob wrote an article for Handgunner Magazine in which he discussed his own impression of the shots attributed to Oswald. He noted that the two fastest shooters in a 1992 re-enactment of Oswald's purported shooting feat were both left-handed shooters firing from their left shoulder, and operating the bolt with their right hand. (The specifics of this re-enactment are not described, so no judgment can be made on its accuracy.) Anyhow, Ayoob's observation on the lefties supports what was said in the data book about left-handed shooters having a noticeable advantage when shooting at targets moving from left to right. While concluding that Oswald could indeed have made the shots, Ayoob does so in part because of speculation Oswald was a left-eye dominant shooter. There is no indication of this anywhere outside Oswald's mother's recollection he was left-handed--a point rejected by both Oswald's wife and his brothers. (Apparently, his mother was confusing him with his brother Robert, who was left-handed.) In addition, the only known photo of Oswald firing a rifle shows him to be shooting right-handed with his right eye. (Information found online suggests both that the Marines keep an eye out for left-eye dominant shooters and that they train them to shoot left-handed when discovered.) As a result, Ayoob's speculation falls flat.

* Oswald's purported use of his scope only magnifies this problem. Guns of the Elite, a 1987 book on snipers and sniper weapons, notes "optical sights suffer certain inherent problems. Not only are they complicated--and often too delicate to withstand the rigours of military service--but magnification of the target means that the firer's eyes see different images if both eyes remain open during the shooting. Thus, though the sights improve deliberate shooting, they can hinder target location and (particularly) engagement of moving targets." This book then goes on to note that some armies have learned to account for this problem by using 1.5 power scopes on their sniper rifles, which permit "a wider field of view" than 4 power scopes. The scope on the assassination rifle was a 4 power scope. If Oswald was using this scope, with its limited field of view, it seems highly unlikely he could have accurately established a "point lead" of a target coming from his left. If he missed this first shot, furthermore, it seems unlikely he could have adjusted rapidly enough to track the target through a tree and fire two accurate shots, the first one within a second of the target coming out from behind the tree, and the second less than 5 seconds later.

* This last point is supported by the Army's tests of Oswald's rifle in March, 1964. The three Master rifleman chosen to test the rifle, after being allowed as much time as needed for the first shot, missed the second shot 4 of 6 times, even though they were aiming at a stationary target. The sudden switch from waiting to turning and firing was apparently a difficult one, made even more difficult by the use of a scope.

* Intriguingly, the HSCA came to agree that Oswald's use of his scope was unlikely. Without going into detail their Firearms Panel concluded "that an individual could attain better accuracy using the iron sights than the scope under the circumstances involved in Dealey Plaza." While this conclusion was no doubt influenced by the fact they'd found the rifle could also be fired faster when using the iron sights, and the HSCA was anxious to conclude the rifle had been fired faster than previously believed possible, there were presumably other factors involved in this conclusion. Perhaps one of these factors was that, when first tested by the FBI on 11-27-1963, the rifle, when fired using the scope, fired 4 inches high and one to the right at only 15 yards. Assuming this was the condition of the rifle as found in the depository, this meant that the sniper, in order to lead the President and hit him in the head while he was moving away and to the right, would have to have fired behind the President, and aimed for low on his back, or perhaps even at the trunk of his limousine. This would have been quite a trick. Perhaps the HSCA Firearms Panel, unlike the Warren Commission, which concluded that the use of the apparently misaligned scope had been a "substantial aid" in the shooting, saw the unlikelihood of Oswald pulling off such a trick. Unfortunately for them, however, the only man known to rapid fire the assassination rifle while using the iron sights, a Mr. Miller, the best shooter in the Army's 1964 tests, only attempted one run using these sights... On this run, Mr. Miller not only missed the head and neck silhouette of his third and final target, he missed the target completely.

* A not so quick aside...While some assume the rifle and scope were in alignment on 11-22-63, only to get misaligned in the aftermath of the shooting, there is little real support for this assumption. While Sebastian Latona, the FBI's fingerprint expert, testified before the Warren Commission that the rifle had been dismantled by the FBI's ballistics examiners and inspected for prints prior to the FBI's initial test of the rifle's accuracy, he did not mention the removal of the scope. When the FBI's chief ballistics examiner Robert Frazier testified just a few days prior to Latona, moreover, he indicated he'd been present when the rifle arrived at the laboratory, and also failed to mention the scope had been removed. He did make the nebulous statement that "apparently the scope had even been taken off of the rifle, in searching for fingerprints on the rifle. So that actually the way it was sighted-in when we got it does not necessarily mean it was sighted-in that way when it was abandoned." This indicates that he thought it possible the scope had been removed in the search for fingerprints in Dallas, something which was denied by the Dallas crime scene investigator, J.C. Day. Frazier then let on that he had reason to suspect it had not been removed in Dallas; he testified that, upon further examination of the rifle in March 1964, he found that the scope took 5 or 6 shots to stabilize after each adjustment, and that "When we fired on November 27th, the shots were landing high and slightly to the right. However, the scope was apparently fairly well stabilized at that time, because three shots would land in an area the size of a dime under rapid-fire conditions, which would not have occurred if the interior mechanism of the scope was shifting." If the scope was stabilized on 11-27, as claimed, and neither the Dallas Police nor FBI had before that time adjusted the scope and fired the rifle 5 or 6 times to stabilize the scope, as Frazier found was necessary, it follows then that the scope had not recently been removed, replaced, and re-adjusted before 11-27, and that the inaccuracies of the rifle on 11-27 were the inaccuracies on 11-22.

* Even if the scope had been removed and haphazardly screwed back on, however, as some presume, it does nothing to suggest the rifle had been accurate on 11-22. All indications are, in fact, that it was not. In March 1964, when Frazier discovered the problem with the stability of the scope, the FBI tried to sight-in the rifle and make it as accurate as possible. They found this was impossible, and that it still fired an average of over 4 inches high and 2 1/2 inches to the right at 100 yards when using the scope even after it was stabilized. While some, apparently including the FBI and Warren Commission, have chosen to assume this misalignment was the misalignment of the rifle on 11-22, and would have worked to Oswald's advantage, they miss entirely that having the rifle fire high and to the right at a distant target moving up and to the right in the scope would only have been an advantage if Oswald knew exactly how misaligned his scope was--and that he only could have known this had he had extensive practice with his rifle...extensive practice for which the FBI and Warren Commission found no evidence...

* In any event, when, subsequent to the FBI, the Army tested the rifle, they found it necessary to add wooden shims beneath the scope mount to bring it into alignment. The gunsmith adding these shims made an interesting observation, moreover, which was then passed on to the Warren Commission. He noted that "the scope as we received it was installed as if for a left-handed man." This feeds back into the sniper data book's observation that right-eye dominant shooters have trouble with targets moving left to right, and Ayoob's observation that the best shooters during the re-enactment he'd witnessed had both been left-handed, and presumably left-eye dominant. Was the sniper in the sniper's nest a left-eye dominant shooter firing right-handed to simulate Oswald? Hmmm...

* In 1969, Dr. John Lattimer gave a presentation to the New York Academy of Medicine on his own attempts to replicate Oswald's supposed feat. While claiming his tests showed that Oswald could have performed the shooting, he made some interesting observations which did not remotely support this conclusion. After discussing his acquisition of four rifles like Oswald's, fitting them with scopes like the one found on Oswald's rifle, and picking out the rifle which most closely resembled its overall condition, he admitted: "To align the sight perfectly, it was necessary to place thin metal wafers (shims) under the front ring of the mount of the telescope, just as had been found necessary with Oswald's rifle, in order to correct the faulty alignment of the telescope." Well, the shims added to Oswald's rifle were added after it was found in the depository, not before; this suggests that Oswald's rifle was inaccurate, at least when using the scope, and that this was an inherent defect of that rifle and scope combination, not a problem created afterward as presumed by so many single-assassin theorists.

* Lattimer continued: "It was found that with the sling binding the rifle tightly to the experimenter's arm, and by resting both forearms flat against the legs, above the knees (as was possible from Oswald's high perch), three cartridges could be worked through the action in six or seven seconds, still allowing a short period for aiming, before each simulated shot. If the interval between each shot was increased to five seconds (10 seconds total) aiming became quite easy." Lattimer failed to explain that he was firing at stationary targets, and that tracking or leading a moving target would be more difficult, and take more time. But I digress...

* Lattimer then said something quite interesting. He noted: "It was found necessary not only to push the bolt vigorously forward but to pull it vigorously back, each time, with more force than is usually required with bolt-action rifles. Facility with these motions was acquired with many, many workings of the action over a period of two weeks of both simulated and actual firing. It became obvious to us that the ability to fire this rapidly and dexterously required a prolonged period of practice." Lattimer goes on to speculate that Oswald's failed attempt on General Walker "might have persuaded him to sharpen his skill at rapid fire (as he did all too well) by further practice, before November 22..." Well, I'll be. Lattimer's belief Oswald fired the shots is related to his belief Oswald had extensive practice with his rifle...something both the FBI and Warren Commission specifically ruled out!

* Lattimer then drove this point home: "The prolonged period of practice and familiarization was found to be essential for the achievement of any kind of accuracy during rapid firing of this rifle. In general, we were surprised and interested to observe how effectively proficiency with this rifle could be acquired, if plenty of time was allowed." Well this suggests as well that a prolonged period of defamiliarization with this rifle would lead to a degeneration of one's skills, does it not? The Warren Commission found no evidence that Oswald had even touched, let alone fired, his rifle for at least six weeks prior to the shooting. They found no evidence he'd ever used it to fire on a moving target. They found no cleaning equipment or spare ammunition among his possessions. This should make us suspect that, if one man fired all the shots on Kennedy, he was either a much better shot than Oswald was presumed to have been in 1963, or had been practicing with Oswald's rifle for some time prior to 11-22.

* Curiously, Massad Ayoob touched on this same point in his 1993 article when he wrote "There is reason to believe that Oswald in 1963 had become a far better shot than he was when he only made sharpshooter in the Marines." Apparently, Ayoob's "reason" (or lack thereof) was that he believes Oswald fired the shots, so he must have been able to fire the shots, which means he must have been a better shot than he was when he qualified as a sharpshooter, because a mere sharpshooter would not have been accomplished enough to have fired these shots... This totally neglects that Oswald, when last tested by the Marines in 1959, had suffered a noticeable decline in his skills and had barely qualified as a marksman, far below the level of sharpshooter he'd reached in 1956. This neglects as well that in the intervening years, 1959-1963, Oswald had scarcely fired any weapon, let alone the assassination weapon, a bolt-action rifle far more difficult to operate than the semi-automatic rifle he'd fired while in the Marines.

* In 1994, former sniper Craig Roberts released his book Kill Zone: A Sniper Looks At Dealey Plaza. In the book, he not only expressed doubt that a right handed shooter could fire effectively from the crowded corner window of the depository, and hit a target just as it emerged from behind a tree, he recounted a discussion he had with legendary Marine Corps sniper Carlos Hathcock. Hatchcock reportedly told him "Let me tell you what we did at Quantico. We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don't know how many times we tried it, but we couldn't duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did." This should make us suspect that the super shooter necessitated by Lattimer's observations quite possibly did not exist, and that more than one shooter fired the shots on the motorcade.

So...single-assassin theorists supporting the LPM scenario have a choice. First, to be true to Lattimer, they must agree that the Warren Commission was wrong and hold that Oswald had somehow acquired extensive practice with his rifle. Second, to be true to the accumulated literature on sniping they should either 1) assert Oswald used a gun rest and a scope, and missed anyhow, and then propose he successfully fired the next two shots while using the iron sights, or 2) take a cue from the HSCA and admit the use of a scope would only complicate his shots, and assert that he tracked the limo using the iron sights for all three shots. In either alternative, they should admit that the photos of Kennedy's stand-in taken through a 4 power scope from the sniper's nest at the moment of the head shot are deceptive, and most probably not representative of what was actually seen by the sniper.

That they continue to use this photo to push that the shots were easy and that Oswald used a scope indicates that they either have far greater faith in Oswald's ability and/or luck than warranted or far less respect for the truth than desired.

[Mike Williams]

Pat!

How fantastic to see you again!

I enjoyed the reading, and it sounds accurate to me. The information is very good (hell I used to teach most of that).

However this was hardly a "sniping" situation. The maximum range was under 100 yards. In the Marines Oswald would have qualified at 200 300 and 500 meters with open sights.

To be honest, my 9 year old could make these shots with his .22 ( I like to think he had a good teacher )

It is not the distance that makes these shots hard. Nor is it the movement of the target, as that would make little difference in a target moving away and slightly to the right. The difficulty as I see it is simply in the timing we try to cram it into. 3 seconds to make a well aimed shot is possible and has been proven. So I see no issue whatsoever that would conclude me to believe that Oswald, or anyone else with just a modicum of training, could make these shots.

Remember the target only has to be led 1.31 feet and hold at .05" low. With the target moving away even if you led to far forward, the round would just strike a bit low. (yep as in the back)

I have to tell you Pat I LOVE your site and read it often, however I have to disagree with ya on this one. I think Oswald surely had the ability to make these shots.

I also noticed you mentioned Massad Ayoob. He is top shelf. I took a handgun course offered by him at one time, and also took the pr-24 course as well. We worked some simulation drills using paint markers (they look just like m9's) and I went 5 and 5 with him. He told me that was the best anyone had ever done against him. ( I bet he says that to all the boys:))

FWIW I dont think that little bugger missed at all, and I am not positive he used the scope!

My very best to you Pat and it is a pleasure to see you again Sir,

Mike

[David G. Healy]

Greg,

Fascinating. Leaving this "absurdity", in order to rush in to join Fetzer/Judyth instead?

Mike,

I can only say that I am too, glad you're stickin' around.

Thanks.

Mr. Viklund,

My pleasure Sir.

Yes I was not lost on his departing this conversation because of its absurdity to return to the Fetzer/Judyth thread. Now that is funny!

At any rate as I said before I consider myself in good company!

Best to you Sir,

Mike

Sgt Mikey, is that you? Any more ego lifting shooting escapades? LMFAO! Only YOU could draw me back here, son. Only YOU! Now this thread is a circus..... carry on! Where is Bill Miller when you need him.

[Antti Hynonen]

Hi,

You seem to be experienced with rifles, bullets and shooting. Thanks for your replies.

What is your opinion of a fragmenting FMJ round? From what I understand, and have looked into this, it seems like FMJ rounds do not fragment upon impact. Over the internet I took part in a discussion on rifles, Carcanos more particularly. Most who replied on the forum denied there was anything fishy about Oswald and the Kennedy assassination, nor the assumed weapon&ballsitics as reported by the WC.

However, a few members replied to me via private messages, they didn't seem to want to get into the discussion publicly.

Those who replied privately had actually hunted with Carcano's, some had used FMJ rounds for hunting. Those who replied to me indicated that in their expericence FMJ rounds always went right through the deer. They had never experienced a fragmenting FMJ round, nor any wounds that had only partially penetrated the deer.

Here's one set of opinions found on the net:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/g...ead_wounds.html

Any thoughts regarding this are appreciated. Thanks.

Regards,

Antti

Mr. Kelly,

Just a note to say thank you for this information. This has proved to be some of the most interesting reading I have found here in quite sometime.

Again, thank you Sir.

Mike

Hey Mike,

I'm glad someone is finding all this as interesting as I do.

And thanks for being a vet.

I have a few questions for you, with your background.

Having reviewed the case now, can you tell me in your opinion:

1) Did the Sixth floor sniper use the Manlicher Carcano or another rifle?

2) If the MC was used, did the shooter use the scope or not?

3) If the MC was used, did the shooter use the strap for support and accuracy?

4) As seen in the Zapruder film, does the head shot originate from the front or the rear?

Thank you,

BK

Mr. Kelly,

No thanks needed Sir.

To answer a your questions:

1) I believe the 6th floor shooter used the MC rifle. The wounds would seem to be consistent with the this type of rifle, but more importantly the impact angles seem to indicate strongly that the shots were fired from that window.

2) To be quite frank here, I do not know. I have an MC with a cantilever mount, and in my opinion it could be used either way. However with the longest shot being a mere 100 yards, a scope would not be needed at all.

3) Again there really is no way to know. I would think as the shots were not at any great range that "saddling" or "snapping in" would not be needed.

4) The head shot without fail comes from the rear. For one, projectiles that perforate do not transfer the kind of energy it requires to "slam" a human body back like we see in the famous "back and to the left". A more honest representation is the sight forward head movement we initially see. It is relatively simple to calculate, but generally the impact of a transiting projectile is no more than .1%-.3% of the energy the projectile has at time of impact.

Another indication of a rear shot is that upon entry the wound will emit back spatter. This is generally large drops of blood traveling at moderate speed, Upon exit things change. We then see forward spatter, which is a very dense cloud of almost mist like droplets in very high speed.

To offer an example take a straw and fill 2 inches of it with ketchup. Then simply blow out the ketchup. That is back spatter.

Next fill a spray bottle with water and red food color, set it to mist rather than stream, and spray it a few times. The dense cloud of mist hangs in the air and is compromised of small droplets. This is forward spatter.

I think this is exactly what we see in the Z film.

I hope that I have at least given my opinion satisfactorily to your questions. If not, I am at your service.

Best to you Sir,

Mike

[Mike Williams]

Hi,

You seem to be experienced with rifles, bullets and shooting. Thanks for your replies.

What is your opinion of a fragmenting FMJ round? From what I understand, and have looked into this, it seems like FMJ rounds do not fragment upon impact. Over the internet I took part in a discussion on rifles, Carcanos more particularly. Most who replied on the forum denied there was anything fishy about Oswald and the Kennedy assassination, nor the assumed weapon&ballsitics as reported by the WC.

However, a few members replied to me via private messages, they didn't seem to want to get into the discussion publicly.

Those who replied privately had actually hunted with Carcano's, some had used FMJ rounds for hunting. Those who replied to me indicated that in their expericence FMJ rounds always went right through the deer. They had never experienced a fragmenting FMJ round, nor any wounds that had only partially penetrated the deer.

Here's one set of opinions found on the net:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/g...ead_wounds.html

Any thoughts regarding this are appreciated. Thanks.

Regards,

Antti

Mr. Kelly,

Just a note to say thank you for this information. This has proved to be some of the most interesting reading I have found here in quite sometime.

Again, thank you Sir.

Mike

Hey Mike,

I'm glad someone is finding all this as interesting as I do.

And thanks for being a vet.

I have a few questions for you, with your background.

Having reviewed the case now, can you tell me in your opinion:

1) Did the Sixth floor sniper use the Manlicher Carcano or another rifle?

2) If the MC was used, did the shooter use the scope or not?

3) If the MC was used, did the shooter use the strap for support and accuracy?

4) As seen in the Zapruder film, does the head shot originate from the front or the rear?

Thank you,

BK

Mr. Kelly,

No thanks needed Sir.

To answer a your questions:

1) I believe the 6th floor shooter used the MC rifle. The wounds would seem to be consistent with the this type of rifle, but more importantly the impact angles seem to indicate strongly that the shots were fired from that window.

2) To be quite frank here, I do not know. I have an MC with a cantilever mount, and in my opinion it could be used either way. However with the longest shot being a mere 100 yards, a scope would not be needed at all.

3) Again there really is no way to know. I would think as the shots were not at any great range that "saddling" or "snapping in" would not be needed.

4) The head shot without fail comes from the rear. For one, projectiles that perforate do not transfer the kind of energy it requires to "slam" a human body back like we see in the famous "back and to the left". A more honest representation is the sight forward head movement we initially see. It is relatively simple to calculate, but generally the impact of a transiting projectile is no more than .1%-.3% of the energy the projectile has at time of impact.

Another indication of a rear shot is that upon entry the wound will emit back spatter. This is generally large drops of blood traveling at moderate speed, Upon exit things change. We then see forward spatter, which is a very dense cloud of almost mist like droplets in very high speed.

To offer an example take a straw and fill 2 inches of it with ketchup. Then simply blow out the ketchup. That is back spatter.

Next fill a spray bottle with water and red food color, set it to mist rather than stream, and spray it a few times. The dense cloud of mist hangs in the air and is compromised of small droplets. This is forward spatter.

I think this is exactly what we see in the Z film.

I hope that I have at least given my opinion satisfactorily to your questions. If not, I am at your service.

Best to you Sir,

Mike

Mr.Hynonen,

Pleasure to see you again Sir.

FMJ rounds by design do not fragment in tissue. This was mandated by the Geneva Convention. It was considered inhumane in a time of war. (Go figure). The 6.5mm MC round is a well known (and well liked in Europe), for its exceptional stability. They have a sectional density and ballistic coefficient that makes them deep penetrating, and very stable. Having said that I am of course surprised that this projectile would fragment inside the head. This is contrary to all that we know about the Carcano round. While it is not surprising that the projectile shed fragments from its open end, one would seriously have to consider that the projectile hit something very hard upon exit, and this is what caused it to shatter. Now in the case of the CE399 bullet, I have other issued, namely its lack of deformity. I would certainly not have expected it to fragment on its way through both men (alleged), however, I would certainly expect to see some deformity of the projectile.

The one true anomaly I see is the lack of deformity of the CE399 projectile. I firmly believe that the projectile exiting the head, struck the window chrome and shattered.

I hope this helped and answered your questions to your satisfaction.

Best to you Sir,

Mike

[Mike Williams]

Greg,

Fascinating. Leaving this "absurdity", in order to rush in to join Fetzer/Judyth instead?

Mike,

I can only say that I am too, glad you're stickin' around.

Thanks.

Mr. Viklund,

My pleasure Sir.

Yes I was not lost on his departing this conversation because of its absurdity to return to the Fetzer/Judyth thread. Now that is funny!

At any rate as I said before I consider myself in good company!

Best to you Sir,

Mike

Sgt Mikey, is that you? Any more ego lifting shooting escapades? LMFAO! Only YOU could draw me back here, son. Only YOU! Now this thread is a circus..... carry on! Where is Bill Miller when you need him.

Mr. Healy,

I am uncertain what you mean by "ego" lifting shooting escapades, but then again, this is not surprising. The implication that you and I have some sort of genetic attachment is disconcerting to me to say the least.

As for this thread, I see no circus here. I see perhaps a few facts that seem to leave some with an untenable position that makes them feel less than comfortable, which is understandable.

As for Mr. Miller, I wish he would drop in, as I have always been fond of Bill, and enjoy talking about the issues with him. I wish that I could say the same for you. While I have nothing against you personally, I find you seldom discuss assassination issues and basically just waste forum bandwidth with needless garble. If you have something you wish to address by all means speak up. If not then I wish you well and be on your way.

Best to you David,

Mike

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Mike, whether I agree with all your points, or not, it is nice to have a ballistics expert to bounce opinions off.

[Mike Williams]

Mike, whether I agree with all your points, or not, it is nice to have a ballistics expert to bounce opinions off.

Mr. Turner,

Pleasure to see you again!

I think there are issues regarding ballistics that everyone struggles with, it is perhaps one of the least understood aspects of the assassination. I find that many times those who have issues with the ballistics simply do not understand it, and have long held beliefs that are hard to let go of.

The back and to the left violent movement is one of these. Bullets simply do not move bodies like that. (assuming of course that said projectile was not fired from a howitzer )

If there is ever anything that I can offer please feel free to fire away (no pun intended). I am as always at your service.

Best to you Sir and I hope you have been well,

Mike

[Pat Speer]

Mr.Hynonen,

Pleasure to see you again Sir.

FMJ rounds by design do not fragment in tissue. This was mandated by the Geneva Convention. It was considered inhumane in a time of war. (Go figure). The 6.5mm MC round is a well known (and well liked in Europe), for its exceptional stability. They have a sectional density and ballistic coefficient that makes them deep penetrating, and very stable. Having said that I am of course surprised that this projectile would fragment inside the head. This is contrary to all that we know about the Carcano round. While it is not surprising that the projectile shed fragments from its open end, one would seriously have to consider that the projectile hit something very hard upon exit, and this is what caused it to shatter. Now in the case of the CE399 bullet, I have other issued, namely its lack of deformity. I would certainly not have expected it to fragment on its way through both men (alleged), however, I would certainly expect to see some deformity of the projectile.

The one true anomaly I see is the lack of deformity of the CE399 projectile. I firmly believe that the projectile exiting the head, struck the window chrome and shattered.

I hope this helped and answered your questions to your satisfaction.

Best to you Sir,

Mike

Mike, Dr. Baden of the HSCA medical panel shared your opinion that the bullet must have shattered upon hitting the windshield strut, as it would be unlikely to shatter in skull. This was due in part to the large fractures at the supposed exit, which would be unlikely should the bullet really have exited in pieces. The problem with this is that this doesn't fit the other evidence. There were two bullet fragments found in the front section of the car, and two impacts--one on the windshield strut, and one on the windshield itself, noted. One of these fragments was the nose of the bullet, the other was the base. Roughly half the bullet was missing...from the middle. This suggests the recovered fragments exited separately. In addition, a cross-section of this missing middle--or slice--is supposedly visible on the x-rays between the tables of the skull on the far back of the head. This, then, would suggest the bullet broke up upon impact with the back of the head.

Or do you think, as Baden, it makes sense for a 6.5 mm slice to rub off the back of a bullet upon impact with a human skull?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Pat!

How fantastic to see you again!

I enjoyed the reading, and it sounds accurate to me. The information is very good (hell I used to teach most of that).

However this was hardly a "sniping" situation. The maximum range was under 100 yards. In the Marines Oswald would have qualified at 200 300 and 500 meters with open sights.

To be honest, my 9 year old could make these shots with his .22 ( I like to think he had a good teacher )

It is not the distance that makes these shots hard. Nor is it the movement of the target, as that would make little difference in a target moving away and slightly to the right. The difficulty as I see it is simply in the timing we try to cram it into. 3 seconds to make a well aimed shot is possible and has been proven. So I see no issue whatsoever that would conclude me to believe that Oswald, or anyone else with just a modicum of training, could make these shots.

Remember the target only has to be led 1.31 feet and hold at .05" low. With the target moving away even if you led to far forward, the round would just strike a bit low. (yep as in the back)

I have to tell you Pat I LOVE your site and read it often, however I have to disagree with ya on this one. I think Oswald surely had the ability to make these shots.

I also noticed you mentioned Massad Ayoob. He is top shelf. I took a handgun course offered by him at one time, and also took the pr-24 course as well. We worked some simulation drills using paint markers (they look just like m9's) and I went 5 and 5 with him. He told me that was the best anyone had ever done against him. ( I bet he says that to all the boys:))

FWIW I dont think that little bugger missed at all, and I am not positive he used the scope!

My very best to you Pat and it is a pleasure to see you again Sir,

Mike

To be honest, my 9 year old could make these shots with his .22 ( I like to think he had a good teacher )

It is impossible to win in argument with an ignorant man!

(William G. McAdoo)

FWIW I dont think that little bugger missed at all,

Neither did the U.S. Secret Service!

and,

Neither did the FBI!

and

(forwhatever it is (or is not) worth, neither did Tom Purvis

and I am not positive he used the scope!

One thing can be readily established. There was insufficient time between the Second Shot/aka Z313 and the Third Shot/aka 30-feet farther down the road, for full operation of the weapon and target acquisition utilizing the scope.

If, and when, one comes to fully recognize the true shot sequence and exactly when the Third/Last/Final shot was fired and struck JFK.

Think "Snapshot"!

[Mike Williams]

Pat!

How fantastic to see you again!

I enjoyed the reading, and it sounds accurate to me. The information is very good (hell I used to teach most of that).

However this was hardly a "sniping" situation. The maximum range was under 100 yards. In the Marines Oswald would have qualified at 200 300 and 500 meters with open sights.

To be honest, my 9 year old could make these shots with his .22 ( I like to think he had a good teacher )

It is not the distance that makes these shots hard. Nor is it the movement of the target, as that would make little difference in a target moving away and slightly to the right. The difficulty as I see it is simply in the timing we try to cram it into. 3 seconds to make a well aimed shot is possible and has been proven. So I see no issue whatsoever that would conclude me to believe that Oswald, or anyone else with just a modicum of training, could make these shots.

Remember the target only has to be led 1.31 feet and hold at .05" low. With the target moving away even if you led to far forward, the round would just strike a bit low. (yep as in the back)

I have to tell you Pat I LOVE your site and read it often, however I have to disagree with ya on this one. I think Oswald surely had the ability to make these shots.

I also noticed you mentioned Massad Ayoob. He is top shelf. I took a handgun course offered by him at one time, and also took the pr-24 course as well. We worked some simulation drills using paint markers (they look just like m9's) and I went 5 and 5 with him. He told me that was the best anyone had ever done against him. ( I bet he says that to all the boys:))

FWIW I dont think that little bugger missed at all, and I am not positive he used the scope!

My very best to you Pat and it is a pleasure to see you again Sir,

Mike

To be honest, my 9 year old could make these shots with his .22 ( I like to think he had a good teacher )

It is impossible to win in argument with an ignorant man!

(William G. McAdoo)

FWIW I dont think that little bugger missed at all,

Neither did the U.S. Secret Service!

and,

Neither did the FBI!

and

(forwhatever it is (or is not) worth, neither did Tom Purvis

and I am not positive he used the scope!

One thing can be readily established. There was insufficient time between the Second Shot/aka Z313 and the Third Shot/aka 30-feet farther down the road, for full operation of the weapon and target acquisition utilizing the scope.

If, and when, one comes to fully recognize the true shot sequence and exactly when the Third/Last/Final shot was fired and struck JFK.

Think "Snapshot"!

Tom,

By god it is fantastic to see you again! I hope you have been well.

While I am not sure we agree on the last shot, we do agree on much.

I would hope you were not referring to me in the ignorant man comment. There may be many things I am but ignorant is not one of them. You and I both know these shots were not difficult and that it is only the time restraint that they try to pack them into that makes it so. My analogy to the boy was simply based on the difficulty of the shots without time constraints. I should think you as a 9 year old could have done this lol.

At any rate it sure is good to hear from you and if you are ever down Florida way, my door is always open!

Best to you Sir,

Mike