Ballistics

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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.

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

Mr. Burnham,

Unless the laws of physics have changed over the last few years, then the basic principles of ballistics still apply.

I believe I already defined Quick in proving Frazier fired 3 very well aimed shots in 6 seconds. That sounds like an average of 3 seconds for the last two shots which included aiming and cycling the bolt. I would say that is pretty quick considering your theory that it takes 2.3 seconds to cycle the bolt without aiming (which I do not agree with). There are several videos that bear this out.

Frazier used no tripod in the testing of the rifle at the ranges. I also believe you assume duress, it is impossible to know the state of mind of the shooter.

There is no evidence whatsoever of a shooter from the front. Kinetic energy transfer indicates a rear shooter, as does Blood Spatter, inter-cranial fragment disbursement.

You do realize that the "violent backward motion" can not possibly be attributed directly to a bullet.

No disrespect taken Sir, not at all, and none intended when I say that I do not believe I need to catch up, I simply believe that many do not understand the ballistics and physics involved in a shooting event.

Where I come from an opinion is an opinion, until it is proven, it then becomes fact. From a ballistic stand point the fact now stands at no frontal shooter.

Do you have any other evidence other than the opinion of a doctor? Do you have a suspected location? I would be glad to examine that for you Sir.

My best to you,

Mike

Do you have a suspected location? I would be glad to examine that for you Sir.

Mike!

Do you also engage in expanded searches for a Unicorn and/or the Golden Fleece?

[Mike Williams]

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?

Mr. Speer,

I would think that Baden might just be onto something here. I have always held that it is possible for fragments to be left in the head from the rear of the bullet. It would not seem that the wounds are consistent with a projectile fragmenting in the head. This would he highly unlikely with this type of round. I have also further thought that this projectile shattered impacting the chrome. I believe it is very possible that once shattering the crack in the glass was caused by a fragment of that. The inside of the glass had lead, not copper, as I recall. I believe it is very possible that a fragment came off that projectile once it impacted the chrome and cracked the glass.

Hop you are having a great day!

Mike

[Mike Williams]

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.

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

Mr. Burnham,

Unless the laws of physics have changed over the last few years, then the basic principles of ballistics still apply.

I believe I already defined Quick in proving Frazier fired 3 very well aimed shots in 6 seconds. That sounds like an average of 3 seconds for the last two shots which included aiming and cycling the bolt. I would say that is pretty quick considering your theory that it takes 2.3 seconds to cycle the bolt without aiming (which I do not agree with). There are several videos that bear this out.

Frazier used no tripod in the testing of the rifle at the ranges. I also believe you assume duress, it is impossible to know the state of mind of the shooter.

There is no evidence whatsoever of a shooter from the front. Kinetic energy transfer indicates a rear shooter, as does Blood Spatter, inter-cranial fragment disbursement.

You do realize that the "violent backward motion" can not possibly be attributed directly to a bullet.

No disrespect taken Sir, not at all, and none intended when I say that I do not believe I need to catch up, I simply believe that many do not understand the ballistics and physics involved in a shooting event.

Where I come from an opinion is an opinion, until it is proven, it then becomes fact. From a ballistic stand point the fact now stands at no frontal shooter.

Do you have any other evidence other than the opinion of a doctor? Do you have a suspected location? I would be glad to examine that for you Sir.

My best to you,

Mike

Do you have a suspected location? I would be glad to examine that for you Sir.

Mike!

Do you also engage in expanded searches for a Unicorn and/or the Golden Fleece?

Tom,

Only to prove that they don't exist! But WE both knew that was coming!

[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"!

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

I would hope you were not referring to me in the ignorant man comment.

Nope! Such rude, crude, and socially unacceptable comments are strictly reserved for those who continue to posit the difficulty of the shots.

I should think you as a 9 year old could have done this lol.

Normally, I refer to it as merely being "pellet gun ranges". However, I have at one time or another posted some of our local newspaper photo's of 9 to 10 year olds and their "first-kill" bucks.

With of course, the appropriate commentary that virtually any of them could have also made the shots.

Rest assured that it does my "old" heart good to actually see someone who knows what they are speaking of, back on this sight.

Look around and you will also note that I once "dragged" Ayoob into the conversations, back when the "GREAT" Scout Sniper wannabe was local hero of ballistic information and purported shot difficulty.

Tom

[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

I would hope you were not referring to me in the ignorant man comment.

Nope! Such rude, crude, and socially unacceptable comments are strictly reserved for those who continue to posit the difficulty of the shots.

I should think you as a 9 year old could have done this lol.

Normally, I refer to it as merely being "pellet gun ranges". However, I have at one time or another posted some of our local newspaper photo's of 9 to 10 year olds and their "first-kill" bucks.

With of course, the appropriate commentary that virtually any of them could have also made the shots.

Rest assured that it does my "old" heart good to actually see someone who knows what they are speaking of, back on this sight.

Look around and you will also note that I once "dragged" Ayoob into the conversations, back when the "GREAT" Scout Sniper wannabe was local hero of ballistic information and purported shot difficulty.

Tom

Tom,

I suspect that "old" heart has more then enough moxy to keep many who live on the soft side still on this side of the grass.

I see your reference to Ayoob, and could not agree more. It is readily apparent that this individual was in whoafully over their depth.

I actually chuckled out loud re your pellet gun reference and could not possibly agree more. Hell where I am from this is pellet gun/wrist rocket range!

Be well my friend

De Oppresso Liber and Semper Fi,

Mike

[David Andrews]

Just a thought regarding the sixth-floor window "sniper's nest" and the pipes (and boxes):

If one was going to set up a false crime scene, why sully it with possible evidence of an actual crime?

It makes logistical sense to have a "shooter" stick a decoy rifle out that window for the benefit of street witnesses, then drop three shells associated with the patsy's rifle for "evidence."

Was the actual firing done at the east end of the sixth floor, or from the fifth floor, giving easy cleanup, and cutting escape time? (Both locations have been spoken of by past researchers.) This also takes care of the obstructing Texas live oak tree.

What if the left-behind chicken lunch is an indication that nobody used that window to actually fire from?

Edited March 26, 2010 by David Andrews

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Glenn,

This guy is peddling ancient rubbish. JFK was hit in the throat and in the right temple

by shots that were fired from in front. They were widely described on radio and TV on

the afternoon and evening of the assassination. Malcolm Perry, M.D., explained three

times during the Parkland press conference that the bullet had been "coming at him".

Monk is right that this guy is bizarre. For an expert in ballistics, he doesn't even know

that the Mannlicher-Carcano only has a muzzle velocity of 2,000 pfs, which means it is

not a high velocity weapon and therefore cannot have fired the shots that took out JFK.

This is one of "16 Smoking Guns" in the Prologue of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000).

His line reminds me of Gerald Posner, CASE CLOSE (1963), where, in the space of one

page--104--he commits no less than ten mistakes about the weapon. It was published

in THE FOURTH DECADE and here: http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html

If you want to stick around, great, but you'd learn much more from the Judyth thread.

Jim

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.

[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?

Mr. Speer,

I would think that Baden might just be onto something here. I have always held that it is possible for fragments to be left in the head from the rear of the bullet. It would not seem that the wounds are consistent with a projectile fragmenting in the head. This would he highly unlikely with this type of round. I have also further thought that this projectile shattered impacting the chrome. I believe it is very possible that once shattering the crack in the glass was caused by a fragment of that. The inside of the glass had lead, not copper, as I recall. I believe it is very possible that a fragment came off that projectile once it impacted the chrome and cracked the glass.

Hop you are having a great day!

Mike

Mike, you're forgetting about Tague. If the bugger didn't miss then Tague must have been wounded by the missing middle of the bullet impacting on the skull. If the bullet exited in pieces it would seem possible one of the pieces would sail over the windshield and down toward Tague. If the bullet exited intact and only broke up on the windshield strut, this possibility seems more an impossibility.

[John Dolva]

I come at this with relative ignorance, hence the questions. I'd like to know the answers. So I ask questions.

Issues are not cleared up, perhaps minor ones but an adherence to Allans placements of the pipes is imo significantly erroneous and imo the WC photo of the test shooters setup clearly shows this. ( a more minor issue is the non recognition of the flaws of Dons plat )

Knowledge is being withheld from those genuinely interested in answers to questions and are ridiculed for being so ignorant. Well, create non ignorance then, please.

Jim, do you mean tjhat the MC has a rated max capacity for the pressure caused by the bullet and cannot fire faster rounds than 2000 fps?

How quickly does the bullet post internal ballistics take to stabilise and, over the whole distance, what is the yaw and drift?

[John Dolva]

The Tague sting pointed out to him by a person later is very likely a shaving cut that increased stress caused to expel a bit of blood and sweat (salt) and wind made itself felt but only remembered when pointed out that there is a bit of blood on the chin. Anyway, that to me is a s credible as Tague being struck by any bullet fragment breaking off concrete.. That curb damage being caused by a wheel weight steel clip strike leaving a residue of lead, There are many examples of the turcoid shape caused by a wheel rubbing up against a curb. The photos show these.

[Pat Speer]

Fetzer: " For an expert in ballistics, he doesn't even know that the Mannlicher-Carcano only has a muzzle velocity of 2,000 pfs, which means it is not a high velocity weapon and therefore cannot have fired the shots that took out JFK."

Jim, not that I don't have my own disagreements with Mike, but the "high velocity weapon" argument is a flawed one. In my study of dozens of articles and books on wound ballistics and shooting, I discovered that before recent times weapons were classified as either as high-velocity weapons (basically military and hunting rifles...anything firing projectiles over 1100 fps) and low velocity weapons (handguns and varmint rifles). The term medium velocity weapon, and the Carcano's classification as such, only came about in the 60's and 70's, when some writers on the subject sought to distinguish WW2-era rifles from the M-16's and AK-47's of more modern times.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Pat Speer

[David Andrews]

The Tague sting pointed out to him by a person later is very likely a shaving cut that increased stress caused to expel a bit of blood and sweat (salt) and wind made itself felt but only remembered when pointed out that there is a bit of blood on the chin. Anyway, that to me is a s credible as Tague being struck by any bullet fragment breaking off concrete.. That curb damage being caused by a wheel weight steel clip strike leaving a residue of lead, There are many examples of the turcoid shape caused by a wheel rubbing up against a curb. The photos show these.

No knock, John - but somebody thought enough of that curbstone to remove it from the street, and from evidence.

[John Dolva]

I'm not surprised.

[Mike Williams]

Glenn,

This guy is peddling ancient rubbish. JFK was hit in the throat and in the right temple

by shots that were fired from in front. They were widely described on radio and TV on

the afternoon and evening of the assassination. Malcolm Perry, M.D., explained three

times during the Parkland press conference that the bullet had been "coming at him".

Monk is right that this guy is bizarre. For an expert in ballistics, he doesn't even know

that the Mannlicher-Carcano only has a muzzle velocity of 2,000 pfs, which means it is

not a high velocity weapon and therefore cannot have fired the shots that took out JFK.

This is one of "16 Smoking Guns" in the Prologue of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000).

His line reminds me of Gerald Posner, CASE CLOSE (1963), where, in the space of one

page--104--he commits no less than ten mistakes about the weapon. It was published

in THE FOURTH DECADE and here: http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html

If you want to stick around, great, but you'd learn much more from the Judyth thread.

Jim

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.

Jim,

One really should know the subject matter.

The Carcano fires at an average of 2165FPS as tested by Frazier. (WCH3p400)

The throat wound has more ballistic issues than the magic bullet. Throat entry indeed.

The MC was perfectly capable of firing those shots. This is beyond question.

In fact it was so capable that it was the only weapon that day that left even a shred of ballistic evidence.

The sectional density and ballistic coefficient make it a very suitable and deadly round. Thats why they are a European favorite for big game to this day.

I could not help but wonder when you would be at this thread spewing just this type of nonsense.

Would you be speaking of the same Dr. Perry that testified that those wounds could have been exits as well? Or had you forgotten that?

Jim this thread is for reasonable discussion, not snake oil salesmen. I suggest you let me stick to ballistics which I know, and I let you stick to snake oil.

Mike

[Mike Williams]

Fetzer: " For an expert in ballistics, he doesn't even know that the Mannlicher-Carcano only has a muzzle velocity of 2,000 pfs, which means it is not a high velocity weapon and therefore cannot have fired the shots that took out JFK."

Jim, not that I don't have my own disagreements with Mike, but the "high velocity weapon" argument is a flawed one. In my study of dozens of articles and books on wound ballistics and shooting, I discovered that before recent times weapons were classified as either as high-velocity weapons (basically military and hunting rifles...anything firing projectiles over 1100 fps) and low velocity weapons (handguns and varmint rifles). The term medium velocity weapon, and the Carcano's classification as such, only came about in the 60's and 70's, when some writers on the subject sought to distinguish WW2-era rifles from the M-16's and AK-47's of more modern times.

Mr. Speer,

You are very correct and to confuse the issue further there are many types of ammunition sold today labeled as High Velocity while firing at just over 1200fps. Apparently that 1100fps standard still exists somewhere.

Best to ya Pat,

Mike