Help with the back wound please

[John Dolva]

this is why I keep harping on bullet stabilisation and the yaw and drift of the MC bullet after leaving the internal ballistics field to the external one. as presented as the assasination weapon, what with its rifling is the expected path of a bullet for each particular shot from the snipers nest. Is it all covered in basic training? I get the idea from posts that a kid could do it.

[Mike Williams]

Martin,

I would tell you that given the sectional density and ballistic coefficient of the bullet we KNOW that the projectile, unhampered by bone, loses 30ft-lbs of energy for every inch of tissue it perforates. This can be used to precisely calculate velocity loss. It works rather like the angles we discussed previously.

Example. If the projectile only penetrated 2" then we know it struck with 60 ft-lbs of force. We can then know that it struck with a velocity of 409 feet per second. (We can calculate this based on a 161 grain bullet and the numbers for SD BC). We can then determine that it left the muzzle at 436fps. (If we have a know distance to target).

What I am getting at with all my yammering, is that is it possible to calculate these things. To be honest I have not calculated this for myself, but may at some point give their numbers the once over.

Before I even get into deformation of the bullet I want to explain my basic issue.

The bullet enters JFK at an alleged 21*, fine (except that the evidence, wound size, do not bear this out but lets overlook that for now)

The bullet then exits JFK at the neck leaving a circular 4-6mm wound. (indicating as we have discussed that the projectile was nose first)

The bullet then strikes JBC and makes a 150mmx6mm wound. (This indicates a 2* impact angle which means the long axis of the bullet is almost parallel to the stricken surface.)

If that projectile left JFK stable, as a 4-6mm circular hole would represent, then what in Hades happened to it to make it start to tumble before hitting JBC? (bear in mind in diminished velocity the projectile was still very fast and obviously stable at that speed.)

Are we to believe that this projectile lost stability to such an extent that it flipped 90* in the distance between JFK and JBC? What caused this instability, it surely was NOT loss of velocity.

Ok so the obvious question at this point is could that bullet have been tumbling through JFK and just by pure luck exit nose first on its twirling path to JBC?

Yes it could have. Well that wraps it up then right? Not even close.

If that projectile had been tumbling through JFK it would have left an ENORMOUS primary wound path, heck that bullet was 1 1/8" long!

Why were the multiple probe attempts during autopsy unsuccessful? It should have been a piece of cake with a wound channel like that.

We are left to wonder.

Something I would further like to add is the the calculated loss of 30ft-lbs is based on a nose first projectile, if that bullet were tumbling it would lose velocity at a much higher rate as the resistance area would never be less than -30ft-lbs per inch,and would at its parallel be as much as 5 times greater. Simply put the long axis of that bullet is about 5 times its diameter. Striking a target at 2* (nearly parallel) would change out energy loss to 150ft-lbs per inch. I am not convinced this was taken into account in the diminished velocity theory.

One can only wonder if this may be scientific enough for Mr. Burnham.

Best to you Sir,

Mike

Mike,

Interesting stuff, I'm not sure we'll ever truly get to the bottom of it all now though.

Regarding Connally's back wound, was the bullet tumbling when it struck? A couple of the experts testifying for the Warren Commission were unconvinced:

Dr Frederick Light, wounds ballistics expert from Edgewood Arsenal:

Mr. SPECTER: Do you have anything to add by way of any detail to the findings reported by Dr. Olivier in his testimony here earlier today?

Dr. LIGHT: No; I think he covered it very thoroughly.

Mr. SPECTER: And as to the conclusions and opinions which he expressed, do you agree or disagree, to some extent, on his conclusions?

Dr. LIGHT. I agree in general at least. I am not quite so certain about some of the things, but generally I certainly agree with what he said.

Mr. DULLES: What are the things on which you are not quite so certain?

Dr. LIGHT: For example, I am not quite as sure in my mind as I believe he is that the bullet that struck the Governor was almost certainly one which had hit something else first. I believe it could have produced that wound even though it hadn't hit the President or any other person or object first. (5H95)

And then again a couple pages on:

Dr. LIGHT: Yes; I don't feel too certain that it was yawing. The measurements were not particularly precise as far as I could tell. You wouldn't expect them to be in an operating room. So I think it is difficult to be sure there that the missile wasn't presenting nose on. It undoubtedly struck not at normal instance, that is to say it was a certain obliquity, just in the nature of the way the shoulder is built. (5H97)

And Dr Robert Shaw, one of Connally's attending surgeons:

Dr. SHAW: The wound entrance was an elliptical wound. In other words, it had a long diameter and a short diameter. It didn't have the appearance of a wound caused by a high velocity bullet that had not struck anything else; in other words, a puncture wound. Now, you have to also take into consideration, however, whether the bullet enters at a right angle or at a tangent. If it enters at a tangent there will be some length to the wound of entrance.

Mr. SPECTER: So, would you say in net that there could have been some tumbling occasioned by having it pass through another body or perhaps the oblique character of entry might have been occasioned by the angle of entry.

Dr. SHAW: Yes; either would have explained a wound of entry. (6H95)

Interestingly, the size and shape of Connally's back wound is the same as the entrance wound in the back of JFK's head and nobody has ever claimed that that bullet was tumbling. From the autopsy report:

"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to theright and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is alacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."

Cheers!

Martin

I discuss the significance of Connally's back wound in in chapter 11 at patspeer.com:

Ovoid? Oy Vey!

Despite the problems presented by Connally's wounds discussed above, the Warren Commission, in its report, cited the size of Connally's back wound as possible evidence the bullet had first struck Kennedy. This was clearly spin, however. On page 92, the report claims "Because of the small size and clean-cut edges of the wound on the Governor's back, Dr. Robert Shaw concluded that it was an entry wound." Then, on page 109 it claimed "the large wound on the Governor's back would be explained by a bullet which was yawing, although that type of wound might also be accounted for by a tangential striking." The report failed to note that the expert stating that the back wound was large and that the bullet may have been yawing, Dr. Olivier, did so under the impression the back wound was 3cm in its largest dimension, and that the doctor claiming the back wound was small and a tangential strike, Dr. Shaw, testified that this 3cm measure was not the actual measurement of the wound, but the measurement made after he'd cut away the damaged skin along its edge.

By the time of the HSCA, unfortunately, the Warren Commission's use of the back wound size as possible evidence had ballooned into its use as conclusive evidence. The HSCA's Dr. Baden, almost certainly under the influence of a November 1974 article by Dr. Lattimer in Medical Times, cited the shape of Connally's back wound as clear-cut evidence for the single-bullet theory. In his testimony before the committee, Dr. Baden testified that "the panel concluded, based on the enlarged nature of the entrance perforation in the Governor's back, that the bullet was wobbling when it struck him and had to have struck something before striking the Governor." The HSCA's Final Assassinations Report further relates that when concluding that Kennedy's and Connally's wounds were "consistent with the possibility that one bullet entered the upper right back of President Kennedy, and, after emerging from the front of the neck, caused all the Governor's wounds...A factor that influenced the panel significantly was the ovoid shape of the wound in the Governor's back, indicating that the bullet had begun to tumble or yaw before entering" because "An ovoid wound is characteristic of one caused by a bullet that has passed through or glanced off an intervening object."

The problem with this is that Dr. Baden misled the Committee about the significance of this ovoid wound. As previously mentioned, and as discussed in Milicent Cranor's excellent online article, Trajectory of a Lie, Dr. Robert Shaw, Governor Connally's doctor, testified before the Warren Commission in 1964 that Connally's back wound was about 1.5 x 5/8 centimeters (4H104), but that he later removed the damaged skin around this entrance and enlarged it to about 3 cm (6H188). By 1974, Dr. Lattimer, noticing that 3 cm was the same size as a 6.5 mm Mannlicher/Carcano bullet traveling sideways, seized upon this second measurement and started claiming in his articles that this was the actual size of the wound. Not surprisingly, he asserted that the size of Connally's wound demonstrated the bullet was traveling sideways and not merely at an angle to Connally's back, as testified to by Shaw. As demonstrated by Cranor, Lattimer let out a big smelly lie in the process.

This, of course, would have been the word of but one sloppy researcher/zealot had Baden and others not fallen under Lattimer's smell/spell. Not only did Dr. Baden oversell the significance of this ovoid shape to the HSCA, he produced a smelly lie of his own in his 1989 book Unnatural Death. While an HSCA report written by Baden records the length of Connally's back scar as 1 1/8 inches (or 2.9 cm), Baden told Unnatural Death's readers the back wound scar was 2 inches long (or 5 cm).

The impact of Lattimer's and Baden's fibs upon the single-assassin theory has been palpable. In 1992, in the mock trial of Oswald put on by the American Bar Association and televised on Court TV, Dr. Martin Fackler, testifying for the prosecution, repeated the 3 cm lie, and made matters worse by incorrectly testifying, when it was pointed out to him that Dr. Shaw had told the HSCA that the wound was really 1.5 cm, that Dr. Shaw had only changed his recollection "later on." (Dr. Shaw had, in fact, insisted since first asked that the bullet hole was 1.5 cm long, and that the 3 cm measurement on his report reflected not the size of the bullet hole, but the size of the wound after skin had been removed.) Since then, "researchers" (more like single-bullet theory aficionados or Lattimerites) such as Gus Russo and Dale Myers have also misrepresented the back wound as 3 cm or more in their work. Myers, on his website, actually links to an HSCA report to support that the wound was 3 cm, failing to tell his readers that just below the statement by Shaw in this report is another statement, in which Shaw clarifies his earlier statements, and insists the 3 cm measurement was the measurement of the wound after he'd cut away some of Connally's skin.

Not only do these theorists misrepresent the size of Connally's back wound to sell their theory, they miss that the hole on Connally's jacket and shirt were, according to the HSCA, 1.7 x 1.2 cm and 1.3 x .8 cm, respectively, an impossibility if the wound was truly 3 cm wide, as they propose.

While acknowledging this 1.7 cm tear, HSCA ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan, in his 2005 book The JFK Myths, argues that a 1.5-1.7 cm entrance is still ovoid and is therefore still an indication that the bullet struck something--such as a President--before striking Connally. He, as Baden before him, fails to acknowledge that the HSCA determined the defect in Kennedy's jacket was even more ovoid (1 by 1.5 cm) than Connally's jacket (1.7 x 1.2 cm) and that the defect in Kennedy's shirt was also an ovoid .8 x 1.2 cm (to Connally's 1.3 x .8 cm). He also overlooks that the entrance on Kennedy's back was originally measured at an ovoid .7 x .4 cm and that the entrance on the back of Kennedy’s head was measured at an absolutely ovoid 1.5 x .6 cm. While the ovoid nature of these entrances could indicate that the bullets were tumbling, they more probably indicate that the bullets entered at an angle, exactly as proposed by Dr. Shaw way back in 1964.

Still, there's another possibility. Papers by Ronchi and Ugolini (Zacchia, 1980) and Menzies et al (Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1981) found that a bullet wound of abnormal length or width can be taken as an indication that the weapon firing the projectile was equipped with a silencer. This assertion has been repeated, furthermore, in books such as 1997's Ballistic Trauma, by South African forensic pathologists Jeanine Vellema and Hendrik Johannes Scholtz.

Just a little something to think about.

As is this... When the Discovery Channel attempted to replicate Kennedy's and Connally's wounds for their 2004 program Beyond the Magic Bullet, the wound on the Connally torso's back created by the tumbling bullet in the program was not ovoid at all, but "keyhole" shaped, and measured 50 x 45 mm.

Ovoid? Oy Vey!

Pat,

Good Gravy Pat. I just caught my error The wound on JBC was 15mmx6mm. Now dont I feel red in the face!

Ovoid OY VEY!

Hey if ya cant laugh at yourself who can ya laugh at!

Best to ya buddy!

Mike

[Mike Williams]

this is why I keep harping on bullet stabilisation and the yaw and drift of the MC bullet after leaving the internal ballistics field to the external one. as presented as the assasination weapon, what with its rifling is the expected path of a bullet for each particular shot from the snipers nest. Is it all covered in basic training? I get the idea from posts that a kid could do it.

John,

Yes Sir a kid could do it.

The MC is a very stable deep penetrating round, it is not prone at all to yaw and drift, unobstructed of course.

Best,

Mike

[John Dolva]

Ok, thank you Mike.

Be well.

[John Dolva]

Is the suggested assassination weapon a cut down long MC? (I know Tom answered this one but a repeat might be useful). Can you also say somethiong about its brass spit, please? (what I'm getting at is should one expect an imprint on a cardboard box?)

Edited March 28, 2010 by John Dolva

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Pat

"The HSCA pathology panel concluded that wound #1 was a cm below the vertical level of the throat wound."

What's the citation for that?

Thanks.

Todd

It's right there in Baden's testimony, and in the report. The back wound was below the throat wound. They measured the throat wound as 4 cm below the should line, and the back wound as 5 cm below the shoulder line.

PLEASE PLEASE don't tell me you're one of those LNers who actually believes the Artwohl nonsense about the back wound being far above the throat wound...

I don't see anything of the sort in Badens testimony. Could you cite a page for me?

PLEASE PLEASE don't tell me you're on of theose CTers who actually believes that that Kennedy's posture in the autopsy photographs mirrors his posture in the limousine at the moment of the shots.

[Mike Williams]

I discuss the significance of Connally's back wound in in chapter 11 at patspeer.com:

Ovoid? Oy Vey!

Despite the problems presented by Connally's wounds discussed above, the Warren Commission, in its report, cited the size of Connally's back wound as possible evidence the bullet had first struck Kennedy. This was clearly spin, however. On page 92, the report claims "Because of the small size and clean-cut edges of the wound on the Governor's back, Dr. Robert Shaw concluded that it was an entry wound." Then, on page 109 it claimed "the large wound on the Governor's back would be explained by a bullet which was yawing, although that type of wound might also be accounted for by a tangential striking." The report failed to note that the expert stating that the back wound was large and that the bullet may have been yawing, Dr. Olivier, did so under the impression the back wound was 3cm in its largest dimension, and that the doctor claiming the back wound was small and a tangential strike, Dr. Shaw, testified that this 3cm measure was not the actual measurement of the wound, but the measurement made after he'd cut away the damaged skin along its edge.

By the time of the HSCA, unfortunately, the Warren Commission's use of the back wound size as possible evidence had ballooned into its use as conclusive evidence. The HSCA's Dr. Baden, almost certainly under the influence of a November 1974 article by Dr. Lattimer in Medical Times, cited the shape of Connally's back wound as clear-cut evidence for the single-bullet theory. In his testimony before the committee, Dr. Baden testified that "the panel concluded, based on the enlarged nature of the entrance perforation in the Governor's back, that the bullet was wobbling when it struck him and had to have struck something before striking the Governor." The HSCA's Final Assassinations Report further relates that when concluding that Kennedy's and Connally's wounds were "consistent with the possibility that one bullet entered the upper right back of President Kennedy, and, after emerging from the front of the neck, caused all the Governor's wounds...A factor that influenced the panel significantly was the ovoid shape of the wound in the Governor's back, indicating that the bullet had begun to tumble or yaw before entering" because "An ovoid wound is characteristic of one caused by a bullet that has passed through or glanced off an intervening object."

The problem with this is that Dr. Baden misled the Committee about the significance of this ovoid wound. As previously mentioned, and as discussed in Milicent Cranor's excellent online article, Trajectory of a Lie, Dr. Robert Shaw, Governor Connally's doctor, testified before the Warren Commission in 1964 that Connally's back wound was about 1.5 x 5/8 centimeters (4H104), but that he later removed the damaged skin around this entrance and enlarged it to about 3 cm (6H188). By 1974, Dr. Lattimer, noticing that 3 cm was the same size as a 6.5 mm Mannlicher/Carcano bullet traveling sideways, seized upon this second measurement and started claiming in his articles that this was the actual size of the wound. Not surprisingly, he asserted that the size of Connally's wound demonstrated the bullet was traveling sideways and not merely at an angle to Connally's back, as testified to by Shaw. As demonstrated by Cranor, Lattimer let out a big smelly lie in the process.

This, of course, would have been the word of but one sloppy researcher/zealot had Baden and others not fallen under Lattimer's smell/spell. Not only did Dr. Baden oversell the significance of this ovoid shape to the HSCA, he produced a smelly lie of his own in his 1989 book Unnatural Death. While an HSCA report written by Baden records the length of Connally's back scar as 1 1/8 inches (or 2.9 cm), Baden told Unnatural Death's readers the back wound scar was 2 inches long (or 5 cm).

The impact of Lattimer's and Baden's fibs upon the single-assassin theory has been palpable. In 1992, in the mock trial of Oswald put on by the American Bar Association and televised on Court TV, Dr. Martin Fackler, testifying for the prosecution, repeated the 3 cm lie, and made matters worse by incorrectly testifying, when it was pointed out to him that Dr. Shaw had told the HSCA that the wound was really 1.5 cm, that Dr. Shaw had only changed his recollection "later on." (Dr. Shaw had, in fact, insisted since first asked that the bullet hole was 1.5 cm long, and that the 3 cm measurement on his report reflected not the size of the bullet hole, but the size of the wound after skin had been removed.) Since then, "researchers" (more like single-bullet theory aficionados or Lattimerites) such as Gus Russo and Dale Myers have also misrepresented the back wound as 3 cm or more in their work. Myers, on his website, actually links to an HSCA report to support that the wound was 3 cm, failing to tell his readers that just below the statement by Shaw in this report is another statement, in which Shaw clarifies his earlier statements, and insists the 3 cm measurement was the measurement of the wound after he'd cut away some of Connally's skin.

Not only do these theorists misrepresent the size of Connally's back wound to sell their theory, they miss that the hole on Connally's jacket and shirt were, according to the HSCA, 1.7 x 1.2 cm and 1.3 x .8 cm, respectively, an impossibility if the wound was truly 3 cm wide, as they propose.

While acknowledging this 1.7 cm tear, HSCA ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan, in his 2005 book The JFK Myths, argues that a 1.5-1.7 cm entrance is still ovoid and is therefore still an indication that the bullet struck something--such as a President--before striking Connally. He, as Baden before him, fails to acknowledge that the HSCA determined the defect in Kennedy's jacket was even more ovoid (1 by 1.5 cm) than Connally's jacket (1.7 x 1.2 cm) and that the defect in Kennedy's shirt was also an ovoid .8 x 1.2 cm (to Connally's 1.3 x .8 cm). He also overlooks that the entrance on Kennedy's back was originally measured at an ovoid .7 x .4 cm and that the entrance on the back of Kennedy’s head was measured at an absolutely ovoid 1.5 x .6 cm. While the ovoid nature of these entrances could indicate that the bullets were tumbling, they more probably indicate that the bullets entered at an angle, exactly as proposed by Dr. Shaw way back in 1964.

Still, there's another possibility. Papers by Ronchi and Ugolini (Zacchia, 1980) and Menzies et al (Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1981) found that a bullet wound of abnormal length or width can be taken as an indication that the weapon firing the projectile was equipped with a silencer. This assertion has been repeated, furthermore, in books such as 1997's Ballistic Trauma, by South African forensic pathologists Jeanine Vellema and Hendrik Johannes Scholtz.

Just a little something to think about.

As is this... When the Discovery Channel attempted to replicate Kennedy's and Connally's wounds for their 2004 program Beyond the Magic Bullet, the wound on the Connally torso's back created by the tumbling bullet in the program was not ovoid at all, but "keyhole" shaped, and measured 50 x 45 mm.

Ovoid? Oy Vey!

Pat,

Good stuff. I just forwarded that to a lone nut friend of mine who often cites the elongated wound as evidence in support of the SBT.

Cheers!

Martin

Martin,

Quite the opposite actually. That wound is basically the undoing of the SBT.

[Mike Williams]

Martin,

Quite the opposite actually. That wound is basically the undoing of the SBT.

Mike,

What you posted earlier, about how the bullet must have been nose-first coming out of JFK's neck, got me thinking along the exact same lines.

It's been very informative and enjoyable discussing these issues with you.

Cheers!

Martin

Martin,

Same here my friend. I have to be honest with ya. I'd be looking more in the direction of why they could not probe that wound more than 2"!

The pleasure is all mine Martin!

Mike

[Mike Williams]

Martin,

Same here my friend. I have to be honest with ya. I'd be looking more in the direction of why they could not probe that wound more than 2"!

The pleasure is all mine Martin!

Mike

Mike,

What do you think of what autopsy assistant Paul O'Connor told William Law?:

"And another thing, we found out, while the autopsy was proceeding, that he was shot from a high building, which meant the bullet had to be travelling in a downward trajectory and we also realized that this bullet - that hit him in the back - is what we call in the military a 'short shot,' which means that the powder in the bullet was defective so it didn't have the power to push the projectile - the bullet - clear through the body. If it had been a full shot at the angle he was shot, it would have come out through his heart and through his sternum." (In The Eye Of History, p41)

How likely is a "short shot" to occur?

Martin

Martin,

Well I would have to say that it is not a highly likely occurrence. I believe I read some tests where they tried this and had very few (if any) short rounds. This is not to say it could not have happened. If that Ammo were European it would be far more likely.

This is not to say that it is impossible. Several factors could cause this. Such as a rifle being buried and susceptible to moisture.

The interesting issue here is the statement that it would have come out his heart or sternum. This is really conjecture. If we made two shots, one a short round and one a full velocity round,they would have different trajectories. The effects of passing through the flesh would be more severe on a short round than a full velocity round. The trajectory through would be different, simply because of the rapid loss of inertia caused by the initial lack of velocity.

I am not convinced that Mr. O'Connor would be wrong in any event. Chiefly because I have no evidence of what they used to determine this.

If they used the size of the wound, they could be correct if they in fact calculated the impact angle correctly. If they used the angle found by probing the wound they could be incorrect because as stated the wound path would be effected by loss of velocity, inertia etc.

The affect of the short round passing through would effect the trajectory path. So it would be hard to determine.

Interesting even more is him stating as fact not only did the round not pass through, but even that THEY SPECULATED AS TO WHY! To me that is epic.

Last I heard I thought he was still in Florida....hmmmmm

Mike

Edited March 28, 2010 by Mike Williams

[Mike Williams]

I guess not Paul Died in 2006

[Mike Williams]

Martin,

Well I would have to say that it is not a highly likely occurrence. I believe I read some tests where they tried this and had very few (if any) short rounds. This is not to say it could not have happened. If that Ammo were European it would be far more likely.

This is not to say that it is impossible. Several factors could cause this. Such as a rifle being buried and susceptible to moisture.

The interesting issue here is the statement that it would have come out his heart or sternum. This is really conjecture. If we made two shots, one a short round and one a full velocity round,they would have different trajectories. The effects of passing through the flesh would be more severe on a short round than a full velocity round. The trajectory through would be different, simply because of the rapid loss of inertia caused by the initial lack of velocity.

I am not convinced that Mr. O'Connor would be wrong in any event. Chiefly because I have no evidence of what they used to determine this.

If they used the size of the wound, they could be correct if they in fact calculated the impact angle correctly. If they used the angle found by probing the wound they could be incorrect because as stated the wound path would be effected by loss of velocity, inertia etc.

The affect of the short round passing through would effect the trajectory path. So it would be hard to determine.

Interesting even more is him stating as fact not only did the round not pass through, but even that THEY SPECULATED AS TO WHY! To me that is epic.

Last I heard I thought he was still in Florida....hmmmmm

Mike

Mike,

All indications from witnesses to the autopsy are that Humes and Boswell were certan at the the close of the autopsy that the bullet did not transit. And there's a clue in the record that not only did they speculate why, but at some point they offered an explanation for the throat wound. From the Jan 27, 1964, Warren Commission executive sesssion:

Rankin: Then there is a great range of material in regard to the wounds, and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck...We have an explanation THERE IN THE AUTOPSY that probably A FRAGMENT CAME OUT THE FRONT OF THE NECK, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, the angle, it seems quite apparent now, SINCE WE HAVE THE PICTURE of where the bullet entered in the back, that THE BULLET ENTERED BELOW THE SHOULDER BLADE, to the right of the backbone, which is BELOW THE PLACE WHERE THE PICTURE SHOWS THE BULLET CAME OUT IN THE NECKBAND OF THE SHIRT IN FRONT. [Emphasis mine]

The idea that a fragment of bullet or bone from the head shot exited the throat appears to be partially supported by FBI agent Frazier's testimony regarding the hole in the shirt:

"The hole in the front of the shirt does not have the round characteristic shape caused by a round bullet entering cloth. It is an irregular slit. It could have been caused by a round bullet, however, since the cloth could have torn in a long slitlike way as the bullet passed through it. But that is not specifically characteristic of a bullethole to the extent that you could say it was to the exclusion of being a piece of bone or some other type of projectile" (5H61)

Martin

Martin you are exactly correct. I have always held, and still do that this was the exit of a fragment.

Mike

[Martin Hinrichs]

Hi Pat, is that a centimeter ruler?

Thank you forward

Martin

Ok, i try to help myself.

I tweaked the contrast/curves/exposure of the ruler to make the marks visible.

To me it looks like a centimeter ruler although i'am not familiar with inches ruler.

Given that, the size of shape #1 would be 11x9mm and shape #2 would be ~4x6mm.

Mhhh

Edited March 29, 2010 by Martin Hinrichs

[John Dolva]

Yes. It is a cm ruler of a particular kind id'd by the mark on the other end. It's more of a precicion instrument.

[Mike Williams]

Hi Pat, is that a centimeter ruler?

Thank you forward

Martin

Ok, i try to help myself.

I tweaked the contrast/curves/exposure of the ruler to make the marks visible.

To me it looks like a centimeter ruler although i'am not familiar with inches ruler.

Given that, the size of shape #1 would be 11x9mm and shape #2 would be ~4x6mm.

Mhhh

Martin,

I had planned on doing something similar. Thank you, this is interesting indeed. Would you mind if I used these for something I am working on?

Best,

Mike

[Martin Hinrichs]

Martin,

I had planned on doing something similar. Thank you, this is interesting indeed. Would you mind if I used these for something I am working on?

Best,

Mike

No problem Mike. Feel free to use it.

John, thanks for confirming that.

best

Martin