Help with the back wound please

[Mike Williams]

Martin,

I actually saw in instance where a man was shot in the forehead apparently twice with a .22. However there was no exit and there were no rounds in the head. Come to find out the bullet went in, followed the curvature of the inside of the skull and exited the front. There was one round fired and not 2!

My point here is that projectiles can only be examined for wound ballistics based on what other evidence there may have been, simply because of their unpredictability! The answer is yes. It could happen, however with high power rifle rounds, this would be very very unlikely. Its a never say never thing my friend.

I would ask you to consider this in consideration of probability. If the round entered the right side, all that energy would be sent towards the left, even if that projectile turned, this would cause a massive amount of left side damage, even if the projectile did not exit the left side. The sheer pressure alone would be enormous.

To me the xrays clearly show a single round from the rear forward in the coning of lead particles. Some say that this could also represent a front to back shot, I find this unlikely, but mention it in fairness. There has never been anyone to the best of my knowledge who has claimed any type of side to side damage. It is always deemed front to back or back to front.

I just can not fathom a shot from the right side replicating anything we see by way of film, testimony (medical) or xray.

Mike

Mike,

Wow! That appears to be proof of how unpredictable bullets really are!

With regard to the x-rays, I'll just point out that a number of reserachers including Dr Randy Robertson (radiologist), Dr David Mantik (radiation oncologist)and Dr Joseph Riley (expert in neuroanatomy), have said that there are two seperate fragment trails in the head which appears to be evidence of two shots. I'm no medical or ballistics expert (as if that wasn't obvious!) so I won't attempt to argue their points.

Cheers!

Martin

Martin,

I am afraid you and I row the same boat there my friend. I am certainly no medical expert! I would fair far better with physical results than interpreting an xray that is for sure and certain!

I guess I would have to read about that further in order to have an opinion, however based on the spatter and impacts seen on the z film I would have to hold with a single shot from the rear, unless of course something convincing comes along.

Mike

[John Dolva]

Mike, re ''unpredictable behavior''. My understanding is that it was a cutdown long carbine. An excellent rifle (long).

Italian troops when on the defensive found for close quarter the standard issue no match for the western allies weaponry so they complained sufficiently so that the long was cut down thus negating the qualities of the progressive rifling. Post internal ballistics, the bullet (unless spherical), from any rifle, goes through a settling down process while the gyro effect takes over and the bullet stabilises. With an important section of the progressive rifling gone the Italian troops found themselves at a disadvantage yet again. (this is assuming I'm correct in understanding it was such a cutdown MC that's presented as the assassination weapon.)

(Hence my past q's re the expected settling distance, yaw, drift.)

[Mike Williams]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Henry Heiberger of the FBI reported

copper on the jacket.

Mr. V,

I stand corrected it was copper on the jacket. However the same point would stand as copper is not blood soluble.

What is more likely, Mike: 1) that J Edgar Hoover cooked the examination to

conform with the official cover-up, or2) a conventional round hit nothing but

soft tissue in the neck and did not exit?

What conventional round would behave that way, Mike?

Frankly I would think the more likely is a conventional round striking the target and not exiting, although I would NEVER put anything past a cross dresser LOL.

To answer you as to what kind of conventional round would do such a thing...a short round sure would. It would penetrate a short depth and stop. However then we have to address a missing bullet. I believe this was also discussed at autopsy and was abandon once communication came that advised of the anterior neck wound.

Why, have you tested this technology yourself? Is that what people do?

How does a paralytic cause one to flop around? Isn't the goal the opposite,

to paralyze the target?

That's what the CIA conceded in 1975 -- targets paralyzed in two seconds,

exactly what we see in the Zapruder.

No I certainly have not. However it is my understanding that one is paralyzed with this method in that they lose complete use of musculature. The muscles become flaccid and do not respond. This is what I am saying. If the President lost muscular control, then how could he hold himself up? How were the assassins to know he would not just slump forward out of their sight and ability.

As an example people who are in wheel chairs and fully paralyzed have a band around thier head to hold them upright in the chair, as they do not have the ability to hold themselves upright.

Excellent argument for my point of view. That is precisely the motivation

to use blood soluble rounds which cannot be detected on x-ray. There was

overwhelming force, but it did not appear to be so.

Same with the head shot -- triangulation of fire, three simultaneous shots,

three hits, but only the sound of one report.

3 simultaneous shots to the head would have blown the single assassin theory out of the water. In trying to set up a patsy would it ever do to have the target hit by so many rounds? Would you want it to look like a squad of the gestapos finest had opened up on him? Certainly not.

So you say. But since you've never had experience ambushing an

American head of state I dare say your confidence is misplaced.

You speak of the first-shot/kill-shot scenario as guaranteed.

Again, you discount the possibility of nervous shooters merely wounding

the President, allowing him to duck out of the line of further fire.

No professional is going to assume first-shot/kill-shot when the target

is President of the United States.

I assure you my friend a professional shooter would NOT be nervous. Training eliminates this. The target is nothing more than an inanimate object. You do not concentrate on the target as such, but you concentrate on a small area of the target, and this is the spot you are going to place the projectile in. There is and has to be a mental separation. Every professional is going to assume a one shot kill, every time. Professionals simply do not pull the trigger if there is any question. This is ingrained from day one. This is the most difficult part of sniper training, teaching the young guys to be patient and wait until all the pieces of the puzzle align to make the shot. The reason you would use multiple shooters is to guarantee that SOMEONE had a shot. To assure that at least one shooter had a shot, not so that ALL shooters could open up like the OK corral. The professional snipers strength is not in their numbers it is in their discipline and ability.

A far better insurance would be to paralyze the target first, to preclude

the first shot merely wounding the target who could then flop down out

of the line of fire.

No way. The best insurance is one well aimed shot, and having shooters in multiple locations to assure someone had that perfect shot.

And yet you concede the contingency planning requiring insurance.

Certainly. But not insurance by overwhelming fire power, that is not how it works. It is insurance of loaction, that at least one shooter has that one well aimed shot.

I hate to say it, Mike, but you don't seem particularily interested in the

hard facts of the case that don't conform to your conclusion.

I'll ask you again: what kind of conventional round strikes the throat , nicks the

trachea, bruises the tip of the lung, causes a hairline fracture of the right T1

transverse process, and leaves an air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1, with no exit?

Your input is appreciated!

Cliff, it is not that I am uninterested at all. It has nothing to do with what conforms to my conclusions. It has everything to do with what conforms to my training and ability to read operational situations. This shooting smacks of an novice. There is not one single bit of any of this that even remotely indicates a professional elimination. A group of moderately trained individuals possibly, if a second shooting local could be proven.

Mike

[Mike Williams]

Mike, re ''unpredictable behavior''. My understanding is that it was a cutdown long carbine. An excellent rifle (long).

Italian troops when on the defensive found for close quarter the standard issue no match for the western allies weaponry so they complained sufficiently so that the long was cut down thus negating the qualities of the progressive rifling. Post internal ballistics, the bullet (unless spherical), from any rifle, goes through a settling down process while the gyro effect takes over and the bullet stabilises. With an important section of the progressive rifling gone the Italian troops found themselves at a disadvantage yet again. (this is assuming I'm correct in understanding it was such a cutdown MC that's presented as the assassination weapon.)

(Hence my past q's re the expected settling distance, yaw, drift.)

John,

This is something I would have to examine specific to that type of rifle and that type of round. There is nothing that can be done without actually firing that rifle with that ammo. You could and would get a variance even between rifles of the same type and manufacture.

I would only add that given the length of the bullet and its sectional density it would stabilize very very quickly.

I will see what I can find on this from an information stand point, but I believe what we will find is nothing that would change the imapcts at the ranges in question.

Salute!

Mike

[Michael Hogan]

Martin,

I am afraid you and I row the same boat there my friend. I am certainly no medical expert! I would fair far better with physical results than interpreting an xray that is for sure and certain!

I guess I would have to read about that further in order to have an opinion, however based on the spatter and impacts seen on the z film I would have to hold with a single shot from the rear, unless of course something convincing comes along.

Mike

Martin and Mike,

You guys have had an interesting exhange on this thread. I think both of you would enjoy reading Doug Horne's Inside the ARRB.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Michael Hogan

[Cliff Varnell]

My comments in burgandy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Henry Heiberger of the FBI reported

copper on the jacket.

Mr. V,

I stand corrected it was copper on the jacket. However the same point would stand as copper is not blood soluble.

What is more likely, Mike: 1) that J Edgar Hoover cooked the examination to

conform with the official cover-up, or2) a conventional round hit nothing but

soft tissue in the neck and did not exit?

What conventional round would behave that way, Mike?

Frankly I would think the more likely is a conventional round striking the target and not exiting, although I would NEVER put anything past a cross dresser LOL.

To answer you as to what kind of conventional round would do such a thing...a short round sure would. It would penetrate a short depth and stop. However then we have to address a missing bullet.

How do you account for a subcutaneous air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1

if the round only went in a short depth?

Why didn't the round show up on x-ray?

I believe this was also discussed at autopsy and was abandon once communication came that advised of the anterior neck wound.

What was discussed at the autopsy was the fact that there were no exit wounds

and no bullets found. The prosectors asked the FBI men if such blood soluble

rounds ("ice bullets") existed. FBI SA James Sibert called the FBI Lab in order

to investigate the lead given to him by Humes & Co.

This event rightly deserves the title -- The First Investigation.

The First Investigation lasted only so long as it took FBI SA Chuck Killion

to inform Sibert that the Magic Bullet had been found in Dallas and was

on the way to DC.

At that point the JFK cover-up kicked into high gear.

Why, have you tested this technology yourself? Is that what people do?

How does a paralytic cause one to flop around? Isn't the goal the opposite,

to paralyze the target?

That's what the CIA conceded in 1975 -- targets paralyzed in two seconds,

exactly what we see in the Zapruder.

No I certainly have not. However it is my understanding that one is paralyzed with this method in that they lose complete use of musculature.

And your understanding is based on what, exactly?

Unless you have access to all the paralytics tested by the Central Intelligence

Agency in the early 60's you have no basis for an opinion one way or the other

as to how a subject is paralyzed.

The muscles become flaccid and do not respond. This is what I am saying. If the President lost muscular control, then how could he hold himself up? How were the assassins to know he would not just slump forward out of their sight and ability.

His back brace.

As an example people who are in wheel chairs and fully paralyzed have a band around thier head to hold them upright in the chair, as they do not have the ability to hold themselves upright.

Excellent argument for my point of view. That is precisely the motivation

to use blood soluble rounds which cannot be detected on x-ray. There was

overwhelming force, but it did not appear to be so.

Same with the head shot -- triangulation of fire, three simultaneous shots,

three hits, but only the sound of one report.

3 simultaneous shots to the head would have blown the single assassin theory out of the water.

1) Not when you're controlling the autopsy. All of Kennedy's wounds

blow the single assassin theory out of the water, and yet here you are

taking the single assassin theory as a matter of faith.

2) You are assuming that the killers wanted to set up a lone nut. This

is a root fallacy. I and others argue that the killers intended to

make the murder look like a conspiracy -- a Castro conspiracy.

In trying to set up a patsy would it ever do to have the target hit by so many rounds? Would you want it to look like a squad of the gestapos finest had opened up on him? Certainly not.

If the squad could be tied to Fidel Castro?

Most certainly!

So you say. But since you've never had experience ambushing an

American head of state I dare say your confidence is misplaced.

You speak of the first-shot/kill-shot scenario as guaranteed.

Again, you discount the possibility of nervous shooters merely wounding

the President, allowing him to duck out of the line of further fire.

No professional is going to assume first-shot/kill-shot when the target

is President of the United States.

I assure you my friend a professional shooter would NOT be nervous. Training eliminates this.

Since when have you or anyone else trained to shoot an American President?

.

The target is nothing more than an inanimate object. You do not concentrate on the target as such, but you concentrate on a small area of the target, and this is the spot you are going to place the projectile in. There is and has to be a mental separation. Every professional is going to assume a one shot kill, every time. Professionals simply do not pull the trigger if there is any question. This is ingrained from day one. This is the most difficult part of sniper training, teaching the young guys to be patient and wait until all the pieces of the puzzle align to make the shot. The reason you would use multiple shooters is to guarantee that SOMEONE had a shot. To assure that at least one shooter had a shot, not so that ALL shooters could open up like the OK corral. The professional snipers strength is not in their numbers it is in their discipline and ability.

I appreciate your agreement that professionals would seek "insurance" and a "guarantee"

and obviously that's what occurred in Dealey Plaza.

A far better insurance would be to paralyze the target first, to preclude

the first shot merely wounding the target who could then flop down out

of the line of fire.

No way. The best insurance is one well aimed shot, and having shooters in multiple locations to assure someone had that perfect shot.

And if John F. Kennedy leans over to chat with Nellie Connally as this "perfect shot"

is squeezed off the shot misses, Kennedy ducks down, and the Williams gang

goes to the gallows.

I don't buy it.

And yet you concede the contingency planning requiring insurance.

Certainly. But not insurance by overwhelming fire power, that is not how it works. It is insurance of loaction, that at least one shooter has that one well aimed shot.

I hate to say it, Mike, but you don't seem particularily interested in the

hard facts of the case that don't conform to your conclusion.

I'll ask you again: what kind of conventional round strikes the throat , nicks the

trachea, bruises the tip of the lung, causes a hairline fracture of the right T1

transverse process, and leaves an air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1, with no exit?

Your input is appreciated!

Cliff, it is not that I am uninterested at all. It has nothing to do with what conforms to my conclusions. It has everything to do with what conforms to my training and ability to read operational situations. This shooting smacks of an novice. There is not one single bit of any of this that even remotely indicates a professional elimination. A group of moderately trained individuals possibly, if a second shooting local could be proven.

But you can't come close to squaring your conclusions with the hard facts of the

John F. Kennedy assassination. Your short shot scenario does not satisfy the physical

facts of the case. JFK was struck in the throat by a round that did not exit and was

not in the body.

Until you deal with this fact, your training is betrayed by a conclusion formed

prior to thorough investigation.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Michael Hogan]

Michael,

Funnily enough, I just finished reading Horne's book(s)! There's a wealth of indespensible material in there and if it had an index it would be a brilliant refence work for the intricacies of the medical evidence. I don't buy his overall theory. I think he tries too hard to account for every eyewitness story - sometimes people are wrong or just lying. And he relies a little too heavily on some very old memories. I'm trying to keep an open mind about it though. I also don't believe that the Zapruder film was altered but Horne did make me question that more than any other alterationist work I've read.

Cheers!

Martin

Martin, you're absolutely right, there's a wealth of indispensable material in there.

On one important level, it does serve as a reference work.

For sure, one doesn't have to buy his overall theory in order for the work to have value.

I do give some weight to many of his opinions about the workings of the ARRB. He was there.

It doesn't surprise me that you have read it, judging by some of the material and thoughts you have posted here.

[John Dolva]

Salute'

[Mike Williams]

My comments in Green

My comments in burgandy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Henry Heiberger of the FBI reported

copper on the jacket.

Mr. V,

I stand corrected it was copper on the jacket. However the same point would stand as copper is not blood soluble.

What is more likely, Mike: 1) that J Edgar Hoover cooked the examination to

conform with the official cover-up, or2) a conventional round hit nothing but

soft tissue in the neck and did not exit?

What conventional round would behave that way, Mike?

Frankly I would think the more likely is a conventional round striking the target and not exiting, although I would NEVER put anything past a cross dresser LOL.

To answer you as to what kind of conventional round would do such a thing...a short round sure would. It would penetrate a short depth and stop. However then we have to address a missing bullet.

How do you account for a subcutaneous air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1

if the round only went in a short depth?

Why didn't the round show up on x-ray?

Obviously because the round had fallen out, or otherwise removed and not accounted for. A secondary wound channel leaves an air pocket/void.

I believe this was also discussed at autopsy and was abandon once communication came that advised of the anterior neck wound.

What was discussed at the autopsy was the fact that there were no exit wounds

and no bullets found. The prosectors asked the FBI men if such blood soluble

rounds ("ice bullets") existed. FBI SA James Sibert called the FBI Lab in order

to investigate the lead given to him by Humes & Co.

This event rightly deserves the title -- The First Investigation.

The First Investigation lasted only so long as it took FBI SA Chuck Killion

to inform Sibert that the Magic Bullet had been found in Dallas and was

on the way to DC.

At that point the JFK cover-up kicked into high gear.

So one would have to ask is this the ONLY concept that was discussed at the autopsy? I think not.

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)

Why, have you tested this technology yourself? Is that what people do?

How does a paralytic cause one to flop around? Isn't the goal the opposite,

to paralyze the target?

That's what the CIA conceded in 1975 -- targets paralyzed in two seconds,

exactly what we see in the Zapruder.

No I certainly have not. However it is my understanding that one is paralyzed with this method in that they lose complete use of musculature.

And your understanding is based on what, exactly?

Unless you have access to all the paralytics tested by the Central Intelligence

Agency in the early 60's you have no basis for an opinion one way or the other

as to how a subject is paralyzed.

So then the matter of common sense kicks in. How would one raise their arms if they were under the influence of a paralytic? How do you reconcile the fact that this alleged paralytic renders one immediately immobile and yet we clearly see JFK respond with physical movement.

How many paralyzed people have you seen that are stark rigid rather than limp as having useless limbs?

The muscles become flaccid and do not respond. This is what I am saying. If the President lost muscular control, then how could he hold himself up? How were the assassins to know he would not just slump forward out of their sight and ability.

His back brace.

As an example people who are in wheel chairs and fully paralyzed have a band around thier head to hold them upright in the chair, as they do not have the ability to hold themselves upright.

Excellent argument for my point of view. That is precisely the motivation

to use blood soluble rounds which cannot be detected on x-ray. There was

overwhelming force, but it did not appear to be so.

Same with the head shot -- triangulation of fire, three simultaneous shots,

three hits, but only the sound of one report.

3 simultaneous shots to the head would have blown the single assassin theory out of the water.

1) Not when you're controlling the autopsy. All of Kennedy's wounds

blow the single assassin theory out of the water, and yet here you are

taking the single assassin theory as a matter of faith.

2) You are assuming that the killers wanted to set up a lone nut. This

is a root fallacy. I and others argue that the killers intended to

make the murder look like a conspiracy -- a Castro conspiracy.

There is nothing in the wounds that indicate anything more than a single shooter. For the sake of pete the mere shape of the wounds point the rounds at the SN. Do a bit of reading on impact angles in relation to ballistic trajectory and you can do the math for yourself.

In trying to set up a patsy would it ever do to have the target hit by so many rounds? Would you want it to look like a squad of the gestapos finest had opened up on him? Certainly not.

If the squad could be tied to Fidel Castro?

Most certainly!

So you say. But since you've never had experience ambushing an

American head of state I dare say your confidence is misplaced.

You speak of the first-shot/kill-shot scenario as guaranteed.

Again, you discount the possibility of nervous shooters merely wounding

the President, allowing him to duck out of the line of further fire.

No professional is going to assume first-shot/kill-shot when the target

is President of the United States.

I assure you my friend a professional shooter would NOT be nervous. Training eliminates this.

Since when have you or anyone else trained to shoot an American President?

.

I and many other like me, train to not even recognize the target as human. It is an inanimate object. It would not matter if it were a President a Hobo or Jesus himself. There is no emotional attachment to a human. This is not at all to say that there are not emotions to deal with after the fact. There certainly are, believe me. However this is not a factor at the time of engaging the target.

The target is nothing more than an inanimate object. You do not concentrate on the target as such, but you concentrate on a small area of the target, and this is the spot you are going to place the projectile in. There is and has to be a mental separation. Every professional is going to assume a one shot kill, every time. Professionals simply do not pull the trigger if there is any question. This is ingrained from day one. This is the most difficult part of sniper training, teaching the young guys to be patient and wait until all the pieces of the puzzle align to make the shot. The reason you would use multiple shooters is to guarantee that SOMEONE had a shot. To assure that at least one shooter had a shot, not so that ALL shooters could open up like the OK corral. The professional snipers strength is not in their numbers it is in their discipline and ability.

I appreciate your agreement that professionals would seek "insurance" and a "guarantee"

and obviously that's what occurred in Dealey Plaza.

Your kidding me right? What occurred in Dealey Plaza was a murder committed by someone with adequate shooting ability and one hell of a lot of luck. If this were as some have claimed a "professional hit" then they must be the most inadequate "professionals" I have ever encountered. 3 shots to kill one man less than 100 yards away is absurd for any professional. Then when the multiple shooter teams theory comes into play involving 5-6-7 or more shots, it then becomes plainly ridiculous.

A far better insurance would be to paralyze the target first, to preclude

the first shot merely wounding the target who could then flop down out

of the line of fire.

No way. The best insurance is one well aimed shot, and having shooters in multiple locations to assure someone had that perfect shot.

And if John F. Kennedy leans over to chat with Nellie Connally as this "perfect shot"

is squeezed off the shot misses, Kennedy ducks down, and the Williams gang

goes to the gallows.

I don't buy it.

The fact that you dont buy it just lends exposure to your lack of understanding of the principles of expert marksmanship.

And yet you concede the contingency planning requiring insurance.

Certainly. But not insurance by overwhelming fire power, that is not how it works. It is insurance of loaction, that at least one shooter has that one well aimed shot.

I hate to say it, Mike, but you don't seem particularily interested in the

hard facts of the case that don't conform to your conclusion.

I'll ask you again: what kind of conventional round strikes the throat , nicks the

trachea, bruises the tip of the lung, causes a hairline fracture of the right T1

transverse process, and leaves an air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1, with no exit?

Your input is appreciated!

Cliff, it is not that I am uninterested at all. It has nothing to do with what conforms to my conclusions. It has everything to do with what conforms to my training and ability to read operational situations. This shooting smacks of an novice. There is not one single bit of any of this that even remotely indicates a professional elimination. A group of moderately trained individuals possibly, if a second shooting local could be proven.

But you can't come close to squaring your conclusions with the hard facts of the

John F. Kennedy assassination. Your short shot scenario does not satisfy the physical

facts of the case. JFK was struck in the throat by a round that did not exit and was

not in the body.

Until you deal with this fact, your training is betrayed by a conclusion formed

prior to thorough investigation.

Au contraire. My training is what tells me that a professional would never plot such a ridiculously complex engagement. If your theory is correct, do you have any idea how many things could have gone awry? The simplest plan is the most likely to succeed.

Hope your doing well!

Mike

[Pamela Brown]

Hey Mike,

Do you believe all the shots were fired by a single assassin?

Martin

Martin,

Absolutely unequivocally YES.

Those shots and their trajectory lead to a point of origin within a 20" circle of the 6th floor window in the TSBD.

Mike,

As a point of logic, you are speaking of "shots" as though that terminology [as you infer it to mean] is relevant to this discussion! In other words, it is a circular argument. Your conclusion includes "facts not in evidence" outside of the original inquiry, yet incorporates them within your conclusion as though they were arrived at independently from the original debate.

Are you relying on medical/wound forensics at all? Are you considering eyewitness and earwitness testimony at all? It appears that you are not including data in your analysis that in any way might challenge your pre-determined conclusions.

Mr Burnham,

Witness testimony to me will ALWAYS take a back seat to hard fact. The shape and size of the wounds coupled with the angle of said wounds through the victims clearly allows for a reverse trajectory to be plotted. This reverse trajectory initially was used to eliminate shooting positions. Such as. If the impact angle and the angle of entry were to represent 45* then we know the shooter has to be the same height above the target as the distance horizontally between the target and the shooter. This eliminates shooting positions.

However in this instance the trajectory data is quite conclusive.

But then again it has been said I am not very scientific

Best to you SIR,

Mike

Nonetheless, are you not making statements of opinion and claiming them as fact? Why not post whatever diagrams or exhibits you are working from so that everyone can weigh and evaluate your thinking?

[Mike Williams]

Hey Mike,

Do you believe all the shots were fired by a single assassin?

Martin

Martin,

Absolutely unequivocally YES.

Those shots and their trajectory lead to a point of origin within a 20" circle of the 6th floor window in the TSBD.

Mike,

As a point of logic, you are speaking of "shots" as though that terminology [as you infer it to mean] is relevant to this discussion! In other words, it is a circular argument. Your conclusion includes "facts not in evidence" outside of the original inquiry, yet incorporates them within your conclusion as though they were arrived at independently from the original debate.

Are you relying on medical/wound forensics at all? Are you considering eyewitness and earwitness testimony at all? It appears that you are not including data in your analysis that in any way might challenge your pre-determined conclusions.

Mr Burnham,

Witness testimony to me will ALWAYS take a back seat to hard fact. The shape and size of the wounds coupled with the angle of said wounds through the victims clearly allows for a reverse trajectory to be plotted. This reverse trajectory initially was used to eliminate shooting positions. Such as. If the impact angle and the angle of entry were to represent 45* then we know the shooter has to be the same height above the target as the distance horizontally between the target and the shooter. This eliminates shooting positions.

However in this instance the trajectory data is quite conclusive.

But then again it has been said I am not very scientific

Best to you SIR,

Mike

Nonetheless, are you not making statements of opinion and claiming them as fact? Why not post whatever diagrams or exhibits you are working from so that everyone can weigh and evaluate your thinking?

Why not look up the method used to complete a reverse trajectory, and do the calculations? Youll need the information to "evaluate" anything I post anyhow.

Mike

[Pat Speer]

Martin,

I am afraid you and I row the same boat there my friend. I am certainly no medical expert! I would fair far better with physical results than interpreting an xray that is for sure and certain!

I guess I would have to read about that further in order to have an opinion, however based on the spatter and impacts seen on the z film I would have to hold with a single shot from the rear, unless of course something convincing comes along.

Mike

Mike, do you see backspatter from the back of JFK's head in frame 313?

[Mike Williams]

Martin,

I am afraid you and I row the same boat there my friend. I am certainly no medical expert! I would fair far better with physical results than interpreting an xray that is for sure and certain!

I guess I would have to read about that further in order to have an opinion, however based on the spatter and impacts seen on the z film I would have to hold with a single shot from the rear, unless of course something convincing comes along.

Mike

Mike, do you see backspatter from the back of JFK's head in frame 313?

No Sir,

And for good reason. While the drops are much bigger, the "cloud" they create is far dense. I do however see the very fine mist creating a dense cloud that is textbook forward spatter.

Mike

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Mike, re ''unpredictable behavior''. My understanding is that it was a cutdown long carbine. An excellent rifle (long).

Italian troops when on the defensive found for close quarter the standard issue no match for the western allies weaponry so they complained sufficiently so that the long was cut down thus negating the qualities of the progressive rifling. Post internal ballistics, the bullet (unless spherical), from any rifle, goes through a settling down process while the gyro effect takes over and the bullet stabilises. With an important section of the progressive rifling gone the Italian troops found themselves at a disadvantage yet again. (this is assuming I'm correct in understanding it was such a cutdown MC that's presented as the assassination weapon.)

(Hence my past q's re the expected settling distance, yaw, drift.)

John,

This is something I would have to examine specific to that type of rifle and that type of round. There is nothing that can be done without actually firing that rifle with that ammo. You could and would get a variance even between rifles of the same type and manufacture.

I would only add that given the length of the bullet and its sectional density it would stabilize very very quickly.

I will see what I can find on this from an information stand point, but I believe what we will find is nothing that would change the imapcts at the ranges in question.

Salute!

Mike

The assassination weapon WAS NOT a "cutdown" weapon!

It was a standard length, Model 91/38 Short Rifle.

The "Model 38" Short Rifle was introduced in 1938 in the new 7.35mm cartridge size which the Italian Government had intentions of converting to.

With entry into WWII, the decision was made to not completely change over to the 7.35mm cartridge size as it constituted a massive undertaking of weapons manufacture as well as loss of the warstocks of the 6.5mm cartridge as well as current inventory of 6.5mm weapons.

Therefore, by 1940, all production of 7.35mm weapons had ceased and the Short Rifle was thereafter produced in the 6.5mm version. ERGO: Model 91/38, with the prefix "91" standing for the year in which the 6.5mm Carcano (1891) was first accepted as the weapon of the Italian Military.

Throughout the war as well as later history of these weapons, numerous Model 38 7.35mm Carcano Short Rifles have been converted to the standard 6.5mm version weapon, which merely constitutes having a barrell change.

The "cut-down's" were old antiquated Model 91 Long Rifles (Rifles) which were cut down and made into 36-inch length Carbines which were referred to as the Model 91/24, as this was the year in which this work began.

Due to the "progressive gain" twist in the long rifles, the removal of some 8+ inches of the forward section of the barrel created a weapon in which accuarate shooting was virtually impossible.

With all that stated, the Model 91/38 Short Rifle (6.5mm version), and specifically the assassination weapon recovered, "bench tested" to an accuracy which compared with the US issue M-14 rifle.

Which, happens to be the basis today of many of our standard issue Sniper rifles.

As with other things John, this too was posted and explained long, long ago.

[John Dolva]

Thank you.