Jump to content
The Education Forum

NEW;;''the throat wound ''


Recommended Posts

Ok, fair enough.

What (wound or event) do you then suggest he is reacting to?

Please elaborate. Thanks.

Antti,

With all due respect I have to disagree. If he were reacting to a wound to the throat, he would be grabbing his throat. We never see this. His hands never go below his chin.

Mike

Antti,

Please forgive the long way around the barn here, but it is needed so please bear with me.

I have once again been looking very strongly at the SBT, and have been commenting on it. However it is not a position I am ready to fully accept yet.

Having said that, and maintaining my original position of the shooting event, I believe JFK is reacting to a very sharp blow to the back, a non-penetrating wound. A wound that went in no more than 2". What I see is a man who has taken a heck of a blow and has had the wind knocked from him. He does seem to be having some issue with breath.

Something to consider here is that the MC bullet when penetrating to a depth of 2" exerts 60 ft lbs of energy to make that penetration, this would be caused by A) the bullet striking something else first, of B ) A short round, one that lacks for what ever reason, the power of a full round.

Tom Purvis, whom I admire greatly believes the round hit something else first, I am not so sure. I think it is possible it is a short load. Tom however makes an excellent point that the bullet base of 399 does seem to fit the wound dimensions well. I chew on this often.

Think of how many witnesses say the first round sounded different. A short round would sound different.

This is the position I have held for quite some time. However, some of the work I have been doing in relation to the SBT brings some SOLID questions and have to be accounted for.

One of them being how in hades do we reconcile the fact that JFK is hit with a 55* impact angle and JBC a 57* impact angle. I do NOT buy the idea of a tumbling bullet, had that been the case then they would have easily probed JFK's wound. A tumbling bullet leaves a horrific wound path.

I also do not buy that the neck wound was one of entry. There is NO exit for it and the wound would have been horrific. We see no such thing.

Mike

Mike,

You are discussing some very interesting possibilities here. A question, when you you state "this is a problem" or something along those lines, are you referring to a problem as far as a specific bullet or as a problem as part of the SBT, if you see what mean? They all need to fit the entirety of the event, is this what you are targeting here?

Glenn

Glenn,

Please forgive my inability here. I do not understand what you are asking me. I reread my post and am not finding the reference to "this is a problem". Im not sure what you mean. I am sorry for that, but if you can help me understand a bit better I can try and answer you.

Again sorry buddy.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ok, fair enough.

What (wound or event) do you then suggest he is reacting to?

Please elaborate. Thanks.

Antti,

With all due respect I have to disagree. If he were reacting to a wound to the throat, he would be grabbing his throat. We never see this. His hands never go below his chin.

Mike

Antti,

Please forgive the long way around the barn here, but it is needed so please bear with me.

I have once again been looking very strongly at the SBT, and have been commenting on it. However it is not a position I am ready to fully accept yet.

Having said that, and maintaining my original position of the shooting event, I believe JFK is reacting to a very sharp blow to the back, a non-penetrating wound. A wound that went in no more than 2". What I see is a man who has taken a heck of a blow and has had the wind knocked from him. He does seem to be having some issue with breath.

Something to consider here is that the MC bullet when penetrating to a depth of 2" exerts 60 ft lbs of energy to make that penetration, this would be caused by A) the bullet striking something else first, of B ) A short round, one that lacks for what ever reason, the power of a full round.

Tom Purvis, whom I admire greatly believes the round hit something else first, I am not so sure. I think it is possible it is a short load. Tom however makes an excellent point that the bullet base of 399 does seem to fit the wound dimensions well. I chew on this often.

Think of how many witnesses say the first round sounded different. A short round would sound different.

This is the position I have held for quite some time. However, some of the work I have been doing in relation to the SBT brings some SOLID questions and have to be accounted for.

One of them being how in hades do we reconcile the fact that JFK is hit with a 55* impact angle and JBC a 57* impact angle. I do NOT buy the idea of a tumbling bullet, had that been the case then they would have easily probed JFK's wound. A tumbling bullet leaves a horrific wound path.

I also do not buy that the neck wound was one of entry. There is NO exit for it and the wound would have been horrific. We see no such thing.

Mike

Mike,

You are discussing some very interesting possibilities here. A question, when you you state "this is a problem" or something along those lines, are you referring to a problem as far as a specific bullet or as a problem as part of the SBT, if you see what mean? They all need to fit the entirety of the event, is this what you are targeting here?

Glenn

Glenn,

Please forgive my inability here. I do not understand what you are asking me. I reread my post and am not finding the reference to "this is a problem". Im not sure what you mean. I am sorry for that, but if you can help me understand a bit better I can try and answer you.

Again sorry buddy.

Mike

No, you'll have to excuse my inability to formulate the question. Let's see if I can make myself clearer.

If JFKs back wound is difficult to explain - as I interpret your posting above, my question is: do you mean a problem all by itself - or a problem in the sense that it leaves less reasonable explanations as far as the rest of the shots fired? We know that we have a certain number of wounds to cover, we know that we have Tague, we know about the chrome damage etc. So once one has found what one might consider a "proper" explanation for one of the bullets, we also know that this in turn, will have bearings on what the other bullets must have caused. There is, in other words, a "chain reaction" of logics that needs to be answered...

Get my drift? I'm not sure that was much better...darn, I wish I could do this in Swedish...:-)

Glenn

Edited by Glenn Viklund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, fair enough.

What (wound or event) do you then suggest he is reacting to?

Please elaborate. Thanks.

Antti,

With all due respect I have to disagree. If he were reacting to a wound to the throat, he would be grabbing his throat. We never see this. His hands never go below his chin.

Mike

Antti,

Please forgive the long way around the barn here, but it is needed so please bear with me.

I have once again been looking very strongly at the SBT, and have been commenting on it. However it is not a position I am ready to fully accept yet.

Having said that, and maintaining my original position of the shooting event, I believe JFK is reacting to a very sharp blow to the back, a non-penetrating wound. A wound that went in no more than 2". What I see is a man who has taken a heck of a blow and has had the wind knocked from him. He does seem to be having some issue with breath.

Something to consider here is that the MC bullet when penetrating to a depth of 2" exerts 60 ft lbs of energy to make that penetration, this would be caused by A) the bullet striking something else first, of B ) A short round, one that lacks for what ever reason, the power of a full round.

Tom Purvis, whom I admire greatly believes the round hit something else first, I am not so sure. I think it is possible it is a short load. Tom however makes an excellent point that the bullet base of 399 does seem to fit the wound dimensions well. I chew on this often.

Think of how many witnesses say the first round sounded different. A short round would sound different.

This is the position I have held for quite some time. However, some of the work I have been doing in relation to the SBT brings some SOLID questions and have to be accounted for.

One of them being how in hades do we reconcile the fact that JFK is hit with a 55* impact angle and JBC a 57* impact angle. I do NOT buy the idea of a tumbling bullet, had that been the case then they would have easily probed JFK's wound. A tumbling bullet leaves a horrific wound path.

I also do not buy that the neck wound was one of entry. There is NO exit for it and the wound would have been horrific. We see no such thing.

Mike

Mike,

You are discussing some very interesting possibilities here. A question, when you you state "this is a problem" or something along those lines, are you referring to a problem as far as a specific bullet or as a problem as part of the SBT, if you see what mean? They all need to fit the entirety of the event, is this what you are targeting here?

Glenn

Glenn,

Please forgive my inability here. I do not understand what you are asking me. I reread my post and am not finding the reference to "this is a problem". Im not sure what you mean. I am sorry for that, but if you can help me understand a bit better I can try and answer you.

Again sorry buddy.

Mike

No, you'll have to excuse my inability to formulate the question. Let's see if I can make myself clearer.

If JFKs back wound is difficult to explain - as I interpret your posting above, my question is: do you mean a problem all by itself - or a problem in the sense that it leaves less reasonable explanations as far as the rest of the shots fired? We know that we have a certain number of wounds to cover, we know that we have Tague, we know about the chrome damage etc. So once one has found what one might consider a "proper" explanation for one of the bullets, we also know that this in turn, will have bearings on what the other bullets must have caused. There is, in other words, a "chain reaction" of logics that needs to be answered...

Get my drift? I'm not sure that was much better...darn, I wish I could do this in Swedish...:-)

Glenn

I follow you !

Ok here is what I think happened and the accountability of all 3 shots.

Shot 1:

Short round hits JFK in the back to a depth of 2".

Shot 2:

JBC and his wounds.

Shot 3:

Hits the head, which diminishes its velocity, and strikes the chrome.

The sends fragments from the shattered bullet to strike the inside of the glass and crack it, as well as sending fragments to the Main St. curb, and Tague.

I know some will have issue with this but I have worked up some estimated velocities.

The crack had lead on the inside, not copper. This could be an indication that it was a fragment of the lead core that had separated from the copper jacket, after it hit the chrome.

Compared to the rear view mirror dimensions the dent in the chrome fits a 6.5mm rather well. I do not think the projectile left JFK and went straight to JT. I believe that bullet passed through JFK and hit that Chrome. (I could calculate the velocity) And shattered and a fragment of that struck JT. I should have made that a bit more specific than just saying "from the head shot" So if that projectile struck the chrome at over 1000 FPS, then I have every confidence it could make the trip. The Distance from 313 to Tague is 282', if the fragment weighed just 5 grains, it would still be at 972 feet per second when reaching JT.

So the bullet leaves the muzzle at 2165fps, reaches JFK @ 1889 FPS/1268ft-lbs, passes through a 12" head losing 30ft-lbs per inch.so it exits JFK @ 1598fps or 900 ft-lbs. So even considering the impact to the chrome cast off is still plenty fast enough to hit JT and give him a nick, or much worse.

I would say that would be sufficient to leave a scratch, and very likely just tells us that JT may have been a pretty lucky man that day.

These are very preliminary numbers but I believe them to be in the ballpark. I also note that the scratch on the curb is lead, not copper, again telling us that what ever struck it was not a direct hit, but from something that had the copper jacket already removed.

Now.

The dog gone SBT.

I have been doing much work with reverse trajectory, and some of those initial numbers indicate that the difference in the impact angle between JFK and JBC is 2* degrees. That would sure seem to indicate one single bullet. But not necessarily. A short round would very likely leave an irregular entry. This could account for that, of course what are the odds that this irregular entry would match so closely to the JBC wound. The SBT needs more work from me to form a conclusive opinion.

For now I still believe 3 shots 3 hits.

I hope this helps a bit to at least clarify my thinking.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, fair enough.

What (wound or event) do you then suggest he is reacting to?

Please elaborate. Thanks.

Antti,

With all due respect I have to disagree. If he were reacting to a wound to the throat, he would be grabbing his throat. We never see this. His hands never go below his chin.

Mike

Antti,

Please forgive the long way around the barn here, but it is needed so please bear with me.

I have once again been looking very strongly at the SBT, and have been commenting on it. However it is not a position I am ready to fully accept yet.

Having said that, and maintaining my original position of the shooting event, I believe JFK is reacting to a very sharp blow to the back, a non-penetrating wound. A wound that went in no more than 2". What I see is a man who has taken a heck of a blow and has had the wind knocked from him. He does seem to be having some issue with breath.

Something to consider here is that the MC bullet when penetrating to a depth of 2" exerts 60 ft lbs of energy to make that penetration, this would be caused by A) the bullet striking something else first, of B ) A short round, one that lacks for what ever reason, the power of a full round.

Tom Purvis, whom I admire greatly believes the round hit something else first, I am not so sure. I think it is possible it is a short load. Tom however makes an excellent point that the bullet base of 399 does seem to fit the wound dimensions well. I chew on this often.

Think of how many witnesses say the first round sounded different. A short round would sound different.

This is the position I have held for quite some time. However, some of the work I have been doing in relation to the SBT brings some SOLID questions and have to be accounted for.

One of them being how in hades do we reconcile the fact that JFK is hit with a 55* impact angle and JBC a 57* impact angle. I do NOT buy the idea of a tumbling bullet, had that been the case then they would have easily probed JFK's wound. A tumbling bullet leaves a horrific wound path.

I also do not buy that the neck wound was one of entry. There is NO exit for it and the wound would have been horrific. We see no such thing.

Mike

Mike,

You are discussing some very interesting possibilities here. A question, when you you state "this is a problem" or something along those lines, are you referring to a problem as far as a specific bullet or as a problem as part of the SBT, if you see what mean? They all need to fit the entirety of the event, is this what you are targeting here?

Glenn

Glenn,

Please forgive my inability here. I do not understand what you are asking me. I reread my post and am not finding the reference to "this is a problem". Im not sure what you mean. I am sorry for that, but if you can help me understand a bit better I can try and answer you.

Again sorry buddy.

Mike

No, you'll have to excuse my inability to formulate the question. Let's see if I can make myself clearer.

If JFKs back wound is difficult to explain - as I interpret your posting above, my question is: do you mean a problem all by itself - or a problem in the sense that it leaves less reasonable explanations as far as the rest of the shots fired? We know that we have a certain number of wounds to cover, we know that we have Tague, we know about the chrome damage etc. So once one has found what one might consider a "proper" explanation for one of the bullets, we also know that this in turn, will have bearings on what the other bullets must have caused. There is, in other words, a "chain reaction" of logics that needs to be answered...

Get my drift? I'm not sure that was much better...darn, I wish I could do this in Swedish...:-)

Glenn

I follow you !

Ok here is what I think happened and the accountability of all 3 shots.

Shot 1:

Short round hits JFK in the back to a depth of 2".

Shot 2:

JBC and his wounds.

Shot 3:

Hits the head, which diminishes its velocity, and strikes the chrome.

The sends fragments from the shattered bullet to strike the inside of the glass and crack it, as well as sending fragments to the Main St. curb, and Tague.

I know some will have issue with this but I have worked up some estimated velocities.

The crack had lead on the inside, not copper. This could be an indication that it was a fragment of the lead core that had separated from the copper jacket, after it hit the chrome.

Compared to the rear view mirror dimensions the dent in the chrome fits a 6.5mm rather well. I do not think the projectile left JFK and went straight to JT. I believe that bullet passed through JFK and hit that Chrome. (I could calculate the velocity) And shattered and a fragment of that struck JT. I should have made that a bit more specific than just saying "from the head shot" So if that projectile struck the chrome at over 1000 FPS, then I have every confidence it could make the trip. The Distance from 313 to Tague is 282', if the fragment weighed just 5 grains, it would still be at 972 feet per second when reaching JT.

So the bullet leaves the muzzle at 2165fps, reaches JFK @ 1889 FPS/1268ft-lbs, passes through a 12" head losing 30ft-lbs per inch.so it exits JFK @ 1598fps or 900 ft-lbs. So even considering the impact to the chrome cast off is still plenty fast enough to hit JT and give him a nick, or much worse.

I would say that would be sufficient to leave a scratch, and very likely just tells us that JT may have been a pretty lucky man that day.

These are very preliminary numbers but I believe them to be in the ballpark. I also note that the scratch on the curb is lead, not copper, again telling us that what ever struck it was not a direct hit, but from something that had the copper jacket already removed.

Now.

The dog gone SBT.

I have been doing much work with reverse trajectory, and some of those initial numbers indicate that the difference in the impact angle between JFK and JBC is 2* degrees. That would sure seem to indicate one single bullet. But not necessarily. A short round would very likely leave an irregular entry. This could account for that, of course what are the odds that this irregular entry would match so closely to the JBC wound. The SBT needs more work from me to form a conclusive opinion.

For now I still believe 3 shots 3 hits.

I hope this helps a bit to at least clarify my thinking.

Mike

Now that is not bad! Lots of stuff to digest in that, no matter what.

'Thanks Mike!

Edited by Glenn Viklund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, fair enough.

What (wound or event) do you then suggest he is reacting to?

Please elaborate. Thanks.

Antti,

With all due respect I have to disagree. If he were reacting to a wound to the throat, he would be grabbing his throat. We never see this. His hands never go below his chin.

Mike

Antti,

Please forgive the long way around the barn here, but it is needed so please bear with me.

I have once again been looking very strongly at the SBT, and have been commenting on it. However it is not a position I am ready to fully accept yet.

Having said that, and maintaining my original position of the shooting event, I believe JFK is reacting to a very sharp blow to the back, a non-penetrating wound. A wound that went in no more than 2". What I see is a man who has taken a heck of a blow and has had the wind knocked from him. He does seem to be having some issue with breath.

Something to consider here is that the MC bullet when penetrating to a depth of 2" exerts 60 ft lbs of energy to make that penetration, this would be caused by A) the bullet striking something else first, of B ) A short round, one that lacks for what ever reason, the power of a full round.

Tom Purvis, whom I admire greatly believes the round hit something else first, I am not so sure. I think it is possible it is a short load. Tom however makes an excellent point that the bullet base of 399 does seem to fit the wound dimensions well. I chew on this often.

Think of how many witnesses say the first round sounded different. A short round would sound different.

This is the position I have held for quite some time. However, some of the work I have been doing in relation to the SBT brings some SOLID questions and have to be accounted for.

One of them being how in hades do we reconcile the fact that JFK is hit with a 55* impact angle and JBC a 57* impact angle. I do NOT buy the idea of a tumbling bullet, had that been the case then they would have easily probed JFK's wound. A tumbling bullet leaves a horrific wound path.

I also do not buy that the neck wound was one of entry. There is NO exit for it and the wound would have been horrific. We see no such thing.

Mike

Mike,

You are discussing some very interesting possibilities here. A question, when you you state "this is a problem" or something along those lines, are you referring to a problem as far as a specific bullet or as a problem as part of the SBT, if you see what mean? They all need to fit the entirety of the event, is this what you are targeting here?

Glenn

Glenn,

Please forgive my inability here. I do not understand what you are asking me. I reread my post and am not finding the reference to "this is a problem". Im not sure what you mean. I am sorry for that, but if you can help me understand a bit better I can try and answer you.

Again sorry buddy.

Mike

No, you'll have to excuse my inability to formulate the question. Let's see if I can make myself clearer.

If JFKs back wound is difficult to explain - as I interpret your posting above, my question is: do you mean a problem all by itself - or a problem in the sense that it leaves less reasonable explanations as far as the rest of the shots fired? We know that we have a certain number of wounds to cover, we know that we have Tague, we know about the chrome damage etc. So once one has found what one might consider a "proper" explanation for one of the bullets, we also know that this in turn, will have bearings on what the other bullets must have caused. There is, in other words, a "chain reaction" of logics that needs to be answered...

Get my drift? I'm not sure that was much better...darn, I wish I could do this in Swedish...:-)

Glenn

I follow you !

Ok here is what I think happened and the accountability of all 3 shots.

Shot 1:

Short round hits JFK in the back to a depth of 2".

Shot 2:

JBC and his wounds.

Shot 3:

Hits the head, which diminishes its velocity, and strikes the chrome.

The sends fragments from the shattered bullet to strike the inside of the glass and crack it, as well as sending fragments to the Main St. curb, and Tague.

I know some will have issue with this but I have worked up some estimated velocities.

The crack had lead on the inside, not copper. This could be an indication that it was a fragment of the lead core that had separated from the copper jacket, after it hit the chrome.

Compared to the rear view mirror dimensions the dent in the chrome fits a 6.5mm rather well. I do not think the projectile left JFK and went straight to JT. I believe that bullet passed through JFK and hit that Chrome. (I could calculate the velocity) And shattered and a fragment of that struck JT. I should have made that a bit more specific than just saying "from the head shot" So if that projectile struck the chrome at over 1000 FPS, then I have every confidence it could make the trip. The Distance from 313 to Tague is 282', if the fragment weighed just 5 grains, it would still be at 972 feet per second when reaching JT.

So the bullet leaves the muzzle at 2165fps, reaches JFK @ 1889 FPS/1268ft-lbs, passes through a 12" head losing 30ft-lbs per inch.so it exits JFK @ 1598fps or 900 ft-lbs. So even considering the impact to the chrome cast off is still plenty fast enough to hit JT and give him a nick, or much worse.

I would say that would be sufficient to leave a scratch, and very likely just tells us that JT may have been a pretty lucky man that day.

These are very preliminary numbers but I believe them to be in the ballpark. I also note that the scratch on the curb is lead, not copper, again telling us that what ever struck it was not a direct hit, but from something that had the copper jacket already removed.

Now.

The dog gone SBT.

I have been doing much work with reverse trajectory, and some of those initial numbers indicate that the difference in the impact angle between JFK and JBC is 2* degrees. That would sure seem to indicate one single bullet. But not necessarily. A short round would very likely leave an irregular entry. This could account for that, of course what are the odds that this irregular entry would match so closely to the JBC wound. The SBT needs more work from me to form a conclusive opinion.

For now I still believe 3 shots 3 hits.

I hope this helps a bit to at least clarify my thinking.

Mike

Now that is not bad! Lot's of stuff to digest in that, no matter what.

'Thanks Mike!

Yes Sir I agree its a lot to take in. I have spent many many hours going over this, as you may well know I once believed it was a conspiracy, but the ballistics just do not bear this out.

While I do think there may still have been a conspiracies operating against JFK, I also believe it was the work of a single shooter that assassinated him. Then when it had to be investigated there was much CYA going on. This gives the appearance of a coverup, which there was. But they were only covering up plotting not actions.

See what I mean?

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, fair enough.

What (wound or event) do you then suggest he is reacting to?

Please elaborate. Thanks.

Antti,

With all due respect I have to disagree. If he were reacting to a wound to the throat, he would be grabbing his throat. We never see this. His hands never go below his chin.

Mike

Antti,

Please forgive the long way around the barn here, but it is needed so please bear with me.

I have once again been looking very strongly at the SBT, and have been commenting on it. However it is not a position I am ready to fully accept yet.

Having said that, and maintaining my original position of the shooting event, I believe JFK is reacting to a very sharp blow to the back, a non-penetrating wound. A wound that went in no more than 2". What I see is a man who has taken a heck of a blow and has had the wind knocked from him. He does seem to be having some issue with breath.

Something to consider here is that the MC bullet when penetrating to a depth of 2" exerts 60 ft lbs of energy to make that penetration, this would be caused by A) the bullet striking something else first, of B ) A short round, one that lacks for what ever reason, the power of a full round.

Tom Purvis, whom I admire greatly believes the round hit something else first, I am not so sure. I think it is possible it is a short load. Tom however makes an excellent point that the bullet base of 399 does seem to fit the wound dimensions well. I chew on this often.

Think of how many witnesses say the first round sounded different. A short round would sound different.

This is the position I have held for quite some time. However, some of the work I have been doing in relation to the SBT brings some SOLID questions and have to be accounted for.

One of them being how in hades do we reconcile the fact that JFK is hit with a 55* impact angle and JBC a 57* impact angle. I do NOT buy the idea of a tumbling bullet, had that been the case then they would have easily probed JFK's wound. A tumbling bullet leaves a horrific wound path.

I also do not buy that the neck wound was one of entry. There is NO exit for it and the wound would have been horrific. We see no such thing.

Mike

Mike,

You are discussing some very interesting possibilities here. A question, when you you state "this is a problem" or something along those lines, are you referring to a problem as far as a specific bullet or as a problem as part of the SBT, if you see what mean? They all need to fit the entirety of the event, is this what you are targeting here?

Glenn

Glenn,

Please forgive my inability here. I do not understand what you are asking me. I reread my post and am not finding the reference to "this is a problem". Im not sure what you mean. I am sorry for that, but if you can help me understand a bit better I can try and answer you.

Again sorry buddy.

Mike

No, you'll have to excuse my inability to formulate the question. Let's see if I can make myself clearer.

If JFKs back wound is difficult to explain - as I interpret your posting above, my question is: do you mean a problem all by itself - or a problem in the sense that it leaves less reasonable explanations as far as the rest of the shots fired? We know that we have a certain number of wounds to cover, we know that we have Tague, we know about the chrome damage etc. So once one has found what one might consider a "proper" explanation for one of the bullets, we also know that this in turn, will have bearings on what the other bullets must have caused. There is, in other words, a "chain reaction" of logics that needs to be answered...

Get my drift? I'm not sure that was much better...darn, I wish I could do this in Swedish...:-)

Glenn

I follow you !

Ok here is what I think happened and the accountability of all 3 shots.

Shot 1:

Short round hits JFK in the back to a depth of 2".

Shot 2:

JBC and his wounds.

Shot 3:

Hits the head, which diminishes its velocity, and strikes the chrome.

The sends fragments from the shattered bullet to strike the inside of the glass and crack it, as well as sending fragments to the Main St. curb, and Tague.

I know some will have issue with this but I have worked up some estimated velocities.

The crack had lead on the inside, not copper. This could be an indication that it was a fragment of the lead core that had separated from the copper jacket, after it hit the chrome.

Compared to the rear view mirror dimensions the dent in the chrome fits a 6.5mm rather well. I do not think the projectile left JFK and went straight to JT. I believe that bullet passed through JFK and hit that Chrome. (I could calculate the velocity) And shattered and a fragment of that struck JT. I should have made that a bit more specific than just saying "from the head shot" So if that projectile struck the chrome at over 1000 FPS, then I have every confidence it could make the trip. The Distance from 313 to Tague is 282', if the fragment weighed just 5 grains, it would still be at 972 feet per second when reaching JT.

So the bullet leaves the muzzle at 2165fps, reaches JFK @ 1889 FPS/1268ft-lbs, passes through a 12" head losing 30ft-lbs per inch.so it exits JFK @ 1598fps or 900 ft-lbs. So even considering the impact to the chrome cast off is still plenty fast enough to hit JT and give him a nick, or much worse.

I would say that would be sufficient to leave a scratch, and very likely just tells us that JT may have been a pretty lucky man that day.

These are very preliminary numbers but I believe them to be in the ballpark. I also note that the scratch on the curb is lead, not copper, again telling us that what ever struck it was not a direct hit, but from something that had the copper jacket already removed.

Now.

The dog gone SBT.

I have been doing much work with reverse trajectory, and some of those initial numbers indicate that the difference in the impact angle between JFK and JBC is 2* degrees. That would sure seem to indicate one single bullet. But not necessarily. A short round would very likely leave an irregular entry. This could account for that, of course what are the odds that this irregular entry would match so closely to the JBC wound. The SBT needs more work from me to form a conclusive opinion.

For now I still believe 3 shots 3 hits.

I hope this helps a bit to at least clarify my thinking.

Mike

Now that is not bad! Lot's of stuff to digest in that, no matter what.

'Thanks Mike!

Yes Sir I agree its a lot to take in. I have spent many many hours going over this, as you may well know I once believed it was a conspiracy, but the ballistics just do not bear this out.

While I do think there may still have been a conspiracies operating against JFK, I also believe it was the work of a single shooter that assassinated him. Then when it had to be investigated there was much CYA going on. This gives the appearance of a coverup, which there was. But they were only covering up plotting not actions.

See what I mean?

Mike

I see exactly what you mean. Having been a lurker, off and on, for a long time, I can't say that I know enough about the JFK assassination to have definitive opinion. But, one thing is reasonably clear in my mind; many of the CT explanations for what happened are nonsense. And this is probably why I really appreciate your approach here; you are going through the real basics of the case, what happened in that car and at the Plaza that day. And even though I'm not much of a sparring partner to you here, it's very interesting to follow your reasonings. And of course I understand that you are sort of thinking out loud, not many people have the courage to do that. Impressive!

After the JVB thread it's nice with some sanity...

Glenn

Edited by Glenn Viklund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, fair enough.

What (wound or event) do you then suggest he is reacting to?

Please elaborate. Thanks.

Antti,

With all due respect I have to disagree. If he were reacting to a wound to the throat, he would be grabbing his throat. We never see this. His hands never go below his chin.

Mike

Antti,

Please forgive the long way around the barn here, but it is needed so please bear with me.

I have once again been looking very strongly at the SBT, and have been commenting on it. However it is not a position I am ready to fully accept yet.

Having said that, and maintaining my original position of the shooting event, I believe JFK is reacting to a very sharp blow to the back, a non-penetrating wound. A wound that went in no more than 2". What I see is a man who has taken a heck of a blow and has had the wind knocked from him. He does seem to be having some issue with breath.

Something to consider here is that the MC bullet when penetrating to a depth of 2" exerts 60 ft lbs of energy to make that penetration, this would be caused by A) the bullet striking something else first, of B ) A short round, one that lacks for what ever reason, the power of a full round.

Tom Purvis, whom I admire greatly believes the round hit something else first, I am not so sure. I think it is possible it is a short load. Tom however makes an excellent point that the bullet base of 399 does seem to fit the wound dimensions well. I chew on this often.

Think of how many witnesses say the first round sounded different. A short round would sound different.

This is the position I have held for quite some time. However, some of the work I have been doing in relation to the SBT brings some SOLID questions and have to be accounted for.

One of them being how in hades do we reconcile the fact that JFK is hit with a 55* impact angle and JBC a 57* impact angle. I do NOT buy the idea of a tumbling bullet, had that been the case then they would have easily probed JFK's wound. A tumbling bullet leaves a horrific wound path.

I also do not buy that the neck wound was one of entry. There is NO exit for it and the wound would have been horrific. We see no such thing.

Mike

Mike,

You are discussing some very interesting possibilities here. A question, when you you state "this is a problem" or something along those lines, are you referring to a problem as far as a specific bullet or as a problem as part of the SBT, if you see what mean? They all need to fit the entirety of the event, is this what you are targeting here?

Glenn

Glenn,

Please forgive my inability here. I do not understand what you are asking me. I reread my post and am not finding the reference to "this is a problem". Im not sure what you mean. I am sorry for that, but if you can help me understand a bit better I can try and answer you.

Again sorry buddy.

Mike

No, you'll have to excuse my inability to formulate the question. Let's see if I can make myself clearer.

If JFKs back wound is difficult to explain - as I interpret your posting above, my question is: do you mean a problem all by itself - or a problem in the sense that it leaves less reasonable explanations as far as the rest of the shots fired? We know that we have a certain number of wounds to cover, we know that we have Tague, we know about the chrome damage etc. So once one has found what one might consider a "proper" explanation for one of the bullets, we also know that this in turn, will have bearings on what the other bullets must have caused. There is, in other words, a "chain reaction" of logics that needs to be answered...

Get my drift? I'm not sure that was much better...darn, I wish I could do this in Swedish...:-)

Glenn

I follow you !

Ok here is what I think happened and the accountability of all 3 shots.

Shot 1:

Short round hits JFK in the back to a depth of 2".

Shot 2:

JBC and his wounds.

Shot 3:

Hits the head, which diminishes its velocity, and strikes the chrome.

The sends fragments from the shattered bullet to strike the inside of the glass and crack it, as well as sending fragments to the Main St. curb, and Tague.

I know some will have issue with this but I have worked up some estimated velocities.

The crack had lead on the inside, not copper. This could be an indication that it was a fragment of the lead core that had separated from the copper jacket, after it hit the chrome.

Compared to the rear view mirror dimensions the dent in the chrome fits a 6.5mm rather well. I do not think the projectile left JFK and went straight to JT. I believe that bullet passed through JFK and hit that Chrome. (I could calculate the velocity) And shattered and a fragment of that struck JT. I should have made that a bit more specific than just saying "from the head shot" So if that projectile struck the chrome at over 1000 FPS, then I have every confidence it could make the trip. The Distance from 313 to Tague is 282', if the fragment weighed just 5 grains, it would still be at 972 feet per second when reaching JT.

So the bullet leaves the muzzle at 2165fps, reaches JFK @ 1889 FPS/1268ft-lbs, passes through a 12" head losing 30ft-lbs per inch.so it exits JFK @ 1598fps or 900 ft-lbs. So even considering the impact to the chrome cast off is still plenty fast enough to hit JT and give him a nick, or much worse.

I would say that would be sufficient to leave a scratch, and very likely just tells us that JT may have been a pretty lucky man that day.

These are very preliminary numbers but I believe them to be in the ballpark. I also note that the scratch on the curb is lead, not copper, again telling us that what ever struck it was not a direct hit, but from something that had the copper jacket already removed.

Now.

The dog gone SBT.

I have been doing much work with reverse trajectory, and some of those initial numbers indicate that the difference in the impact angle between JFK and JBC is 2* degrees. That would sure seem to indicate one single bullet. But not necessarily. A short round would very likely leave an irregular entry. This could account for that, of course what are the odds that this irregular entry would match so closely to the JBC wound. The SBT needs more work from me to form a conclusive opinion.

For now I still believe 3 shots 3 hits.

I hope this helps a bit to at least clarify my thinking.

Mike

Now that is not bad! Lot's of stuff to digest in that, no matter what.

'Thanks Mike!

Yes Sir I agree its a lot to take in. I have spent many many hours going over this, as you may well know I once believed it was a conspiracy, but the ballistics just do not bear this out.

While I do think there may still have been a conspiracies operating against JFK, I also believe it was the work of a single shooter that assassinated him. Then when it had to be investigated there was much CYA going on. This gives the appearance of a coverup, which there was. But they were only covering up plotting not actions.

See what I mean?

Mike

I see exactly what you mean. Having been a lurker, off and on, for a long time, I can't say that I know enough about the JFK assassination to have definitive opinion. But, one thing is reasonably clear in my mind; many of the CT explanations for what happened are nonsense. And this is probably why I really appreciate your approach here; you are going through the real basics of the case, what happened in that car and at the Plaza that day. And even though I'm not much of a sparring partner to you here, it's very interesting to follow your reasonings. And of course I understand that you are sort of thinking out loud, not many people have the courage to do that. Impressive!

After the JVB thread it's nice with some sanity...

Glenn

Thanks Glenn!

Yep I sure do think out loud and at times it gets me in BIG trouble at home lol.

I do like to keep what I am thinking out in the open. What that does is gives others the opportunity to correct me before I become to married to an idea. It keeps my feet on the ground so to speak.

I am glad you enjoy reading my thoughts in the forum, I think you and I might just be the only two that can make sense of the mess that is my thoughts lol

Hope you have a great day!

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply.

I can "buy" most of your reply. Especially the short round/round that hit something else first, that explains the back wound , the short round theory explains the different sound. No problems there.

However, from what I have seen in terms of blows to the back (hits, stabbing etc.) I have to say Kennedy's reaction is not the same as any of those. In a hit to the back one would curl and try and reach the area affected (in the back), this is not the case in e.g. Zapruder.

It is possible that the wound below the Adam's apple is not an entry wound. Ok. If so, where is the entry?

I just can not conceive that after emerging from behind the highway sign, Kennedy is not reacting to the wound found below his Adam's apple, I think if we can assume and conclude anything from this case, then, in my opinion, the wound in the anterior neck and Kennedy's reaction before frame 313 are one of the most straight forward issues. One may say:" They go together like two peas in a pod".

Antti

Ok, fair enough.

What (wound or event) do you then suggest he is reacting to?

Please elaborate. Thanks.

Antti,

With all due respect I have to disagree. If he were reacting to a wound to the throat, he would be grabbing his throat. We never see this. His hands never go below his chin.

Mike

Antti,

Please forgive the long way around the barn here, but it is needed so please bear with me.

I have once again been looking very strongly at the SBT, and have been commenting on it. However it is not a position I am ready to fully accept yet.

Having said that, and maintaining my original position of the shooting event, I believe JFK is reacting to a very sharp blow to the back, a non-penetrating wound. A wound that went in no more than 2". What I see is a man who has taken a heck of a blow and has had the wind knocked from him. He does seem to be having some issue with breath.

Something to consider here is that the MC bullet when penetrating to a depth of 2" exerts 60 ft lbs of energy to make that penetration, this would be caused by A) the bullet striking something else first, of B ) A short round, one that lacks for what ever reason, the power of a full round.

Tom Purvis, whom I admire greatly believes the round hit something else first, I am not so sure. I think it is possible it is a short load. Tom however makes an excellent point that the bullet base of 399 does seem to fit the wound dimensions well. I chew on this often.

Think of how many witnesses say the first round sounded different. A short round would sound different.

This is the position I have held for quite some time. However, some of the work I have been doing in relation to the SBT brings some SOLID questions and have to be accounted for.

One of them being how in hades do we reconcile the fact that JFK is hit with a 55* impact angle and JBC a 57* impact angle. I do NOT buy the idea of a tumbling bullet, had that been the case then they would have easily probed JFK's wound. A tumbling bullet leaves a horrific wound path.

I also do not buy that the neck wound was one of entry. There is NO exit for it and the wound would have been horrific. We see no such thing.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antti,

The only problem is they do not go together like Peas and Carrots as Gump would say.

If there was a wound to the neck, his hands would certainly have grabbed that neck. Especially a perforating/penetrating wound. This would certainly happen without fail.

I think this is very close to being proof positive that there is no anterior neck injury at that time.

As to how he should react to a hard blow to the back, and having the wind knocked from him, I would suspect he would be a bit dazed, and after a short time trying to get his breath.

I have had the wind knocked from me several times, and have the ballistic vest to prove it lol, When this happened there was no initial panic, but there was panic a few seconds later as I could not regain my breath. At first I was just stunned.

I do not know what effects the back brace would have. Nor do I have any idea of what his thoughts were regarding keeping his composure.

What I do know is that with almost absolute certainty, anyone that I have ever treated with a neck wound had to almost have their hands broke to get them off their neck. His hands never go there and I suggest this is a strong indication he is not injured in the anterior neck at this time.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, one thing is reasonably clear in my mind; many of the CT explanations for what happened are nonsense.

Glenn

What would some of these nonsensical explanations be Glenn?

Lee

Lee

Just to give you a couple of examples: the number of shots fired, who can base their theory on eight or ten shots? Nothing supports that. The number of potential groups o perpetrators involved in the conspiracy, some theories suggests basically an infinite number of various groups. And, frankly, quite a few details. Like for instance that Zapruder did not shoot the Z-film; or that he wasn't at the Plaza at all at the time of the event. Or that most of the crucial photo evidence from the Plaza is faked. I haven't seen anything that convincingly supports this. Or, take this Hoffman guy who died recently, he was considered a star witness as far as a shot from the grassy knoll. That is, until it was thoroughly demonstrated that this was impossible.

Some of the arguments of the JFK case are indeed very recognizable to any Swede, as we had our Prime Minister killed back in 1986. It is a matter of human instinct, it seems, that this in and of itself is the reason so many outlandish theories are endlessly popping up.

And so forth, I don't want to start discussing these things in this thread though...as I'm sure you understand.

But as I said, there are questions, no doubt about that. I do agree that the medical evidence are a quite a question mark. There are questions about the shooting, no doubts about that either. But I also think that many of the actions taken by different people involved that day, are explainable if one considers the enormous shock that most every single person went through. This tends to be forgotten. The doctors at Parkland not taking notes for instance. To me, it is very reasonable when one of them explained this: we were so shocked, all of us, that we forgot to do things the appropriate way. Many things could be explained by this, in my view. Things that often are explained as part of a conspiracy. And, I agree with Mike - probably there were cover ups, but not because of a conspiracy, but because many for other reasons had to cover up their doings. Many very irrational things done that day in Dallas and elsewhere.

But then, I don't have enough knowledge about all of this. And no matter what I think, I can still get impressed by the dedication and time that so many people spends on this. Lots of very respectable research. Even if don't agree with all of it.

Glenn

Edited by Glenn Viklund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...