Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jim F - if the bullet exploded after hitting the temple


Recommended Posts

Jim F wrote:

The only support for your bizarre theory stems from the skull flap, which was blown open when the frangible

bullet exploded after entering his right temple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet

Frangible: Designed to disintegrate into tiny particles upon impact to minimize their penetration for reasons of range safety, to limit environmental impact, or to limit the shoot-through danger behind the intended target.

Exploding: Similar to the incendiary bullet, this type of projectile is designed to explode upon hitting a hard surface, preferably the bone of the intended target. Not to be mistaken for cannon rounds or grenade with fuse devices, these bullets have only a cavity filled with a small amount of low explosive depending on the velocity and deformation upon impact to detonate. Usually produced for hunting airguns with the intent of increasing the bullets effectiveness.

Jacketed Lead: Bullets intended for even higher-velocity applications generally have a lead core that is jacketed or plated with gilding metal, cupronickel, copper alloys, or steel; a thin layer of harder metal protects the softer lead core when the bullet is passing through the barrel and during flight, which allows delivering the bullet intact to the target. There, the heavy lead core delivers its kinetic energy to the target.

DJ: "Back and to the left" and supposedly thru and thru

Now maybe I just don't get it.... if it was a FMJ bullet we could expect it to go thru the skull as intended, and not fragment, disintegrate or explode.

If this was an exploding/frangible bullet - which based on the particle trail (if the xray can be accepted as real) looks like it may have been, if it exploded.. what exactly was propelled thru the back of the head causing the gaping hole?

thanks

DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Where's Mr. Purvis? Mr. Williams?

If the bullet exploded it could not have blown out the back of his head and would have disintegrated

If the bullet was frangible it could not have blown out the back of his head and would have disintegrated

If the bullet was a 6.5mm FMJ it would have been recovered in much the same condition as CE399 although more probably a bit smashed up.

So once again, anyone who believes in a frontal shot that exploded open his head - what blew out the occipital/parietal area?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where's Mr. Purvis? Mr. Williams?

If the bullet exploded it could not have blown out the back of his head and would have disintegrated

If the bullet was frangible it could not have blown out the back of his head and would have disintegrated

If the bullet was a 6.5mm FMJ it would have been recovered in much the same condition as CE399 although more probably a bit smashed up.

So once again, anyone who believes in a frontal shot that exploded open his head - what blew out the occipital/parietal area?

The third shot? Triangulation of fire, three shots, three hits.

We'll never know for sure how many times JFK was shot in the head. It's all speculation and parlor game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's kind of my point Cliff... don't the ballistics of the bullets and the visual evidence seriously contradict with regards to the headshot(s)? And if the bullets Oswald supposedly used do not do what we saw "One bullet could not do all this damage" then there HAD to be other ammunition involved. If the bullet exploded/was fragible then there HAD to be another shot to cause the other head injury be it the front one or the BOH.

By definition these bullets lose their enertia within the target.. that's why a hole is not blown out the other side of a deer when shot with these types of bullets.

Both the BOH blowout and frontal "flap" could have been caused by a shot from the front or back - and you're right, unless the actual brain was dissected and analyzed, we may never know.

If this xray if real then the vapor trail of particles across the top of the skull is indicative of a frangible bullet, not a FMJ leaving particles as it slices thru the target...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where's Mr. Purvis? Mr. Williams?

If the bullet exploded it could not have blown out the back of his head and would have disintegrated

If the bullet was frangible it could not have blown out the back of his head and would have disintegrated

If the bullet was a 6.5mm FMJ it would have been recovered in much the same condition as CE399 although more probably a bit smashed up.

So once again, anyone who believes in a frontal shot that exploded open his head - what blew out the occipital/parietal area?

"Where's Mr. Purvis? Mr. Williams?"

Can not speak for Mr. Williams, but you may rest assured that I am still around, watching others go around (frequently in circles) about the bullet entrance to the top rear of the head as well as exactly how (and why) this FMJ bullet managed to fragment in the manner which it did.

(Hint): A full review of the anterior/posterior X-ray, along with the lateral X-ray, along with the X-ray of the skull fragments; and the testimony of Dr. Humes (coupled with the autopsy report), and evaluation of the bullet fragments found in the front of the Limousine, will sufficient answer the questions of anyone who properly evaluates this evidence.

Does a FMJ Carcano bullet normally create such a wound as that suffered by JFK?----------Nope!

Does a FMJ Carcano bullet normally fragment in the manner of which this one did?-------Nope!

Did the FMJ Carcano bullet to the top rear of JFK's head severely fragment?------------Yep!

Is there a simple and fully explainable explanation as to why this bullet acted in this manner, contrary to what one would think of as "normal" for a FMJ Carcano bullet?--------------------------------------Yep!

Would it be considered as somewhat "normal" for a FJM Carcano bullet to fragment as well as create the damage to the skull & brain, provided that it struck anyone else in a similar manner?-------------Yep!

Would it be a complete waste of time to attempt to convince "Conspiracy Theorist" of the simplicity of the facts related to this bullet impact to the rear of the head of JFK and it's resulting fragmentation as well as damage to the brain & skull of JFK?------------------------------------------------------------Yep!

In event that one ceases to deal in "theory" and thereafter actually evaluates the factual evidence, would they be considerably more likely to come to the understanding as to why this FMJ Carcano bullet created the majority of the damage attributed to it as a result of it's impact, to include the WHY? this bullet fragmented in the manner which it did?---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Yep!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

First off why do you call it a "Carcano" bullet... there are 6.5mm FMJ bullets and Carcano rifles... so calling it a Carcano bullet seems to be your way of leading the discussion to your own conclusions. THAT rifle and THOSE bullets from the hulls found on the 6th floor were not fired at 12:30pm on 11-22-63 and there is absolutely no proof that it or they were.

I'm sorry I cant recall WHY you believe that the same FMJ bullet that is NOT supposed to fragment, does so in the case of hitting JFK in the back of the head - if he was indeed hit there. And if it did indeed fragment enough to leave that trail of particles in the xray... what opened the flap over his right ear?

Oh, I forgot, explaining would be a waste of time.... even though the answer is so simply and fully explainable... that allows us to understand how a FMJ bullet leaves a VAPOR trail of particles so small they couldn't even be picked out... and how that bullet, and only that bullet, behaved that way.

A waste... as is discussing with you the value of the ballistic tests that you somehow interpret to mean that someone fired that rifle and those bullets that day and from that window.

So either a FMJ bullet behaves completely contrary to how/why it was manufactured (exploding and fragmenting on impact)- because you say so...

or it was not a FMJ bullet that hit JFK in the head and therefore not from one of the three hulls found.

Either way you have a large opening/avulsion in the back of the head and a hinged opening above the right ear, minute amounts of bullet fragments and only 1 bullet to account for it all... a FMJ 6.5mm hull.

and if it hit at the top of the head... how do you explain all the damage to the skull floor?

and if the bullet does explode or fragment, why didn't the damage radiate from the entry point as opposed to only being on one side of the head?

Finally, is it possible for you to simply answer the questions, given the expert you presentyourself to be? No CT accusations, rhetoric or BS... if you've posted the answer before, a link will do fine

Why should we believe that FMJ bullets behaved completely opposite of their intent and if so, how do you account for the damage to the head as reported by those in Dallas within the first 30 minutes.

thanks

DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where's Mr. Purvis? Mr. Williams?

If the bullet exploded it could not have blown out the back of his head and would have disintegrated

If the bullet was frangible it could not have blown out the back of his head and would have disintegrated

If the bullet was a 6.5mm FMJ it would have been recovered in much the same condition as CE399 although more probably a bit smashed up.

So once again, anyone who believes in a frontal shot that exploded open his head - what blew out the occipital/parietal area?

"Where's Mr. Purvis? Mr. Williams?"

Can not speak for Mr. Williams, but you may rest assured that I am still around, watching others go around (frequently in circles) about the bullet entrance to the top rear of the head as well as exactly how (and why) this FMJ bullet managed to fragment in the manner which it did.

(Hint): A full review of the anterior/posterior X-ray, along with the lateral X-ray, along with the X-ray of the skull fragments; and the testimony of Dr. Humes (coupled with the autopsy report), and evaluation of the bullet fragments found in the front of the Limousine, will sufficient answer the questions of anyone who properly evaluates this evidence.

Does a FMJ Carcano bullet normally create such a wound as that suffered by JFK?----------Nope!

Does a FMJ Carcano bullet normally fragment in the manner of which this one did?-------Nope!

Did the FMJ Carcano bullet to the top rear of JFK's head severely fragment?------------Yep!

Is there a simple and fully explainable explanation as to why this bullet acted in this manner, contrary to what one would think of as "normal" for a FMJ Carcano bullet?--------------------------------------Yep!

Would it be considered as somewhat "normal" for a FJM Carcano bullet to fragment as well as create the damage to the skull & brain, provided that it struck anyone else in a similar manner?-------------Yep!

Would it be a complete waste of time to attempt to convince "Conspiracy Theorist" of the simplicity of the facts related to this bullet impact to the rear of the head of JFK and it's resulting fragmentation as well as damage to the brain & skull of JFK?------------------------------------------------------------Yep!

In event that one ceases to deal in "theory" and thereafter actually evaluates the factual evidence, would they be considerably more likely to come to the understanding as to why this FMJ Carcano bullet created the majority of the damage attributed to it as a result of it's impact, to include the WHY? this bullet fragmented in the manner which it did?---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Yep!

Well Mr. P, this is what I found an expert to write about FMJ bullets and the JFK assassination thanks to Pat Speer's website. the non-quoted text are Pat's words.

Please help me understand why we should be reading this information with an air of disbelief... or is what being said correct?

Massad Ayoob, The JFK Assassination: A Shooter's Eye View, American Handgunner, March/April 1993. "The explosion of the President's head as seen in frame 313 of the Zapruder film is simply not characteristic of a full metal-jacket rifle bullet traveling at 2,200 fps or less. It is far more consistent with an explosive wound of entry with a small-bore, hyper-velocity rifle bullet traveling between 3,000 and 4,000 fps, and probably toward the higher end of that scale ...An explosive wound of entry occurs when a highly liquid area of the body, such as the brain, is struck by a high velocity round. The tissue swells violently during the microseconds of the bullet's passing, and seeks the line of least resistance. That least resistance is the portal of the entry wound that appeared a microsecond before, and the bullet will not bore an exit hole to relieve the pressure for another microsecond or two--perhaps not at all if the bullet fragments inside the brain. If the cataclysmic cranial injury inflicted on Kennedy was indeed an explosive wound of entry, the source of the shot would have had to be forward of the Presidential limousine, to its right, and slightly above...the area of the grassy knoll."

So here we have a respected gun expert and author laying it all out...Kennedy's large head wound is not at all what one would expect from the ammunition used in Oswald's rifle, should it have impacted as claimed by the likes of Olivier and Sturdivan. His words also suggest that, if the bullet impacted as proposed by Olivier and Sturdivan, and Kennedy's head exploded as a consequence of the temporary cavity created by the bullet, blood and brain matter would most certainly have sprayed back out the entrance. But Ayoob doesn't stop there...

"The evidence does not rule out the possibility that a hyper-velocity rifle bullet evacuated the President's cranial vault without any other bullet hitting him in the head. The 6.5mm Carcano throws a 162 gr. bullet at a bit under 2,300 fps muzzle velocity. The closest commonly used cartridge to it in terms of ballistics is probably the .30/30, which has a .308" diameter. The Carcano round, about a .263" diameter. Ask any homicide detective if he's ever seen a .30/30 round blow a man's head up at 55 to 60 yards, exploding the calvarium up and away from the body proper. Ask any hunter of deer-size game if he's ever seen the same thing at that distance. It happens only at very close range with that ballistic technology. The wound we see happening in frame 313 in the Zapruder film--and see the results of most clearly in frame 337--is simply not consistent with this rifle cartridge, at that distance in living tissue. It is particularly inconsistent with a round-nose full metal-jacket bullet of the type Oswald had in his rifle."

Here Ayoob re-stresses the point. Bullets like those fired in Oswald's rifle just don't do what we've been told they do. They just don't send pieces of skull flying across the sky when fired from a distance. This is so clear to Ayoob in fact that, even in the conclusion to his article, where he postulates that Oswald quite possibly acted alone, he does so only under the proviso that the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 "for unexplainable reasons did damage out of all proportion to its ballistic capability as most of us would perceive that to be."

Massad F. Ayoob (born July 20, 1948) is an internationally known firearms and self-defense instructor. He has taught police techniques and civilian self-defense to both law enforcement officers and private citizens in numerous venues since 1974. He was the director of the Lethal Force Institute (LFI) in Concord, New Hampshire from 1981 to 2009, and he now directs the Massad Ayoob Group (MAG).[1] Ayoob has appeared as an expert witness in several trials. He has served as a part-time police officer in New Hampshire since 1972 and holds the rank of Captain in the Grantham, New Hampshire police department.[2]

Ayoob has authored several books and more than 1,000 articles on firearms, combat techniques, self-defense, and legal issues, and has served in an editorial capacity for Guns Magazine, American Handgunner, Gun Week, and Combat Handguns. Since 1995, he has written self-defense- and firearms-related articles for Backwoods Home Magazine. He also has a featured segment on the television show Personal Defense TV, which airs on the Sportsman Channel in the United States.

While Ayoob has been in the courtroom as a testifying police officer, expert witness, and police prosecutor, he is not an attorney; he is, however, a former Vice Chairman of the Forensic Evidence Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), and is believed to be the only non-attorney ever to hold this position.[3][4] His published work was cited by the Violence Policy Center in their amicus curiae brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, and he himself filed a declaration in another amicus brief in this case.[5] His course for attorneys, titled "The Management of the Lethal Force/Deadly Weapons Case", was, according to Jeffrey Weiner (former president of NACDL), "the best course for everything you need to know but are never taught in law school."[4]

Ayoob remains an internationally prominent law enforcement officer training instructor. Since 1987, he has served as chairman of the Firearms Committee of the American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers (ASLET).[dated info] He also serves on the Advisory Board of the International Law Enforcement Educators’ and Trainers’ Association, and is an instructor at the National Law Enforcement Training Center.[5]

Ayoob is of Arab descent.[6][7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massad_Ayoob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Mr. P, this is what I found an expert to write about FMJ bullets and the JFK assassination thanks to Pat Speer's website. the non-quoted text are Pat's words.

Please help me understand why we should be reading this information with an air of disbelief... or is what being said correct?

Massad Ayoob, The JFK Assassination: A Shooter's Eye View, American Handgunner, March/April 1993. "The explosion of the President's head as seen in frame 313 of the Zapruder film is simply not characteristic of a full metal-jacket rifle bullet traveling at 2,200 fps or less. It is far more consistent with an explosive wound of entry with a small-bore, hyper-velocity rifle bullet traveling between 3,000 and 4,000 fps, and probably toward the higher end of that scale ...An explosive wound of entry occurs when a highly liquid area of the body, such as the brain, is struck by a high velocity round. The tissue swells violently during the microseconds of the bullet's passing, and seeks the line of least resistance. That least resistance is the portal of the entry wound that appeared a microsecond before, and the bullet will not bore an exit hole to relieve the pressure for another microsecond or two--perhaps not at all if the bullet fragments inside the brain. If the cataclysmic cranial injury inflicted on Kennedy was indeed an explosive wound of entry, the source of the shot would have had to be forward of the Presidential limousine, to its right, and slightly above...the area of the grassy knoll."

THank you David for posting this, and thank you Pat for finding it. Mr. Ayoob makes it clear that, in order for the official version to be correct, there had to be TWO MAGIC BULLETS. I can sympathize with --or at least pity -- those who believe that 399 was a magic bullet, but those who also believe in a version of the head shot that also defies experience, are people who believe in TWO MAGIC BULLETS. THey are seriously subject to cognitive illusions.

My own layman's opinion mirrored Ayoob's expert opinion since I first viewed the Zapruder film. JFK was killed by an exploding bullet from the grassy knoll. Neither the so-called Jet Effect nor a muscular reaction can explain THE FORCE that drove JFK backwards.

At the 2003 Wecht conference I asked the forensic pathology panel if anyone disagreed with Cyril Wecht when he wrote in CAUSE OF DEATH that there is so much conflict in the medical evidence that only a new autopsy could provide a basis for consensus. No one on the panel disagreed.

THe existing autopsy has been declared invalid by experts SO, PENDING A NEW AUTOPSY, I believe NO DEFINITIVE statement can be made about the medical evidence EXCEPT FOR the contemporaneous Dallas medical records and testimonies ( I do not count memories recalled 20-odd years later).

So no one recorded or reported a back wound in Dallas, and the throat wound was observed to be a wound of entry by Malcolm Perry, who was an experienced hunter besides having extensive experience with gunshot wounds in humans.

THe bullet recovered in Dallas, and the fragments found in Washington DC appear to have been planted. THere is no contemporaneous evidence that they ever were in contact with human blood or tissue, although --as Harold Weisberg emphasized ---there SHOULD have been.

So my TENTATIVE conclusion is the rifle & shells are plants, and there were no shots from the rear, though I hesitantly allow for the possibility of a single shot that intentionally missed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure thing JR....

Be nice too if MR. P weighs in on Mr. Ayoob's conclusions but I imagine like most things there are 10 sides to the issue, each with their own expert.... so this too goes nowhere.

And where is Jim F???? I don't think it works both ways... if the bullet exploded it did not blow out the opposite side of anything... if the damage in front and above the ear is connected to the hole so many claim to have seen in the back, then what?

From what I've seen of witness testimony there is indeed a difference between the very back of the head and the top side so many put their hands... how there can be that much difference in witness recollection is astounding, but there none the less.

I've been studying the xrays and photos trying to see if they make any sense, as well as Pat's F8 chapter trying to find a correct orientation. Unless they were completely breaking from procedure... the scallp is pulled forward over the face...

Given we see the "flap" on the right side of the photo once the pulled forward skin is placed at the top of the photo... be interesting to see how far that one wide crack continues toward the right front...

So I guess, given the questionable source of the autopsy photos, we cannot reconstruct what occurred from these photos/xrays.

But given what the witnesses saw and say... that flap being opened or closed might make a large difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure thing JR....

Be nice too if MR. P weighs in on Mr. Ayoob's conclusions but I imagine like most things there are 10 sides to the issue, each with their own expert.... so this too goes nowhere.

And where is Jim F???? I don't think it works both ways... if the bullet exploded it did not blow out the opposite side of anything... if the damage in front and above the ear is connected to the hole so many claim to have seen in the back, then what?

From what I've seen of witness testimony there is indeed a difference between the very back of the head and the top side so many put their hands... how there can be that much difference in witness recollection is astounding, but there none the less.

I've been studying the xrays and photos trying to see if they make any sense, as well as Pat's F8 chapter trying to find a correct orientation. Unless they were completely breaking from procedure... the scallp is pulled forward over the face...

Given we see the "flap" on the right side of the photo once the pulled forward skin is placed at the top of the photo... be interesting to see how far that one wide crack continues toward the right front...

So I guess, given the questionable source of the autopsy photos, we cannot reconstruct what occurred from these photos/xrays.

But given what the witnesses saw and say... that flap being opened or closed might make a large difference.

"Be nice too if MR. P weighs in on Mr. Ayoob's conclusions but I imagine like most things there are 10 sides to the issue, each with their own expert.... so this too goes nowhere."

Since I know Ayoob and brought him onto this website long ago when I along with Gerry Hemming (with the assistance of Ayoob) pretty well chased away this site's self-proclaimed ballistic expert/aka self-proclamied Scout Sniper, then I see no reason to question anything which Ayoob has to say on the normal/typical examples as to how a FMJ bullet acts on impact with the human skull.

With that stated, I would not expect it to take more than 10-minutes of explanation to Ayoob for him to fully grasp the rationale and reasoning as to why the headshot at Z312/313 created the physical damage to the skull/brain of JFK which it did, as well as correlate exactly why this shot/FMJ bullet to the skull fragmented in the manner in which it did.

One of the advantages of speaking with those who not only understand the sematics of wound ballistics, but also understand what it takes to rip apart a FJM Carcano Bullet.

Hell! That one is even easier to figure out than was CE399.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yo Tom....

So you can explain it in 10 minutes to him but can't write a simple paragraph to illustrate how he is so completely wrong with this, and ONLY this specific bullet hitting this specific person....

As the resident ballistics expert then.... can you please take a second and point out how he is wrong in the paragraph below...

I have to assume that his statement "If... an explosive wound of entry." is the problem in that you believe a round that hit JFK in the head was indeed a FMJ 6.5mm bullet and it breaks apart leaving a particle and vapor trail because.....????

thanks

DJ

Massad Ayoob, The JFK Assassination: A Shooter's Eye View, American Handgunner, March/April 1993.

"The explosion of the President's head as seen in frame 313 of the Zapruder film is simply not characteristic of a full metal-jacket rifle bullet traveling at 2,200 fps or less.

It is far more consistent with an explosive wound of entry with a small-bore, hyper-velocity rifle bullet traveling between 3,000 and 4,000 fps, and probably toward the higher end of that scale ...

An explosive wound of entry occurs when a highly liquid area of the body, such as the brain, is struck by a high velocity round. The tissue swells violently during the microseconds of the bullet's passing, and seeks the line of least resistance. That least resistance is the portal of the entry wound that appeared a microsecond before, and the bullet will not bore an exit hole to relieve the pressure for another microsecond or two--perhaps not at all if the bullet fragments inside the brain.

If the cataclysmic cranial injury inflicted on Kennedy was indeed an explosive wound of entry, the source of the shot would have had to be forward of the Presidential limousine, to its right, and slightly above...the area of the grassy knoll."

The wound we see happening in frame 313 in the Zapruder film--and see the results of most clearly in frame 337--is simply not consistent with this rifle cartridge, at that distance in living tissue. It is particularly inconsistent with a round-nose full metal-jacket bullet of the type Oswald had in his rifle."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not expect it to take more than 10-minutes of explanation to Ayoob for him to fully grasp the rationale and reasoning as to why the headshot at Z312/313 created the physical damage to the skull/brain of JFK which it did, as well as correlate exactly why this shot/FMJ bullet to the skull fragmented in the manner in which it did.

No doubt after that 10-minute discussion Ayoob will publish an article completely reversing his opinion.

I suggest no one should hold their breath waiting for Ayoob's change of heart.

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
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...