A Criticism of DVP

[Greg Burnham]

I grew weary of waiting. I just found the answer to this question on my forum. Robert and I went back and forth on this question for many, many pages regarding the whereabouts of the bullet. After suggesting that he knew where it went, it was like pulling teeth to get him to finally just say it out loud.

Robert Prudhomme said:

Greg, how would anyone know where that bullet got to? It was likely removed from JFK's right lung at the autopsy and made to disappear.

My apologies for not remembering exactly what Bob's answer to that question had been and for forgetting that he had, in fact, already answered it elsewhere.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Ok, I'll bite:

Where did the bullet go, Robert?

LOL I love a good sport, Greg.

I'm just running out to do a job but I'll respond to this later today.

Bumped:

Where did the bullet go, Robert? You have offered us characteristics of the bullet, such as, the tendency toward stability inherent to its length, the tendency toward turbulence in its wake resultant from the round shape of its nose and wide/flat bottom, etc.

However, that is not an answer to the question you asked of us in your earlier post in this thread nor on my forum!

This is a straight forward question. "Where did the bullet GO?"

For the sake of this inquiry, based upon the implication you left that you know the answer to THAT question, please note that: I do not need to know "Why?" nor do I need to know "How?" the bullet ended up "where" it eventually came to rest. We can discuss that later. First, I only want to know where Robert Prudhomme thinks the bullet came to rest. Perhaps you think there was no bullet at all? Perhaps Humes inflicted the wound during autopsy? Perhaps there is some other explanation that you have yet to share?

Inquiring minds want to know especially since you promised to answer the question you posed.

Hi Greg

Please show a little bit of patience, as while I intend to show you where the bullet ended up, and also why it did not exit the front of JFK's chest, I would like to first demonstrate why the popular belief of a shallow back wound is not possible.

You are correct, though, in that I believe the bullet came to rest in the top of JFK's right lung, but there is so much more to it than that.

[Ron Ecker]

I would like to first demonstrate why the popular belief of a shallow back wound is not possible.

That will be an interesting demonstration, since Humes himself at first found that the wound was shallow and went nowhere. As I recall, he changed his mind only as a result of some expedient serendipity.

[Cliff Varnell]

Ok, I'll bite:

Where did the bullet go, Robert?

LOL I love a good sport, Greg.

I'm just running out to do a job but I'll respond to this later today.

Bumped:

Where did the bullet go, Robert? You have offered us characteristics of the bullet, such as, the tendency toward stability inherent to its length, the tendency toward turbulence in its wake resultant from the round shape of its nose and wide/flat bottom, etc.

However, that is not an answer to the question you asked of us in your earlier post in this thread nor on my forum!

This is a straight forward question. "Where did the bullet GO?"

For the sake of this inquiry, based upon the implication you left that you know the answer to THAT question, please note that: I do not need to know "Why?" nor do I need to know "How?" the bullet ended up "where" it eventually came to rest. We can discuss that later. First, I only want to know where Robert Prudhomme thinks the bullet came to rest. Perhaps you think there was no bullet at all? Perhaps Humes inflicted the wound during autopsy? Perhaps there is some other explanation that you have yet to share?

Inquiring minds want to know especially since you promised to answer the question you posed.

Hi Greg

Please show a little bit of patience, as while I intend to show you where the bullet ended up, and also why it did not exit the front of JFK's chest, I would like to first demonstrate why the popular belief of a shallow back wound is not possible.

The unproven assumption here is that JFK was struck with a conventional round.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Now that I have shown that it is extremely unlikely for a 6.5mm Carcano bullet to have been moving slowly enough to only penetrate JFK's back without tumbling, we should next examine how much the accuracy of such a slow moving bullet would have been affected.

For those unfamiliar with firearms, I should point out that a tumbling bullet would not have made a neat little entrance wound in JFK's back. It more than likely would have hit side on, and made a much larger messier wound.

Below is a handgun cartridge power chart put together by Chuck Hawks, listing the majority of popular handgun cartridges, their muzzle velocities and other specs:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_power_chart.htm

If we look at this chart, we can see the lowest muzzle velocity listed is for a .38 Special firing a 158 grain round nosed bullet at 587 feet per second. Despite this low velocity, it still has a muzzle energy of 200 ft. lbs., comparable to bullets on this chart weighing only 90 grains but travelling at muzzle velocities of over 1000 fps. This, of course, proves that muzzle energy is a product of mass and velocity, or that a slower bullet of greater weight can do the same damage as a faster bullet of a lighter weight.

So, if a person shot another person in the head, at point blank range, with this .38 Special handgun and the bullet had a muzzle velocity of 587 fps and a muzzle energy of 200 ft. lbs., would it make only a superficial wound? Absolutely not. This bullet would penetrate the skull bone, and likely inflict enough damage to kill a person. If fired at someone's back at close range, it would penetrate the lung and might even have a chance of exiting the front of the chest, especially if it were also a full metal jacket bullet.

With this in mind, and considering the Carcano bullet, at 162 grains, was a heavy bullet for its calibre, how slow would this bullet have to be travelling to only penetrate JFK's back a mere inch in flesh? Just as a refresher, also consider the Carcano M91/38 short rifle is textbook rated at a muzzle velocity of 2200 fps, and that C2766 was tested by the FBI and determined to have a muzzle velocity of 2165 fps.

While it would take an incredible amount of testing on goats or cadavers to get an absolutely accurate figure, I am going to go out on a limb and state that I believe the 6.5mm Carcano bullet would have to be travelling at well under 300 fps to only penetrate JFK's back a mere inch.

Now we get to the good part. Let's say, for argument's sake, that LHO's alleged rifle was sighted in to be accurate at 100 yards. By using the ballistics calculator at this site http://www.handloads.com/calc/we find that, at fifty yards, this bullet would be .77 inches above the line of sight to the target.

Also, at 100 yards, this bullet would have a vertical drop of 4.2 inches.

However, if we do the same calculation, but replace 2200 fps with 300 fps, things change drastically. In order to hit a target at 100 yards, this bullet would now be travelling 46.68 inches above the line of sight. This bullet would also have a vertical drop of 48.99 inches at 50 yards, and a vertical drop of 191.83 inches at 100 yards.

What this means is that if you had a rifle sighted in at 100 yards, using ammo with a muzzle velocity of 2200 fps, and you unexpectedly fired a dud round that only propelled the bullet at 300 fps, you would be aiming where you normally aimed, and the bullet would impact 48.68 inches lower than where you were aiming. If a shooter was aiming at the centre of JFK's head, it likely would have hit the trunk lid of the limo, not a few inches down on his back.

The "shallow" back wound from a dud round is a fantasy. I'm not even sure the bullet would make it all the way down the barrel, only travelling at 300 fps.

P.S.

If anyone wishes to use the ballistics calculator, the ballistic coefficient for the 6.5mm Carcano bullet is about .311.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Ok, I'll bite:

Where did the bullet go, Robert?

LOL I love a good sport, Greg.

I'm just running out to do a job but I'll respond to this later today.

Bumped:

Where did the bullet go, Robert? You have offered us characteristics of the bullet, such as, the tendency toward stability inherent to its length, the tendency toward turbulence in its wake resultant from the round shape of its nose and wide/flat bottom, etc.

However, that is not an answer to the question you asked of us in your earlier post in this thread nor on my forum!

This is a straight forward question. "Where did the bullet GO?"

For the sake of this inquiry, based upon the implication you left that you know the answer to THAT question, please note that: I do not need to know "Why?" nor do I need to know "How?" the bullet ended up "where" it eventually came to rest. We can discuss that later. First, I only want to know where Robert Prudhomme thinks the bullet came to rest. Perhaps you think there was no bullet at all? Perhaps Humes inflicted the wound during autopsy? Perhaps there is some other explanation that you have yet to share?

Inquiring minds want to know especially since you promised to answer the question you posed.

Hi Greg

Please show a little bit of patience, as while I intend to show you where the bullet ended up, and also why it did not exit the front of JFK's chest, I would like to first demonstrate why the popular belief of a shallow back wound is not possible.

The unproven assumption here is that JFK was struck with a conventional round.

You took the words right out of my mouth, Cliff. It was most definitely not a conventional bullet, and neither was its mate that struck JFK in the head.

I've got a plumbing job I've got to work on most of the day, but tonight I will get into the specifics of how a bullet travelling 2000+ fps penetrated JFK's back and did not exit his chest cavity. A lot of the people here have probably already seen me explain this before but there are always newcomers who might find it interesting.

[Greg Burnham]

I didn't intend to make you re-post something you've already covered. Perhaps you can instead post the link to the work?

[Kenneth Drew]

Now that I have shown that it is extremely unlikely for a 6.5mm Carcano bullet to have been moving slowly enough to only penetrate JFK's back without tumbling, we should next examine how much the accuracy of such a slow moving bullet would have been affected.

For those unfamiliar with firearms, I should point out that a tumbling bullet would not have made a neat little entrance wound in JFK's back. It more than likely would have hit side on, and made a much larger messier wound.

Below is a handgun cartridge power chart put together by Chuck Hawks, listing the majority of popular handgun cartridges, their muzzle velocities and other specs:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_power_chart.htm

If we look at this chart, we can see the lowest muzzle velocity listed is for a .38 Special firing a 158 grain round nosed bullet at 587 feet per second. Despite this low velocity, it still has a muzzle energy of 200 ft. lbs., comparable to bullets on this chart weighing only 90 grains but travelling at muzzle velocities of over 1000 fps. This, of course, proves that muzzle energy is a product of mass and velocity, or that a slower bullet of greater weight can do the same damage as a faster bullet of a lighter weight.

So, if a person shot another person in the head, at point blank range, with this .38 Special handgun and the bullet had a muzzle velocity of 587 fps and a muzzle energy of 200 ft. lbs., would it make only a superficial wound? Absolutely not. This bullet would penetrate the skull bone, and likely inflict enough damage to kill a person. If fired at someone's back at close range, it would penetrate the lung and might even have a chance of exiting the front of the chest, especially if it were also a full metal jacket bullet.

With this in mind, and considering the Carcano bullet, at 162 grains, was a heavy bullet for its calibre, how slow would this bullet have to be travelling to only penetrate JFK's back a mere inch in flesh? Just as a refresher, also consider the Carcano M91/38 short rifle is textbook rated at a muzzle velocity of 2200 fps, and that C2766 was tested by the FBI and determined to have a muzzle velocity of 2165 fps.

While it would take an incredible amount of testing on goats or cadavers to get an absolutely accurate figure, I am going to go out on a limb and state that I believe the 6.5mm Carcano bullet would have to be travelling at well under 300 fps to only penetrate JFK's back a mere inch.

Now we get to the good part. Let's say, for argument's sake, that LHO's alleged rifle was sighted in to be accurate at 100 yards. By using the ballistics calculator at this site http://www.handloads.com/calc/we find that, at fifty yards, this bullet would be .77 inches above the line of sight to the target.

Also, at 100 yards, this bullet would have a vertical drop of 4.2 inches.

However, if we do the same calculation, but replace 2200 fps with 300 fps, things change drastically. In order to hit a target at 100 yards, this bullet would now be travelling 46.68 inches above the line of sight. This bullet would also have a vertical drop of 48.99 inches at 50 yards, and a vertical drop of 191.83 inches at 100 yards.

What this means is that if you had a rifle sighted in at 100 yards, using ammo with a muzzle velocity of 2200 fps, and you unexpectedly fired a dud round that only propelled the bullet at 300 fps, you would be aiming where you normally aimed, and the bullet would impact 48.68 inches lower than where you were aiming. If a shooter was aiming at the centre of JFK's head, it likely would have hit the trunk lid of the limo, not a few inches down on his back.

The "shallow" back wound from a dud round is a fantasy. I'm not even sure the bullet would make it all the way down the barrel, only travelling at 300 fps.

P.S.

If anyone wishes to use the ballistics calculator, the ballistic coefficient for the 6.5mm Carcano bullet is about .311.

It's interesting that you make an assumption that a Manlicher carcano rifle was used to fire the bullet that hit JFK in the back. I can find no credible evidence of that.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Kenneth

Do you really think it makes any difference what calibre of rifle fired the bullet that hit JFK in the back? It stuns me that this is the most intelligent comment you can come up with after reading that post.

ANY bullet will suffer severe vertical drop if you rob it of 90% of its muzzle velocity.

[Ron Ecker]

Didn't Hemming once say that JFK was shot in the back with what he called a sabot, which as I recall is a deliberately defective kind of bullet? I don't remember what the purpose was supposed to be, or how Hemming was supposed to know. But if Hemming was the big guy seen carrying a rifle down a Dallas street that morning, or if that's Hemming photographed along with Rip and who knows who else at the corner of Houston and Main, then maybe the big guy knew something.

[Kenneth Drew]

The caliber probably wouldn't make any difference, only the velocity at the time it comes in contact. That's why I wonder why you keep insisting that it was a 6.5 manlicher carcano when there is NO evidence that it was. You sure had a tough time answering Greg's question.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I didn't intend to make you re-post something you've already covered. Perhaps you can instead post the link to the work?

No problem, Greg. The concept has expanded a little since I first developed it, and a fresh version is on the way.

[Kenneth Drew]

Didn't Hemming once say that JFK was shot in the back with what he called a sabot, which as I recall is a deliberately defective kind of bullet? I don't remember what the purpose was supposed to be, or how Hemming was supposed to know. But if Hemming was the big guy seen carrying a rifle down a Dallas street that morning, or if that's Hemming photographed along with Rip and who knows who else at the corner of Houston and Main, then maybe the big guy knew something.

That was the story about the cartridge shell that was found on the Dallas records building roof years later having a crimped edge. I think it was a 7.65 shell, but I'm not sure. It was supposedly used to fire a 'sabot' so that the bullet would retain the rifling marks of the weapon it was originally fired from but it was 'supposedly' fired using a very low velocity. Setting up the hypothesis that it was the bullet that hit JFK in the back. If it were fired from that building roof while JFK were below, it could have a downward angle around 45 %. (or any other up to 90%.)

[Robert Prudhomme]

The caliber probably wouldn't make any difference, only the velocity at the time it comes in contact. That's why I wonder why you keep insisting that it was a 6.5 manlicher carcano when there is NO evidence that it was. You sure had a tough time answering Greg's question.

The proper name for the rifle is a Carcano Model M91/38. It is not called a Mannlicher by the Italians. The reason I am calling the rifle in my discussions a Carcano is merely for the sake of argument. If it makes you happy, we can start calling it a Winchester Model 94 30-30.

Which question of Greg's are you referring to?

[Kenneth Drew]

Kenneth

Do you really think it makes any difference what calibre of rifle fired the bullet that hit JFK in the back? It stuns me that this is the most intelligent comment you can come up with after reading that post.

ANY bullet will suffer severe vertical drop if you rob it of 90% of its muzzle velocity.

"It stuns me that this is the most intelligent comment you can come up with after reading that post."

I think what disturbs you is that I didn't care about your amateur analysis of rifling and tumbling of bullets because none of that has anything to do with 'who shot John'.