Jump to content
The Education Forum

Any prevailing theories on the back wound?


Sandy Larsen
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've seen a couple of estimates on what the speed of the bullet hitting Kennedy's back must have been to make such a shallow wound. Using those figures I calculated how far the bullet would have dropped had it been fired from the TSBD at such low speeds and was surprised at the result. The bullet would have dropped over 20 feet! In other words, a sniper would have had to aim 20 feet high in order to hit the president.

Not believing that figure, I did the same calculation for a high-speed bullet, and found it would have dropped around 3 inches. Now that seemed reasonable, and it gave me confidence that my calculation for the low speed bullet was correct. (The reason for the huge difference between a high-speed and low-speed bullet is that the calculation has a square in it. So a bullet that is a that is, say, a fourth the speed will drop sixteen times as far.)

Since then I've been trying to figure out how to explain the back wound. I can't.

Are there any prevailing theories on how the back wound came to be?

After having read several of the posts on this relevant thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22173&hl=%20back%20%20wound&page=1

I'm left with the feeling there are no prevailing theories. Which is odd, if true, given that researchers have had fifty years to think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 484
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The late Tom Purvis offered the theory that the bullet passed through a branch of the live oak tree outside the TSBD, which flattened it somewhat, slowed it down, caused some of the lead core to extrude from the base, and sent the bullet on a tumbling track. He believed that the reason the bullet wound in JFK's back was the shape it was [not round] was because the bullet was still tumbling...and that the tearing of the cloth of the jacket and the shirt in the fashion it did was due to the bullet striking the jacket base first, and acting more like a "wadcutter" bullet than the round-nosed projectile that started its flight. Purvis then claimed that this bullet was CE399, which did NOT strike Connally.

Many have disagreed with Purvis' theory, but Purvis also noted that at the time of the WC re-enactments in Dealy plaza, some branches from that live oak tree were trimmed...begging the question, for what purpose?

Mr. Purvis is no longer around to answer any questions about this, but there are several of us here to whom he sent copies of his work on the topic. Perhaps one of the other recipients of the Purvis materials could explain this in greater detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen a couple of estimates on what the speed of the bullet hitting Kennedy's back must have been to make such a shallow wound. Using those figures I calculated how far the bullet would have dropped had it been fired from the TSBD at such low speeds and was surprised at the result. The bullet would have dropped over 20 feet! In other words, a sniper would have had to aim 20 feet high in order to hit the president.

Not believing that figure, I did the same calculation for a high-speed bullet, and found it would have dropped around 3 inches. Now that seemed reasonable, and it gave me confidence that my calculation for the low speed bullet was correct. (The reason for the huge difference between a high-speed and low-speed bullet is that the calculation has a square in it. So a bullet that is a that is, say, a fourth the speed will drop sixteen times as far.)

Since then I've been trying to figure out how to explain the back wound. I can't.

Are there any prevailing theories on how the back wound came to be?

After having read several of the posts on this relevant thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22173&hl=%20back%20%20wound&page=1

I'm left with the feeling there are no prevailing theories. Which is odd, if true, given that researchers have had fifty years to think about it.

The night of the autopsy with the body in front of them the autopsists speculated that JFK was hit with a high tech weapon which wouldn't show up on x-ray.

The FBI men took this seriously enough to call the FBI Lab, but the subject was quickly changed.

The FBI had been briefed on such high tech weaponry by personnel from US Army Special Operations Division.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf

Very few researchers are "culturally capable" of taking this scenario seriously, no matter how serious the 5 guys at the autopsy took it.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The late Tom Purvis offered the theory that the bullet passed through a branch of the live oak tree outside the TSBD, which flattened it somewhat, slowed it down, caused some of the lead core to extrude from the base, and sent the bullet on a tumbling track. He believed that the reason the bullet wound in JFK's back was the shape it was [not round] was because the bullet was still tumbling...and that the tearing of the cloth of the jacket and the shirt in the fashion it did was due to the bullet striking the jacket base first, and acting more like a "wadcutter" bullet than the round-nosed projectile that started its flight. Purvis then claimed that this bullet was CE399, which did NOT strike Connally.

Many have disagreed with Purvis' theory, but Purvis also noted that at the time of the WC re-enactments in Dealy plaza, some branches from that live oak tree were trimmed...begging the question, for what purpose?

Mr. Purvis is no longer around to answer any questions about this, but there are several of us here to whom he sent copies of his work on the topic. Perhaps one of the other recipients of the Purvis materials could explain this in greater detail.

Hi Mark

The odds of a tumbling bullet just happening to strike JFK's back as the base of the bullet, in mid tumble, was presented forward are, at the very least, astronomical. Also, there would be nothing to stop the bullet from continuing to tumble as it entered JFK's back. Instead of a neat little hole, a tumbling bullet should leave a much larger furrowed oval wound, despite having entered base first.

I hate to speak ill of the dead but, I found serious flaws in a great deal of Mr. Purvis' writings, especially on the subjects of firearms, ballistics and, in particular, the 6.5 Carcano rifle.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to speak ill of the dead but, I found serious flaws in a great deal of Mr. Purvis' writings, especially on the subjects of firearms, ballistics and, in particular, the 6.5 Carcano rifle.

If I recall correctly, wasn't Purvis an LN? That would necessarily limit from the get-go what he could theorize about the back wound. A tree branch would certainly be convenient, but I think you've shown that with a tumbling bullet he was going out on a limb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen a couple of estimates on what the speed of the bullet hitting Kennedy's back must have been to make such a shallow wound. Using those figures I calculated how far the bullet would have dropped had it been fired from the TSBD at such low speeds and was surprised at the result. The bullet would have dropped over 20 feet! In other words, a sniper would have had to aim 20 feet high in order to hit the president.

Not believing that figure, I did the same calculation for a high-speed bullet, and found it would have dropped around 3 inches. Now that seemed reasonable, and it gave me confidence that my calculation for the low speed bullet was correct. (The reason for the huge difference between a high-speed and low-speed bullet is that the calculation has a square in it. So a bullet that is a that is, say, a fourth the speed will drop sixteen times as far.)

Since then I've been trying to figure out how to explain the back wound. I can't.

Are there any prevailing theories on how the back wound came to be?

After having read several of the posts on this relevant thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22173&hl=%20back%20%20wound&page=1

I'm left with the feeling there are no prevailing theories. Which is odd, if true, given that researchers have had fifty years to think about it.

Hi Sandy

I see you have linked to a thread I began some time ago. I will assume you are familiar now with my low opinion of the "short shot" and the "shallow" back wound.

If you read more of my threads, you will see that I personally believe the type of bullet that entered JFK's back, as well as the bullet(s) that entered his skull, were a type of bullet known as a "frangible" bullet; a bullet made from compressed, sintered or glued lead (or other metals) powder. The lethal version of a frangible bullet also has a hollow point nose to exert maximum fluid pressure on the interior of this bullet, after it penetrates a few inches, to cause it to disintegrate back into a cloud of metal powder capable of inflicting lethal internal injuries.

From the medical report of Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, surgeon, Parkland Memorial Hospital, Nov. 22, 1963, 1630 hours:

"Upon receiving a stat alarm that this distinguished patient was being brought to the emergency room at Parkland Memorial Hospital, I dispatched Doctors A . H. Giesecke and Jackie H. Hunt with an anesthesia machine and resuscitative equipment to the major surgical emergency room area, and I ran down the stairs . On my arrival in the emergency operating room at approximately 1230 I found that Doctors Carrico and/or Delaney had begun resuscitative efforts by introducing an orotracheal tube, connecting it for controlled ventilation to a Bennett intermittent positive pressure breathing apparatus . Doctors Charles Baxter, Malcolm Perry, and Robert McClelland arrived at the same time and began a tracheostomy and started the insertion of a right chest tube, since there was also obvious tracheal and chest damage . Doctors Paul Peters and Kemp Clark arrived simultaneously and immediately thereafter assisted respectively with the insertion of the right chest tube and with manual closed chest cardiac compression to assure circulation."

From the Warren Commission testimony of Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, March 25, 1964, 1730 hours:

"Dr. JENKINS - Well, I was aware of what he was in an agonal state. This is not a too unfamiliar state that we see in the Service, as much trauma as we see, that is, he had the agonal respiratory gasp made up of jerking movements of the mylohyoid group of muscles. These are referred to sometimes as chin jerk, tracheal tug or agonal muscles of respiration. He had this characteristic of respiration. His eyes were opened and somewhat exophthalmic and color was greatly suffused, cyanotic---a purplish cyanosis.

Still, we have patients in the state, as far as cyanosis and agonal type respiration, who are resuscitatable. Of course, you don't step at this time and think, "Well, this is a hopeless circumstance,"--because one in this state can often be resusciated--this represents the activities prior to one's demise sometimes, and if it can be stepped, such as the patient is oxygenated again and circulation reinstituted, he can be saved.

Dr. Carrico had just introduced an endotracheal tube, I'm very proud of him for this because it's not as easy as it sounds. At times and under the circumstances--it was harder--he had. just completed a 3-month rotation on the anesthesiology service, and I thought this represented good background training for a smart individual, and he told me he had a cuff on the endotracheal tube and he introduced it below the wound.

The reason I said this, of course, this is a reflex--there is a tube, the endotracheal tube, if it is pushed down a little too far it can go into the right main stem of the bronchus impairing respiration from both lungs, or both chest.

There was in the room an intermittent positive pressure breathing apparatus, which can be used to respire for a patient. As I connected this up, however, Dr. Carrico and I connected it up to give oxygen by artificial respiration, Dr. Giesecke and Dr. Hunt arrived on the scene with the anesthesia machine and I connected it up instead with something I am more familiar with--not for anesthesia, I must insist on that--it was for the oxygenation, the ability to control ventilation with 100 percent oxygen.

As I came in there, other people came in also. This is my recollection. Now, by this time I was in familiar surroundings, despite the anguish of the circumstance.

Despite the unusual circumstance, in terms of the distinguished personage who was the patient, I think the people who had gathered or who had congregated were so accustomed to doing resuscitative procedures of this nature that they knew where to fit into the resuscitation team without having a preconceived or predirected plan, because, as obviously--some people were doing things not necessarily in their specialty, but there was the opening and there was the necessity for this being done.

There were three others who came in as I did who recognized at once the neck wound, in fact, where the wound was, would indicate that we would have serious pulmonary problems unless a tracheotomy tube was put in. This is one way of avoiding pushing air out through a fractured trachea and down into each chest cavity, which would cause a pneumothorax or a collapse of the lungs. These were doctors Malcolm Perry, Charley Baxter, and Robert McClelland, who with Dr. Carrico's help, I believe, started the tracheotomy.

About this time Drs. Kemp Clark and Paul Peters came in, and Dr. Peters because of the appearance of the right chest, the obvious physical characteristics of a pneumothorax, put in a closed chest drainage chest tube. Because I felt no peripheral pulse and was not aware of any pulse, I reported this to Dr. Clark and he started closed chest cardiac massage.

There were other people--one which started an I.V. in a cutdown in the right leg and one a cutdown in the left arm. Two of my department connected up the cardioscope, in which we had electrical silence on the cardioscope as Dr. Clark started closed chest massage. That's the sequence of events as I reconstructed them that day and dictated them on my report, which you have here, I think."

Note that Jenkins, in his medical report, speaks only of the insertion of a right chest tube (and not a left chest tube) to deal with "obvious tracheal and chest damage", not suspected tracheal and chest damage. He expands on this in his WC testimony, as seen in the 2nd last paragraph I quoted from his testimony above, where he describes Dr. Paul Peters inserting a "closed chest drainage chest tube" because of "the appearance of the right chest, the obvious physical characteristics of a pneumothorax".

What Jenkins is telling the WC, is that something had entered JFK's right chest cavity and damaged his right lung, to the point the lung was no longer airtight and had, effectively, collapsed. Whenever a breath was drawn in by JFK (agonal breathing by JFK was witnessed in Trauma Room One and I believe this proves that JFK did not die instantly at the scene of the assassination and there was breathing, albeit it limited, all the way to Parkland), the indrawn breath would pass through the hole in JFK's right lung and fill the pleural cavity between lung and chest wall. When he exhaled, the hole in the lung would seal, trapping the air in the pleural cavity. With each breath, the volume of air would grow, until this air volume began exerting pressure on the left lung and heart; impairing their function to the point death could occur.

The medical procedure to alleviate this condition is, as described by Dr. Jenkins, the insertion into the pleural cavity of a large bore needle or tube, through the intercostal space between the 2nd and 3rd rib at the midclavicular line, and connecting that tube to closed chest drainage. This closed chest drainage allows air to escape from the chest on exhalation but prevents air returning to the chest cavity on inhalation.

A frangible bullet entering JFK's back, 1.5-2 inches to the right of the spinal midline and at the level of thoracic vertebra T3, would go directly into the top of JFK's right lung. A well made hollow point frangible bullet would disintegrate to powder part way through the lung, and not exit.

It was vital to conceal the damage done by this bullet to the right lung, as knowledge of its disintegrating quality would ultimately lead people to inquire about the explosive characteristics of the bullet that struck JFK in the head.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to speak ill of the dead but, I found serious flaws in a great deal of Mr. Purvis' writings, especially on the subjects of firearms, ballistics and, in particular, the 6.5 Carcano rifle.

If I recall correctly, wasn't Purvis an LN? That would necessarily limit from the get-go what he could theorize about the back wound. A tree branch would certainly be convenient, but I think you've shown that with a tumbling bullet he was going out on a limb.

Mr. Ecker,

Tom Purvis was indeed a LNer. But I was able to finally get him to concede that there is nothing proving that Oswald fired any shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Still, he claimed it was a 3-shot, 3-hit scenario...and contrary to what the WC claimed, there was no "shot that missed" in Mr. Purvis' scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Purvis was more complex than that. He thought all shots came from the sixth floor TSBD window, and that Oswald fired them. But he also accused the Warren Commission of covering up, and thought that the Zapruder film was altered. I tried to engage him on his thoroughly confusing perspective, but was never able to understand him clearly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The late Tom Purvis' scenario on the events of November 22, 1963 were indeed "complex" and I nor others who knew Tom need not defend that which Tom wrote; if you are truly interested his writings they are available. I had the pleasure of exchanging correspondence with Tom on a number of issues for over twenty years and can agree with comments written in this thread by both Mark and Don - in particular Tom's unwavering conviction that the assassination and its drawn out aftermath were indeed the "results" of a conspiracy. However, regardless of the semantics of feigning reverence for the dead, I do find it rather interesting that the individual who appears to be the self-appointed ballistics and firearms expert of the Education Forum, an individual who as far as I know does not own a Mannlicher Carcano weapon nor possess any of the alleged ammunition said by officialdom to have been involved in Dealey Plaza, would find Tom's theoretical nuances of a tumbling bullet scenario, a scenario I might add that Tom actually tested, as entering the realm of "astronomical". Would it be fair to ask more "astronomical" than a "frangible" bullet of unknown caliber, fired by an unknown assassinfrom an unknown weapon from an unknown location at an unknown specific point in time along Elm Street - presumably from behind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The late Tom Purvis offered the theory that the bullet passed through a branch of the live oak tree outside the TSBD, which flattened it somewhat, slowed it down, caused some of the lead core to extrude from the base, and sent the bullet on a tumbling track. He believed that the reason the bullet wound in JFK's back was the shape it was [not round] was because the bullet was still tumbling...and that the tearing of the cloth of the jacket and the shirt in the fashion it did was due to the bullet striking the jacket base first, and acting more like a "wadcutter" bullet than the round-nosed projectile that started its flight. Purvis then claimed that this bullet was CE399, which did NOT strike Connally.

Many have disagreed with Purvis' theory, but Purvis also noted that at the time of the WC re-enactments in Dealy plaza, some branches from that live oak tree were trimmed...begging the question, for what purpose?

Mr. Purvis is no longer around to answer any questions about this, but there are several of us here to whom he sent copies of his work on the topic. Perhaps one of the other recipients of the Purvis materials could explain this in greater detail.

Thanks guys for your replies. I'm happy to see that there are indeed some plausible explanations for the back wound.

I'll get to the other ideas in turn. Right now I'll focus on Tom Purvis's theory.

The key to this problem's solution (assuming a traditional lead bullet was used) is that the bullet became slowed down, not as far away as the TSBD, but close enough to Kennedy that it would have dropped only a few inches before hitting him. (Because slow bullets drop so far as to render them too inaccurate at long ranges.) With that in mind I will test Purvis's theory.

I believe that the WC concluded that the nearest distance a shot was possible was at about 170 ft from the TSBD. From a diagram in this link

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/3966/dppluschartsupdated1111.gif

I've determined that the tree was located about half way between the TBSD and Kennedy at that point. So the bullet traveled about 85 ft at the slow velocity.

I've read that back wound looked consistent with a bullet traveling perhaps 300 fps. So I'll use that figure.

We can determine the approximate drop based upon these two figures. (Approximate because I will be ignoring wind resistance and the fact that the gun was shot at a downward angle, among other things.)

FORMULA

The distance an object drops due to gravity is given by the formula

d = (g * t^2)/2

where * denotes multiplication, / denotes division, and ^ denotes “to the power of” (so t^2 is t squared).

g = 32 is a constant. It is the downward acceleration of an object due to gravitational pull. Its units are ft/s^2 (feet per second squared).

t is the time the object is allowed to drop. We don’t know offhand what t is, but we can calculate it from the distance the bullet traveled toward the target. It is calculated from the equation

t = D / v

where D is the distance the bullet travels toward its target and v is its velocity. Substituting this equation into the formula above ,we get

d = (g * (D/v)^2)/2

CALCULATION

The distance D is 85 ft and the velocity is 300 fps. Plugging those into the formula we get

d = (32 * (85/300)^2)/2

d = 1.28 ft

So a 300 fps bullet would drop 15.4 inches, which is 15.1 inches lower than a where a 2000 fps bullet would hit. (I used the same formula to determine that a high speed bullet (2000 fps) would drop about 0.3".)

CONCLUSION

For my conclusion I will use a bullet velocity of 380 fps instead of the 300 fps I used above. The reason for doing so will be apparent.

If the shooter were aiming for the head and hitting a limb slowed the bullet down to 380 fps, it would hit the back about where it hit Kennedy. I can't take into account bullet deflection or tumbling, but the calculation here shows that we’re in the right ballpark. Purvis may be on to something.

(BTW, I don't believe a Carcano shot that bullet. I don't believe Oswald shot any bullet. But I do believe the shot may have come from the TSBD.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The late Tom Purvis' scenario on the events of November 22, 1963 were indeed "complex" and I nor others who knew Tom need not defend that which Tom wrote; if you are truly interested his writings they are available. I had the pleasure of exchanging correspondence with Tom on a number of issues for over twenty years and can agree with comments written in this thread by both Mark and Don - in particular Tom's unwavering conviction that the assassination and its drawn out aftermath were indeed the "results" of a conspiracy. However, regardless of the semantics of feigning reverence for the dead, I do find it rather interesting that the individual who appears to be the self-appointed ballistics and firearms expert of the Education Forum, an individual who as far as I know does not own a Mannlicher Carcano weapon nor possess any of the alleged ammunition said by officialdom to have been involved in Dealey Plaza, would find Tom's theoretical nuances of a tumbling bullet scenario, a scenario I might add that Tom actually tested, as entering the realm of "astronomical". Would it be fair to ask more "astronomical" than a "frangible" bullet of unknown caliber, fired by an unknown assassinfrom an unknown weapon from an unknown location at an unknown specific point in time along Elm Street - presumably from behind?

I don't believe for one second that Purvis actually tested his tumbling bullet theory, just as I don't believe a lot of the other nonsense he wrote about firearms and Carcanos. You can slag me all you want, Mr. Murr but, don't think I have any illusions about where your defense of Tom Purvis is coming from. BTW, you never did answer my question about the diameter of Carcano bullets, and the diameter SA Robert A. Frazier obtained when he measured pristine WCC Carcano bullets.

Having handloaded my own rifle cartridges for many years, I can speak with experience about tumbling bullets, as this effect occurs when one is experimenting with different loads of gunpowder and different bullets. The wrong load can either under- or over-stabilize a bullet in flight and cause it to begin tumbling. When looking at a paper target, we refer to this as "keyholing", as the bullet, instead of making a neat little round hole in a paper target, will make an oblong hole resembling a keyhole as it goes through the paper sideways. Know how many times I saw a tumbling bullet make a round hole in a paper target instead of a "keyhole"? ZERO.

As I said earlier, EVEN IF the bullet did magically manage to hit JFK's back at the exact moment the base of the bullet was pointing in the line of travel, this was still a tumbling bullet, and as it entered the flesh of JFK's back, it would have continued to tumble. It would make a wound that bore no resemblance at all to the wound seen on JFK's back.

As I said, defend Tom Purvis all you want. I see this as a continuation of the effort to place a shooter on the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The late Tom Purvis offered the theory that the bullet passed through a branch of the live oak tree outside the TSBD, which flattened it somewhat, slowed it down, caused some of the lead core to extrude from the base, and sent the bullet on a tumbling track. He believed that the reason the bullet wound in JFK's back was the shape it was [not round] was because the bullet was still tumbling...and that the tearing of the cloth of the jacket and the shirt in the fashion it did was due to the bullet striking the jacket base first, and acting more like a "wadcutter" bullet than the round-nosed projectile that started its flight. Purvis then claimed that this bullet was CE399, which did NOT strike Connally.

Many have disagreed with Purvis' theory, but Purvis also noted that at the time of the WC re-enactments in Dealy plaza, some branches from that live oak tree were trimmed...begging the question, for what purpose?

Mr. Purvis is no longer around to answer any questions about this, but there are several of us here to whom he sent copies of his work on the topic. Perhaps one of the other recipients of the Purvis materials could explain this in greater detail.

Thanks guys for your replies. I'm happy to see that there are indeed some plausible explanations for the back wound.

I'll get to the other ideas in turn. Right now I'll focus on Tom Purvis's theory.

The key to this problem's solution (assuming a traditional lead bullet was used) is that the bullet became slowed down, not as far away as the TSBD, but close enough to Kennedy that it would have dropped only a few inches before hitting him. (Because slow bullets drop so far as to render them too inaccurate at long ranges.) With that in mind I will test Purvis's theory.

I believe that the WC concluded that the nearest distance a shot was possible was at about 170 ft from the TSBD. From a diagram in this link

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/3966/dppluschartsupdated1111.gif

I've determined that the tree was located about half way between the TBSD and Kennedy at that point. So the bullet traveled about 85 ft at the slow velocity.

I've read that back wound looked consistent with a bullet traveling perhaps 300 fps. So I'll use that figure.

We can determine the approximate drop based upon these two figures. (Approximate because I will be ignoring wind resistance and the fact that the gun was shot at a downward angle, among other things.)

FORMULA

The distance an object drops due to gravity is given by the formula

d = (g * t^2)/2

where * denotes multiplication, / denotes division, and ^ denotes “to the power of” (so t^2 is t squared).

g = 32 is a constant. It is the downward acceleration of an object due to gravitational pull. Its units are ft/s^2 (feet per second squared).

t is the time the object is allowed to drop. We don’t know offhand what t is, but we can calculate it from the distance the bullet traveled toward the target. It is calculated from the equation

t = D / v

where D is the distance the bullet travels toward its target and v is its velocity. Substituting this equation into the formula above ,we get

d = (g * (D/v)^2)/2

CALCULATION

The distance D is 85 ft and the velocity is 300 fps. Plugging those into the formula we get

d = (32 * (85/300)^2)/2

d = 1.28 ft

So a 300 fps bullet would drop 15.4 inches, which is 15.1 inches lower than a where a 2000 fps bullet would hit. (I used the same formula to determine that a high speed bullet (2000 fps) would drop about 0.3".)

CONCLUSION

For my conclusion I will use a bullet velocity of 380 fps instead of the 300 fps I used above. The reason for doing so will be apparent.

If the shooter were aiming for the head and hitting a limb slowed the bullet down to 380 fps, it would hit the back about where it hit Kennedy. I can't take into account bullet deflection or tumbling, but the calculation here shows that we’re in the right ballpark. Purvis may be on to something.

(BTW, I don't believe a Carcano shot that bullet. I don't believe Oswald shot any bullet. But I do believe the shot may have come from the TSBD.)

In order to believe your theory would work requires ignoring everything I know about bullets in flight. It also requires believing that slowing a bullet from 2000 fps to 300-380 fps, by having it travel through a tree branch, will not de-stabilize the bullet to the point it will begin tumbling.

Sorry, I happen to know better.

P.S.

Your mathematics are impressive but, it is just as easy to use an on line ballistics calculator to calculate bullet drop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is something else to think about. A 158 grain bullet fired from a .38 Special revolver (similar to the weapon Ruby used to kill Oswald) will leave the barrel of that revolver at a muzzle velocity of 587 feet/second (fps); a mere 193 fps faster than the theoretical bullet that supposedly only penetrated JFK's back a mere inch.

At 587 fps, according to the medical report from Parkland Memorial Hospital, this bullet travelled a left to right course through Oswald's abdomen; passing through almost every abdominal organ on its way through and coming very close to exiting the right side of Oswald's abdomen.

Considering the mass of a Carcano bullet is 162 grains, does anyone think that slowing this bullet to 380 fps would severely limit its penetrating capabilities in flesh, as opposed to the same bullet travelling at 587 fps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My, my, my - get out of the wrong side of bed today, did we? Correct me if I am wrong but I do not recall indicating in my prior posting that Tom Purvis specifically tested the "tumbling" aspect of the various nuances that make up the totality of his theory, did I? As for your knowing where my defense of the late Tom Purvis is coming from please enlighten me. And yes - I more than adequately answered your question regarding Robert Frazier and his measurements of 6.5mm ammunition manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company - you just didn't like the answer. You, "Traveller" [or is it Traveller II?]have been attempting to flog the idea, totally incorrect I might add, that the diameter of the 6.5mm ammunition in question was .264" on various gun board forums and elsewhere since 2011. The fact that you attempt to repeatedly paint a picture of Robert Frazier as some backwoods bumpkin who didn't have a clue as to how to measure any bullet, because he tried to explain to members of the Warren Commission just what these measurements were in terminology that was not metric, is pathetic. And before you go off on another Sasquatch hunt I will admit that I have unfortunately been unable to find all of my research materials including copies of Robert Frazier's notebooks, some of which was lost as a result of a flood in my basement several months ago. And finally, please indicate to me where anything I stated in my prior posting indicates that I, personally, am abetting or constructing some mythical effort "to place a shooter in [not on]the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD." Hell, as far as I know there may actually have been someone in that area at the time of the event, shooter or not. I just wish I had your certainty that there wasn't.

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...