Why Humes Thought the Back Missile Hit at a Sharp Angle -- a Hypothesis

[Michael Walton]

It's a myth in your mind only, Bob. Humes said it was shallow and handled the body. The report and witnesses said that "the end of the opening could be felt with the finger."

Sorry Bob but I have to go with what they said vs. your fantasy myth, just like I'm going to go with Oswald himself saying he was innocent compared to your fantasy about a mystery agent getting a message to Oswald about keeping quiet all weekend.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Humes also said there was no large gaping wound in the back of JFK's head. Humes also agreed with Specter that the bullet entered the back of JFK's neck and exited his throat.

Does that make these things true as well?

[Michael Walton]

BTW, Michael, not only have I likely forgotten more about the JFK assassination than you will ever know, I also am able to understand, technically and medically, why some things in this case are possible and others are not; something I am beginning to notice you are totally incapable of.

Then why are you here Bob? Are you here to just throw around snide remarks or do you genuinely care about what happened on 11/22? For me, I want to know. Being Canadian, you may not realize it but Kennedy's death shook the foundations of this country that can be felt even today. Just today is the 53rd anniversary of the I Have A Dream speech in DC. Some outlets are publishing photos of that event, and there was MLK and JFK in the White House. Even though there was still a lot of s### that needed to be taken care of, it was still a very hopeful time in this country.

And then the Bad Guys pretty much ripped his administration out and threw it in the garbage, just like they did in Africa and elsewhere. And not a one single citizen had the Constitutional right to do this through the election process; if they didn't like him, then vote him out of office.

But here we are - we've been through Vietnam, Watergate, Iran Contra, and god knows what else and if you're a student of history, you have to ask yourself - would the country have gone through all of this if Kennedy had not been murdered? My hunch says we wouldn't have. I'm not saying he would have made it all wine and roses, but it could have been very different than how it turned out to be.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Might surprise you but, JFK might have forever been remembered as the man who brought us the Viet Nam War. I have analyzed the matter quite carefully, and I am far from convinced, as many are, that JFK intended there to be a total troop withdrawal from Southeast Asia.

[Sandy Larsen]

SL - Do you believe me now Mike?

Kudos, Sandy. I'm sure your figures are right being the engineer you are. Question - doesn't the distance of the target matter, too? If I was trying to send an object a mile away, I can see how I'd have to point it upward in order to ensure it arrives there, right? And if I'm sending something a much shorter distance, I'd add a lot less loft right? I'm not talking about baseballs or bullets here - but any object.

Generally speaking...

If you drop an object, it accelerates toward the ground and then hits it. Due to gravity. It takes a certain amount of time before it hits. Let's call that t seconds. (We use the variable t because the time depends upon the height the object is dropped from.)

Now, if you throw, or shoot, or whatever that same object, it will still hit the ground after t seconds. We need to ask ourselves what we can do to make the object -- which we can now call a projectile -- travel farther before it hits the ground.

The distance an object travels is given by the simple equation we all know,

distance = velocity x time

There are two things we can do to make the object go farther. The first is to throw it faster. (That is, increase the velocity.) The other thing we can do is throw the object upward so that it takes longer before it hits the ground. (That is, increase the time.) Of course we can't just throw the object straight up... we have to throw the object both away from us AND upward. In other words, we have to throw it at an angle.

There will always be an OPTIMUM angle at which to throw the object. If you throw the ball at that angle, it will travel as far as it can possibly be thrown. Ultimately the velocity of the object will determine how far the object can be thrown. The angle it is thrown at only determines whether or not the object actually travels as far as the velocity allows.

Now that you understand that, I can address your question, which is:

"If I was trying to send an object a mile away, I can see how I'd have to point it upward in order to ensure it arrives there, right?"

To answer that, let me assume that the object is expected to arrive at the same distance from the ground from which it was sent. For example, if it was shot from five feet above the ground, it is expected to arrive at its destination also five feet above the ground.

The answer is, yes you have to point the object at an upward angle. Always, no matter what. The slower the initial velocity is, the greater (higher) the angle has to be. (However, if there is insufficient initial velocity, the object will not make it to the target no matter the angle it is thrown.)

Your next question was:

"And if I'm sending something a much shorter distance, I'd add a lot less loft right?"

Yes, that's true. Or you could keep the angle (loft) the same and reduce the initial velocity at which the object is sent.

BTW, since I began dealing more with the baseball scenario -- which due to the slowness of the ball has a much more pronounced parabolic trajectory compared to that of a high-seed bullet shot at a distance much shorter than its effective range -- I've come to appreciate the fact that the math describing the trajectory isn't as simple as I had imagined it would be. Most people would be better off using online trajectory calculators when experimenting with projectiles.

Caveat: In discussing the equation distance = velocity x time above, I left out a detail that would have made my presentation more difficult to follow. And that is that the distance and velocity in the equation are really the horizontal components of the projectile's distance and velocity. Furthermore, this caveat has the unfortunate effect of complicating the case where the projectile is aimed higher in order to increase the time before it hits the ground. Because aiming it higher will also decrease its horizontal velocity. So in the equation distance = velocity x time, the increase in time is offset to some extent by the decrease in velocity.

[Tom Neal]

Hey Bob,

I tried to PM you with this, but I got a response that you are "unable to receive PMs." So...

Any chance I can get you to comment on my post:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22979&page=6#entry332273

TIA,

Tom

[Sandy Larsen]

It's a myth in your mind only, Bob. Humes said it was shallow and handled the body. The report and witnesses said that "the end of the opening could be felt with the finger."

Sorry Bob but I have to go with what they said vs. your fantasy myth, just like I'm going to go with Oswald himself saying he was innocent compared to your fantasy about a mystery agent getting a message to Oswald about keeping quiet all weekend.

That's fine if you want to go with the shallow wound report, Mike. But if you go with that, you need to explain how such a wound could have been created. A standard bullet shot from a rifle could not have made such a shallow wound because it is far too powerful. The wound also could not have been caused by a defective (lower speed) bullet shot from a rifle because it would have missed the target.

On the other hand, the shallow wound could have been caused by a small caliber subsonic (i.e. low speed) bullet, such as those reviewed in this article. In this review, a variety of .22 caliber subsonic bullets were shot into a gelatin blocks. (Ballistic gelatin is designed to simulate muscle tissue, and is used to demonstrate penetration depth of bullets.) Here are the results of the test:

The Aguila Super Colibri bullet, having a velocity of only 607 fps, penetrated the gel by only four inches. It is conceivable that this bullet, or one like it, could have made the shallow wound described by Humes. It is one of the three bullet to have remained in like-new condition upon recovery:

Above: The recovered .22 LR subsonic bullets. From left are the Aguila Super Colibri, CCI Quiet, Winchester Subsonic HP, Remington Subsonic HP, and Aguila Sniper Subsonic.

The Aguila Super Colibri is the one on the left. Notice how much less massive this bullet is than a typical .22 caliber bullet. (The table shows that its mass is 20 grains, compared to the others which range from 38 to 60 grains.) This no doubt explains why its penetration was so much less than the other bullets.

So we learn from this test that a very slow 600 fps, lightweight, small caliber bullet is capable of causing a shallow wound. But if such a bullet were used on JFK, a number of complications need explaining.

First, it must be admitted that the bullet was either lost or hidden for some reason. CE399 was certainly not it.

Second, the effective range of this bullet is only 100 feet or so. Beyond that it will likely miss the target. Where could this bullet have been shot from?

Third, it must be explained why an assassin would choose such a wimpy bullet to kill the President. Perhaps if it carried a poison?

BTW, in order to make this bullet that penetrates only 4 inches into flesh, the manufacturer had to remove ALL the gun powder from the shell. The only thing that powers this bullet is the primer!

[Tom Neal]

DELETED

Edited August 29, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Robert Prudhomme]

It's a myth in your mind only, Bob. Humes said it was shallow and handled the body. The report and witnesses said that "the end of the opening could be felt with the finger."

Sorry Bob but I have to go with what they said vs. your fantasy myth, just like I'm going to go with Oswald himself saying he was innocent compared to your fantasy about a mystery agent getting a message to Oswald about keeping quiet all weekend.

That's fine if you want to go with the shallow wound report, Mike. But if you go with that, you need to explain how such a wound could have been created. A standard bullet shot from a rifle could not have made such a shallow wound because it is far too powerful. The wound also could not have been caused by a defective (lower speed) bullet shot from a rifle because it would have missed the target.

On the other hand, the shallow wound could have been caused by a small caliber subsonic (i.e. low speed) bullet, such as those reviewed in this article. In this review, a variety of .22 caliber subsonic bullets were shot into a gelatin blocks. (Ballistic gelatin is designed to simulate muscle tissue, and is used to demonstrate penetration depth of bullets.) Here are the results of the test:

The Aguila Super Colibri bullet, having a velocity of only 607 fps, penetrated the gel by only four inches. It is conceivable that this bullet, or one like it, could have made the shallow wound described by Humes. It is one of the three bullet to have remained in like-new condition upon recovery:

Above: The recovered .22 LR subsonic bullets. From left are the Aguila Super Colibri, CCI Quiet, Winchester Subsonic HP, Remington Subsonic HP, and Aguila Sniper Subsonic.

The Aguila Super Colibri is the one on the left. Notice how much less massive this bullet is than a typical .22 caliber bullet. (The table shows that its mass is 20 grains, compared to the others which range from 38 to 60 grains.) This no doubt explains why its penetration was so much less than the other bullets.

So we learn from this test that a very slow 600 fps, lightweight, small caliber bullet is capable of causing a shallow wound. But if such a bullet were used on JFK, a number of complications need explaining.

First, it must be admitted that the bullet was either lost or hidden for some reason. CE399 was certainly not it.

Second, the effective range of this bullet is only 100 feet or so. Beyond that it will likely miss the target. Where could this bullet have been shot from?

Third, it must be explained why an assassin would choose such a wimpy bullet to kill the President. Perhaps if it carried a poison?

BTW, in order to make this bullet that penetrates only 4 inches into flesh, the manufacturer had to remove ALL the gun powder from the shell. The only thing that powers this bullet is the primer!

Also, Sandy, the rifle would have to be sighted in for a bullet travelling 600 fps. As Michael would say, this would require quite a bit of "loft" just to get the bullet to its target.

The problem with bullets that are slow moving and have high trajectories or "lofts" is that they are not what we would call "flat shooting".

For example, the 6.5mm Carcano, shooting a 162 grain bullet at a muzzle velocity of 2200 fps, is actually quite flat shooting at ranges within 100-200 yards. If sighted in at 100 yards, the high point of this bullets trajectory, at 50 yards, is only .72 inches above the line of sight.

OTOH, the 20 grain .22 LR bullet, travelling at only 600 fps, has a much higher trajectory. If sighted in and fired at 100 yards, the high point of its trajectory, at 50 yards, works out to 13.29 inches above the line of sight. Hitting a target at anything but its sighted in range requires aiming much higher or lower than the target.

Put another way, if this .22 LR bullet travelling with an initial velocity of 600 fps will drop 53.26 inches in 100 yards.

As you say, Sandy, who in their right mind would attempt to kill the President with something so ridiculous, even if it was poison tipped?

P.S.

I was rather impressed to learn this 20 grain .22 LR bullet had a muzzle velocity of 600 fps, with no gunpowder and only the rimfire primer as a propellant.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hey Bob,

I tried to PM you with this, but I got a response that you are "unable to receive PMs." So...

Any chance I can get you to comment on my post:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22979&page=6#entry332273

TIA,

Tom

Hi Tom

Sorry I didn't answer your post. Things have been a bit hectic around here lately.

I find it quite odd that I am "unable to receive PM's". I don't recall ever trying to block anyone from sending me Private Messages.

"Thanks, Bob!

Question fer ya - your earlier comments re expert v. amateur and my thoughts as to WHY your 'scientific explanation' and mine on this topic are not accepted by many members. IMO, the instant the statements begin to sound like science or even worse, physics, many readers immediately reject any info that follows as pompous BS.

I have noticed that when I and others make a statement, a too frequent response is 'all you need is "common sense" to know that is not true.' Hopefully not true in Canada, but here in the USA a STRONG anti-science bias exists. IMO, this is due to the the repercussions of "Climate Change." Eliminating or severely reducing carbon emissions for example would reduce the typical "record profits" of oil companies.

Again IMO, this anti-science bias began in earnest with NASA's study which was immediately classified 'because it would panic the public with information that wasn't true.' This expanded quickly into a 'you can't trust scientists' attitude, and the opinion of experts possessing a higher education is superseded by alleged "common sense" that completely contradicts science. Again IMO, this bias is the result of a carefully orchestrated and politically supported plan.

To my knowledge this corporate/political campaign is not in effect in Canada. And at last the question I have been leading up to: Do you find the same anti-science bias there as in the USA?

Although I refuse to 'dumb down' the science to a point that it interferes with the necessary comprehension and can even create a false understanding, I don't supply any math, science or physics credentials for two reasons.

1. It has been my experience that when I counter 'common sense' opinions with science it is not accepted and is actually counter-productive to communicating.

2. Far too many people think you MUST be lying regarding credentials because 'simple common sense' proves you wrong.

None of the above applies to 'Science sites' where I spend MUCH more time than I do at this site.

Tom

PS If the 'Thread-Starter' believes this post is OT, LMK and I'll remove it. My personal opinion is that EVERY thread-starter has the right to make this decision him or herself."

Unfortunately, Tom, the same holds true in Canada as does in the USA. Climate change acceptance here is directly relative to how closely your sustenance is tied to the Oil Sands in Alberta.

[Tom Neal]

Unfortunately, Tom, the same holds true in Canada as does in the USA. Climate change acceptance here is directly relative to how closely your sustenance is tied to the Oil Sands in Alberta.

Hi Bob,

Thanks for the response. Have you checked to see if your mail box is full? That produces a similar response...

That's sad. Since I posted the question, I found a few references to the above.

Since you guys were smart enough to prevent a 'Fox News Canada' I was hoping things were better for you.

The whole anti-science thing actually *reduces* your credibility if you cite your academic credentials. Additionally, if you obtained your degrees from a top university you are immediately labeled an "elitist" or even a "snob" and your credibility crashes. I have learned to keep my academic credentials to myself...

Oddly enough, when people seek a doctor, a lawyer, or a financial expert, their first question is "Where did you receive your education?"

Tom

[Sandy Larsen]

Assuming there were indeed tiny particles of metal bullet pieces in JFK's chest....

The reason we can't see them in the chest x-ray image is because that x-ray doesn't show a lot of things that it should. Like large sections of rib bones. Like the heart.

Compare JFK's x-ray with a normal chest x-ray:

So why is it that we don't see much of the rib bones and heart in Kennedy's x-ray?

An over-exposure of x-rays will do this. Here is an overexposed chest x-ray:

However, it doesn't seem likely that Kennedy's x-ray was over-exposed given that it was taken with a weak, portable x-ray machine.

Another possibility is that the hard copy we see isn't a good copy. Maybe the bones and heart can be seen in the original x-ray.

Another possibility, of course, is that the extant x-ray was intentionally altered to hide something.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Robert Prudhomme]

Assuming there were indeed tiny particles of metal bullet pieces in JFK's chest....

The reason we can't see them in the chest x-ray image is because that x-ray doesn't show a lot of things that it should. Like large sections of rib bones. Like the heart.

Compare JFK's x-ray with a normal chest x-ray:

So why is it that we don't see much of the rib bones and heart in Kennedy's x-ray?

An over-exposure of x-rays will do this. Here is an overexposed chest x-ray:

However, it doesn't seem likely that Kennedy's x-ray was over-exposed given that it was taken with a weak, portable x-ray machine.

Another possibility is that the hard copy we see isn't a good copy. Maybe the bones and heart can be seen in the original x-ray.

Another possibility, of course, is that the extant x-ray was intentionally altered to hide something.

Or, the x-ray of JFK's chest was exposed after the heart and lungs were removed.

[Sandy Larsen]

Assuming there were indeed tiny particles of metal bullet pieces in JFK's chest....

The reason we can't see them in the chest x-ray image is because that x-ray doesn't show a lot of things that it should. Like large sections of rib bones. Like the heart.

Compare JFK's x-ray with a normal chest x-ray:

So why is it that we don't see much of the rib bones and heart in Kennedy's x-ray?

An over-exposure of x-rays will do this. Here is an overexposed chest x-ray:

However, it doesn't seem likely that Kennedy's x-ray was over-exposed given that it was taken with a weak, portable x-ray machine.

Another possibility is that the hard copy we see isn't a good copy. Maybe the bones and heart can be seen in the original x-ray.

Another possibility, of course, is that the extant x-ray was intentionally altered to hide something.

Or, the x-ray of JFK's chest was exposed after the heart and lungs were removed.

Sure, that could explain the disappearing heart. But not the disappearing ribs.

Or did you mean that metal particles don't show up because the organs were removed? Yes, that's a possibility.

James Gordon says that the chest x-ray was taken before the organs were removed. I don't know what substantiation there is for that claim.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I would like to know from what perspective this x-ray was taken.

Do you see how the clavicles (collarbones) descend dramatically from the shoulders to the middle of the chest?