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

[Michael Cross]

Mike,

One problem with your thinking is that you believe that a thrower actually aims the ball. As I said in my earlier post, the thrower doesn't aim the ball... at least not vertically. He throws the ball with a release that he instinctually knows will land the ball where he wants it to. His is a learned instinct gained from throwing the bull numerous times and observing how far the ball traveled.

YES. He's not doing math when he throws. His early attempts hit the ground and the amazing computer that is the human brain built a compensation mechanism for gravity - they throw the ball on an upward trajectory. I'm not an engineer like Sandy, but I did coach baseball for over a decade.

[Robert Prudhomme]

"Questions for Bob Prudhomme: About how many deer have you shot in your lifetime? Of those, how many hit just muscle and stopped before hitting bone or exiting? If any, how far did these penetrate muscle before stopping?

I'm sure you've seen a lot of deer shot by others. Have you EVER seen a shallow wound made by any standard rifle fire? Where the bullet didn't break up?"

More than I can recall.

The only bullets I've ever seen that did not penetrate deeply into a deer's body were low velocity .22 Short Rifle bullets likely fired at such a range their initial low velocity was even further slowed down. Bullets travelling at typical hunting bullet velocities will go through hide and meat like it was not even there.

No, I have never seen a shallow wound made by a bullet travelling at a velocity in the normal range of velocities most rifle bullets travel at.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Sandy Larsen]

Mike,

One problem with your thinking is that you believe that a thrower actually aims the ball. As I said in my earlier post, the thrower doesn't aim the ball... at least not vertically. He throws the ball with a release that he instinctually knows will land the ball where he wants it to. His is a learned instinct gained from throwing the bull numerous times and observing how far the ball traveled.

YES. He's not doing math when he throws. His early attempts hit the ground and the amazing computer that is the human brain built a compensation mechanism for gravity - they throw the ball on an upward trajectory. I'm not an engineer like Sandy, but I did coach baseball for over a decade.

Just so everybody knows, the post the Mike C. is responding to here was meant for Mike W. (Not to say that Mike C. can't respond if he wants to.)

[Michael Cross]

Mike,

One problem with your thinking is that you believe that a thrower actually aims the ball. As I said in my earlier post, the thrower doesn't aim the ball... at least not vertically. He throws the ball with a release that he instinctually knows will land the ball where he wants it to. His is a learned instinct gained from throwing the bull numerous times and observing how far the ball traveled.

YES. He's not doing math when he throws. His early attempts hit the ground and the amazing computer that is the human brain built a compensation mechanism for gravity - they throw the ball on an upward trajectory. I'm not an engineer like Sandy, but I did coach baseball for over a decade.

Just so everybody knows, the post the Mike C. is responding to here was meant for Mike W. (Not to say that Mike C. can't respond if he wants to.)

Yes, sorry, just agreeing with you.

Allow me to quote John Oliver:

"You don’t need people’s opinions on a fact. You might as well have a poll asking which number is bigger — 15 or 5?”

[Sandy Larsen]

It would take miles and miles for the ball, based on the speed they throw it at and if by some miracle the ball held a constant speed, to keep angling upward to reach a height of 150 feet. That's why that calculation has to be wrong.

Mike,

You keep ignoring the fact that gravity is pulling the ball down.

Without gravity the ball would definitely keep going up. Nothing else is holding the ball down. Just gravity.

My calculations are correct. They show that the ball would fly over the catcher's head by 197 feet if there was no gravity.

The way to know how a projectile is aimed is by removing the gravity and seeing where the ball hits. (Of course this can only be done on paper.)

[Robert Prudhomme]

Uh, no. You're both wrong. According to Sandy you have to aim the ball "150 feet" in order to make it go where you want. Think about that for a minute. That's equal to a 15-story building. Imagine a baseball field with a 15-story building sitting in the middle of it, a guy goes way out in the outfield and aims for home but projects the ball the same trajectory as the 15-story building. Somewhere along the line, his math analysis is way, way off.

There is no freaking way that you have to aim the ball the equivalent of a 15-story building to throw the ball 110 to 120 yards. It seems like Sandy doesn't care that I've actually done this numerous times before my arm fell apart.

Watch my video and your video. The most he aimed it upward is I'm going to guess 25-30 feet at the most in order to get it where he wanted. You can clearly see this when the ball is halfway there - the other players are looking up to it as it's about 25-30 feet from the ground.

And to stick to this thread's topic - I think this whole thread is a good example of others on this forum - the simple, down-to-earth reasoning behind the back wound just seems too hard for people to believe, so they come up with outlandish ways for how it happened. Researchers here say it couldn't have happened that way, but I say, "how do we know that?" Because someone said a few words and came up with a crazy alternative theory?

Until someone takes a dummy, puts a shirt and coat on it, positions it the same distance between the DT building and Z 225, and fires a number of bullets similar to C399 and 10 out of 10 bullets all go through and through the dummy and not stop shallow like Humes said, then I'll continue to believe that what Humes said was correct.

Take a good look at this diagram, Michael, and let me know if you can establish a relation between the "Bullet Departure Line/Bore Axis" and the point in space above the catcher the outfielder is throwing the ball at.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

Now take a look at this diagram, Michael. As you can see, the "bore axis" of the rifle is still pointing way above the target (just like the outfielder) but, due to gravitational forces on the bullet, the bullet cannot follow the "bore axis" or "line of departure" and impacts the target instead.

The most important thing about this diagram, though, as it relates to the shallow back wound myth, is the thing called the "line of sight". In this diagram, they are using the rear and front sight of a rifle. A rifle scope would be the same set up.

Adjusting the line of sight, while shooting at one particular distance, to make the bullet hit a target, is known as "sighting in" or "zeroing" a rifle. Having ammo that is well manufactured is very important, as changes in the velocity of successive bullets will cause the bullets to impact at various places vertically on the target. With less velocity, the bullet will not go as far, and the bullet paths will look like this:

Trajectories of a projectile with air drag and varying initial velocities

With a muzzle velocity of 2200 feet per second, the 6.5mm Carcano 162 grain FMJ bullet has a tremendous amount of penetrating power. Not only is it more than capable of passing right through the ribcage (plus his clothes) of a man, if another man were standing directly in front of him, it would likely pass right through his ribcage, too, and have enough energy left to seriously injure a 3rd person.

This is a very difficult thing to estimate but, in order to produce the kind of shallow wound described in JFK's back, as described by Humes, the muzzle velocity of the bullet would have to be reduced from 2200 fps to at least 400 fps, and more likely 300 fps.

Looking at the top diagram, if the shooter had sighted his rifle in using bullets travelling at 2200 fps, what would happen if, after aiming in a normal fashion, he UNEXPECTEDLY fired a bullet with a muzzle velocity of only 300-400 fps, an 82-87% reduction in muzzle velocity?

Edited August 27, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Michael Walton]

We can keep arguing this forever. I'm not doubting what either of you are saying about loft or whatever it's called. I agree with you that the slower an object is moving, you have to add some loft or whatever in order to ensure that it arrives where you want it to (based on a baseball throw for example). I just don't think you have to add that much loft to a throw (150 feet high worth) to get it to the catcher's glove 84 yards away. Loft yes...but not that much loft.

But to stick to this thread, Humes said it was a shallow wound. The front autopsy photo shows no exit wound from the back entrance wound. This proves this shot from the back did not go through Kennedy, so we have that evidence. Do I agree or believe everything Humes said? No because I think he was coached later to try to get everything to match up with the WC results.

But he said that it was a shallow wound so that's all we have to go by. If you don't want to agree with him, that's your choice. I choose to agree with him.

See the drawing below. Again - and remember - I DO agree about the loft thing. But the distance from the DT building to Z 225 was only 66 yards. And even with a slow moving bullet of 409 MPH, that's an increase of over 400% in velocity compared to a ball thrown at 85 MPH. There has to have been a gun firing a round-nosed bullet at that speed from that distance to have caused a wound like we see in the autopsy photo and causing a shallow wound.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Have you ever done target shooting at 66 yards with a weapon firing bullets at 600 fps? Did you know that a handgun firing a bullet at your back at point blank range, with a muzzle velocity of 600 fps, is going to do a lot more than make a shallow wound?

[Robert Prudhomme]

You see, Michael, 600 fps is a very low velocity, even for a handgun yet, at point blank range, a bullet fired at this velocity will make much more than a shallow wound.

When you say 409 mph (or 600 fps) is that the velocity the bullet is travelling, leaving the Dal-Tex Building, or the velocity it is travelling when it hit JFK?

The main problem with your theory is that you are assuming there was nothing wrong with the cartridge the back wound bullet originated from, and that the bullet was travelling at its expected velocity.

If it only made a shallow back wound, don't you think the people planning the assassination would be professional enough to understand that such a low powered bullet might not have the ability to do enough damage to kill JFK? Why would they even consider using such a weapon?

To give you an idea of just what a low powered weapon you are speaking of, look at this chart put together by Chuck Hawks:

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

Under the heading "MV" (muzzle velocity) you will see the muzzle velocities for most known handguns listed. Surprisingly, even the humble .22 Long Rifle rimfire cartridges are listed as travelling from 975-1262 fps. You have to go quite far down the list to find a bullet with a muzzle velocity less than 600 fps, that being the .38 Special with a 2" barrel, firing a 158 grain round-nosed lead bullet at 587 fps.

However, looks can be deceiving. Despite its low velocity, its heavier mass gives it a Muzzle Energy of 200 ft. lbs., as compared to a 40 grain .22 Long Rifle bullet with a muzzle velocity of 975 fps and muzzle energy of only 81 ft. lbs.

Coincidentally, the revolver Jack Ruby used to kill Lee Harvey Oswald was a Colt "Cobra" snub nosed revolver chambered for the .38 Special cartridge. In 1963, about the only ammo available for this revolver would have been the RNL (round nosed lead) 158 grain bullet we just discussed, with a muzzle velocity from Ruby's snub nosed Colt close to the 587 fps given.

Did this low velocity bullet make a shallow wound in Oswald's left side, and later fall out at the hospital? No, this bullet passed from the left side of Oswald's abdomen to the right side, passing through almost every major organ and blood vessel on its way, before almost exiting the right side of his chest.

Here is the account of Oswald's wounds, as related by Dr. Tom Shires, Parkland Memorial Hospital:

"Dr. Tom Shires, chief of surgery at Parkland, said however that Oswald had an outside chance.

Shires made this formal statement:

"We first saw Mr. Oswald in the Parkland emergency room No. 2 around 11:30 a.m. (CST) Sunday, Nov. 24. At that time, he was unconscious, had no blood pressure, but made agonal respiratory efforts (dying gasps).

"The endotracheal tube was placed (in his throat to aid breathing) by Dr. M.T. Jenkins, chief of anesthesia. Intravenous fluids and blood were started (in the veins).

"There was a gunshot wound entrance over the left lower lateral (lower left rids) chest wall and the bullet could be felt in the subcutaneous tissue (beneath the skin) on the opposite side of the body, over the right lower lateral chest cage.

"It was probable, from his condition, that the bullet had injured the major blood vessels, aorta (main artery from the heart) and vena cava below the diaphragm. Consequently, he was taken immediately to the operating room and through a mid-line abdominal incision, the abdomen was exposed.

"Several liters (a liter is 1.057 quarts) of blood were immediately encountered. Exploration revealed that the bullet had gone from the left to right, injuring the spleen, pancreas, aorta, vena cava, right kidney and right lobe of the liver. The bullet then came to rest in the right chest wall.

Edited August 27, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Sandy Larsen]

In Post 113 I calculated that, for an outfielder to successfully throw a ball to the catcher 120 yards away with a 80 mph initial velocity, the initial angle of the throw would have to be 28.65 degrees. And that without gravity the ball would fly 197 feet over the catcher's head.

I suggested to Mike W. that he submit this problem to Yahoo Answers in the Physics section (or to Quora) to see what answers other people would give. It didn't look like he was going to do that, so I did it myself.

One kind soul, a chemistry and physics teacher for 23 years with a masters degree (see his profile here) answered my question. His answer is posted here. I'll copy and paste his answer here:

I suggest that you convert the velocity to ft/s and the horizontal distance to feet.
One mile = 5280 ft
One hour = 3600 s
v = 80 * 5280/3600 = 117⅓ ft/s
d = 120 * 3 = 360 ft

Let’s use the following equation to determine the angle.

Range = v^2/g * sin 2 θ
I will use 32.2 for g.
360 = (117⅓)^2 /32.2 * sin 2 θ
sin 2 θ = 11,592 ÷ (117⅓)^2 = 0.842006715
2 θ = sin^-1 (0.842006715) = 57.35263438
θ = 28.67631719˚

Let’s round this to 28.7˚
Initial vertical velocity = 117⅓ * sin 28.7
This is approximately 56.35 ft/s.

Initial horizontal velocity = 117⅓ * cos 28.7
This is approximately 102.9 ft/s

To determine the time when the ball is above the catcher, divide the 360 feet by the initial horizontal velocity. Then use the time and the initial vertical velocity to determine the ball height. I hope this is helpful for you.

His a approach is different than mine, which is fine. I highlighted his final answers in red.

For initial angle he calculated 28.68 degrees compared to my 28.65. These answers are is essentially equal. (He tends to round off less than I do, so his answers are a little more accurate.)

For the height the ball would pass above the catcher, he (for whatever reason) left the final two steps for me to do. And he tells me what to do. I will follow his instructions (in red, above) here. I have underlined above his numbers that he tells me to use.

"To determine the time when the ball is above the catcher, divide the 360 feet by the initial horizontal velocity."

time = 360 / 102.9 = 3.5 seconds

"Then use the time and the initial vertical velocity to determine the ball height."

height = 3.5 x 56.35 = 197 feet

So according to his calculations, without gravity the ball would fly 197 feet over the catcher's head. Same answer as mine.

Do you believe me now Mike?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Of course he won't believe you, Sandy, he's a TV producer; he knows better.

Sure explains the quality of TV documentaries lately.

[Michael Walton]

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.

BP - Of course he won't believe you, Sandy, he's a TV producer; he knows better. Sure explains the quality of TV documentaries lately.

Ha, this is hilarious, Bob. So what you're saying is because I'm a TV producer that I want to fudge my stories or convey a story that isn't true? This is hilarious indeed because aren't you the guy, over on another thread, that was making up this big story about a whispering savant who somehow got to Oswald and told him to keep quiet? Here, I'll refresh your memory:

Why did Oswald not proclaim innocence, Lance? C'mon now, a smart fellow like you should have no trouble figuring this one out, or are you just pretending to have trouble with it?

Shortly after his arrest, I would imagine a message was put through to Oswald to just sit tight and keep his mouth shut, things would change at the last minute and he would be set free. Now, he might have thought about telling everything he knew about a conspiracy but, what good would that do?

I then pointed out to you, Bob, that you must have forgotten that Oswald did speak - quite a bit - about his innocence that entire weekend. We even have "documentary" evidence here of LHO saying "I'm nothing but a patsy" on film.

Of course, when I pointed this out to you, Bob, you played Whack A Mole with my reply by saying:

He might have said he was a patsy but, did he say who was making him a patsy?

Which is a totally off-the-wall, changing-the-subject (hence I call those kind of replies Whack A Mole ones) kind of reply.

Just because I'm a TV producer doesn't make me think I know any more than you, Bob. I do seek the truth here like you do, Bob, but I also try to keep things realistic and plausible, too, without making up wild and wacky claims like ice bullets and trench-coat wearing secret agents stepping up to Oswald during a police interview, where he whispers in his ear, Oswald nods, and then says "I have nothing more to say about this matter" until he's gunned down by Ruby.

I mean really, Bob? It's obvious, based on that reply elsewhere, that you're really not fully versed on the JFK case. If you were, and if you were keeping things plausible here (plausible as in "does it have the ring of truth?"), you'd never have made such an outlandish claim.

[Robert Prudhomme]

And, after all that, you still don't get why the shallow back wound was a myth, right?

[Robert Prudhomme]

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.