Michael Clark Posted March 2, 2017 Author Share Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Who said anything about vaporizing? " a bullet with fine enough particles that they are hard to discern on x-rays." Sorry Sandy, that's all I was referring to. I should have been more careful, such as not to impart ridicule. I removed the quotation marks. Cheers, Michael Edited March 2, 2017 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 14 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: What I'm sure of is that even a lead fragment will be nearly invisible on an x-ray if it is small enough. What I don't know is what the capabilities of the CIA were in terms of frangible bullets in 1963. Or whether they would actually have any interest in such a bullet with fine enough particles that they are hard to discern on x-rays. US Army Special Operations Division developed rounds which wouldn't show up on x-ray. https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf 14 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: I was just making the point that the bullet fragment that caused that damage couldn't be seen on an x-ray. Why do you assume a bullet fragment caused the hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process? The round left an air-pocket overlaying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. Either the round was removed prior to the autopsy or it was a high tech round which dissolved. Spare me any bullshi about bone fragments, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 4 minutes ago, Michael Clark said: " a bullet with fine enough particles that they are hard to discern on x-rays." Sorry Sandy, that's all I was referring to. I should have been more careful, such as not to impart ridicule. I removed the quotation marks. Cheers, Michael No need to apologize.... I just didn't know where you got the vaporizing idea. I don't think a lead particle has to be all that small (like, say, wheat flour) to make it difficult to see on x-ray when mixed in with flesh and bone. Again, I refer to the very real bullet fragment that broke the transverse process of a vertebrae, and yet could not be seen in the x-ray. Surely that particle could not have been too small, given that it did break a bone. I probably shouldn't have used the word "powder." Not sure what better word I could have used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 6 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: Quote I was just making the point that the bullet fragment that caused that damage couldn't be seen on an x-ray. Why do you assume a bullet fragment caused the hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process? Because I didn't see anybody clubbing away at the President. 6 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: The round left an air-pocket overlaying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. Where was the entrance wound for that round? 6 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: Either the round was removed prior to the autopsy or it was a high tech round which dissolved. Spare me any bullshi about bone fragments, please. Okay, as long as you spare me the dart bullshi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Because I didn't see anybody clubbing away at the President. Non sequitur. You're assuming it was caused by a bullet that fragmented. Quote Where was the entrance wound for that round? The round bruised the larynx then deflected down ripping the trachea before leaving an air-pocket overlaying the C7/T1 right transverse processes and a hairline fracture at the T1 TP. Quote Okay, as long as you spare me the dart bullshi. I cite the historical record, all you cite is Pet Theory made up of nothingness. Quote Edited March 2, 2017 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted March 2, 2017 Author Share Posted March 2, 2017 Sandy asked: "Where was the entrance wound for that round?" Cliff answered: "The round bruised the larynx then deflected down ripping the trachea before leaving an air-pocket overlaying the C7/T1 right transverse processes and a hairline fracture at the T1 TP.." -------------------------- -------------------------- It sounds like Cliff is talking about a frontal throat shot. This thread is about a back wound. I doubt he is suggesting that a throat entry wound caused the back, presumably an exit, wound. Perhaps we shall find out. Cheers, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted March 2, 2017 Author Share Posted March 2, 2017 3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Michael, You should take a look at my hypothesis here: Why Humes Thought the Back Missile Hit at a Sharp Angle -- a Hypothesis If nothing else, just take a glance at my diagrams. Pat Speer describes his 45 degree theory in a post right after mine. I had a chance to look at your hypotheses on that thread Sandy, well done. Thaks for referring me to it. Cheers, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 27 minutes ago, Michael Clark said: Sandy asked: "Where was the entrance wound for that round?" Cliff answered: "The round bruised the larynx then deflected down ripping the trachea before leaving an air-pocket overlaying the C7/T1 right transverse processes and a hairline fracture at the T1 TP.." -------------------------- -------------------------- It sounds like Cliff is talking about a frontal throat shot. This thread is about a back wound. I doubt he is suggesting that a throat entry wound caused the back, presumably an exit, wound. Perhaps we shall find out. Cheers, Michael As I've already pointed out, the back wound was too low to have associated with the damage at T1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 Don't forget that the magic bullet could have actually caused the back wound and somehow could have fallen out, was found, and then was assigned its magic bullet status. The shape of that bullet fits perfectly in the hole seen in the photo of the back wound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 7 hours ago, Michael Walton said: Don't forget that the magic bullet could have actually caused the back wound and somehow could have fallen out, was found, and then was assigned its magic bullet status. The shape of that bullet fits perfectly in the hole seen in the photo of the back wound. Wouldn't it have probably fallen out in his shirt at Parkland hospital, unless it was literally sticking out of the wound in which case it could have fallen into the limousine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) Here is a question for you ballistic experts. The 6.5mm M91/38 Carcano short rifle propels a 162 grain bullet at a muzzle velocity of just under 2200 feet per second. In roughly 50 yards, how did the bullet slow down enough to only penetrate the flesh (intercostal muscles) of JFK's back a mere inch? What speed do you think a 162 grain round nosed bullet would be travelling if it only penetrated flesh a mere inch? If the bullet hit a rib travelling 2200 fps, wouldn't it simply smash through the rib instead of deflecting off of it, considering the rib is not a heavy bone? Edited March 2, 2017 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted March 2, 2017 Author Share Posted March 2, 2017 4 minutes ago, Robert Prudhomme said: Here is a question for you ballistic experts. The 6.5mm M91/38 Carcano short rifle propels a 162 grain bullet at a muzzle velocity of just under 2200 feet per second. In roughly 50 yards, how did the bullet slow down enough to only penetrate the flesh (intercostal muscles) of JFK's back a mere inch? What speed do you think a 162 grain round nosed bullet would be travelling if it only penetrated flesh a mere inch? If the bullet hit a rib travelling 2200 fps, wouldn't it simply smash through the rib instead of deflecting off of it, considering the rib is not a heavy bone? ( I typed the following but wandered away from the page. Posting now) I am not seeing how a bullet traveling at @ 700 MPS would make a shallow wound. If you want to account for it by the back brace, then you have to expect more damage to the bullet. You just can't stop that bullet in the space of 2-3 inches without seriously deforming it. -it couldn't be tumbling or it would have been way off the mark. -if it were tumbling it couldn't have made a clean hole. -something funny is going on to cause that bruise. Cheers, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 21 hours ago, Michael Clark said: ( I typed the following but wandered away from the page. Posting now) I am not seeing how a bullet traveling at @ 700 MPS would make a shallow wound. If you want to account for it by the back brace, then you have to expect more damage to the bullet. You just can't stop that bullet in the space of 2-3 inches without seriously deforming it. -it couldn't be tumbling or it would have been way off the mark. -if it were tumbling it couldn't have made a clean hole. -something funny is going on to cause that bruise. Cheers, Michael Something REAL funny is going on here, all right. That bullet was far more magic than anyone realizes, and yet it was a real bullet travelling at 2200 fps (or 700 mps - are you Canadian like me?) and it stopped after penetrating the top of JFK's right lung two to three inches, and only left material in the lung that was identified as "dirt" on the x-ray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted March 2, 2017 Author Share Posted March 2, 2017 1 minute ago, Robert Prudhomme said: ..... travelling at 2200 fps (or 700 mps - are you Canadian like me?) Nope. I am on a personal path to conversion to metric. There's just no point in being clueless about Metric measurements. It's not that hard. Unfortunately, to some people it is treasonous. I would be safer around some people handing out FPCC leaflets than talking metric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 Just to get you started, Michael, here is a link to a company that manufactures a "frangible" hollow point bullet. Contrary to popular belief, frangible bullets are not "fragmenting" bullets. They are made from compressed metal powder and, under duress in a wound, will disintegrate back to powder and make a rather devastating cloud of metal powder that stops immediately and does NOT exit. Sound familiar? http://www.drtammo.com/DRT-Technology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now