The Tumbling Bullet Theory

[Benjamin Cole]

DAVID VON PEIN SAID (From his blog, no edits): 

The topic of the size of the entry wound in John Connally's back and whether or not the bullet was tumbling as it entered Connally is, indeed, interesting. Dr. John Lattimer's tests clearly indicate that a Carcano/Western Cartridge bullet that has passed through a simulated JFK neck will nearly always tumble before reaching the Connally target and, hence, result in a larger-sized entry hole in the Connally target:

Quoting Dr. Lattimer:

"Five cardboard skins simulating Connally were placed the same distance from Kennedy's neck as Connally was seated in the automobile in front of the President. The Carcano bullets that made the holes in these targets had passed through a simulation of Kennedy's neck, striking only soft tissues. Five of the six bullets tumbled end over end after leaving the neck and struck Connally's skin traveling almost sideways. .... These results confirmed our previous observations that these bullets almost always tumbled after passing through a neck.

[...]

An oval hole in our simulated back of Connally was caused by our test bullet that had first passed through a simulation of Kennedy's neck, causing that bullet to wobble and start to tumble end over end. Connally's wound of entry was elongated, like the one in the center of [the test] target. The punctate round hole, with black margins, of the type that always occurred when our test bullets struck the Connally target without hitting something else first, can be seen to the right of Connally's outline in the photograph [via Figure 106 on Page 265 of "Kennedy And Lincoln"]. These bullets never wobbled or tumbled spontaneously; they were stable in their flight to the target UNLESS THEY HIT SOMETHING ELSE FIRST [DVP's emphasis], such as Kennedy's neck, whereupon they turned almost completely sideways." -- John K. Lattimer; Pages 237 and 265 of "Kennedy And Lincoln" (c.1980)

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=tumbling

-------------

 

Here is a photo of the bullet hole in the rear of John Connally's shirt, after some amount of cloth has been removed for testing 

The archivists listed the bullet hole listed at 3/8th by 3/8ths inch, while the Western Cartridge ammo round is more than a quarter inch in diameter and about 1 1/4 inches long. 

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/sites/default/files/public/tslac/landing/documents/jfk-damaged-clothing18.pdf

This indisputable bullet hole indicates only a shot from a non-tumbling bullet entered JBC's back. 

Yet according to DVP and Lattimer, the bullet that passed though JFK's throat was almost inevitably tumbling when it left his throat. 

Meaning, according to DVP and Lattimer, that the bullet that passed through JFK could not be the one that struck JBC. 

That's according to Lattimer and DVP.  JBC was not struck by the bullet that passed through JFK. 

I agree.

 

Edited June 10, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[Chris Bristow]

I think Dr Shaw mentioned in his WC testimony that he couldn't be sure if the 1.5 cm entry wound was the result of tumbling or the downward angle of the trajectory. But he did say the clothing might have "occasioned" it. I take that to mean a tumbling bullet would have left an oblong hole in the clothing.

Joseph Dolce mentioned that the tip of ce399 was pristine. That gets pretty hard to explain if the bullet struck the fifth rib nose first.

 I know the Myers father/son team fired a Carcano round into a stack of pine and it came out undamaged. But they fired it from about 10 ft away which means it first struck the boards at virtually full velocity. Specifically they measured it at 2050 ft per second.

The SBT claim is that the bullets slowed down enough to prevent deforming while still damaging bone. but the Myers test struck the pine at full velocity and still didn't damage the bullet. What they proved was that Pine is too soft to test for bullet deformation since even at full velocity it couldn't damage the bullet.

[Benjamin Cole]

12 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

I think Dr Shaw mentioned in his WC testimony that he couldn't be sure if the 1.5 cm entry wound was the result of tumbling or the downward angle of the trajectory. But he did say the clothing might have "occasioned" it. I take that to mean a tumbling bullet would have left an oblong hole in the clothing.

Joseph Dolce mentioned that the tip of ce399 was pristine. That gets pretty hard to explain if the bullet struck the fifth rib nose first.

 I know the Myers father/son team fired a Carcano round into a stack of pine and it came out undamaged. But they fired it from about 10 ft away which means it first struck the boards at virtually full velocity. Specifically they measured it at 2050 ft per second.

The SBT claim is that the bullets slowed down enough to prevent deforming while still damaging bone. but the Myers test struck the pine at full velocity and still didn't damage the bullet. What they proved was that Pine is too soft to test for bullet deformation since even at full velocity it couldn't damage the bullet.

All well and good---but we have the bullet hole in JBC's shirt. 

The bullet that struck JBC was not tumbling. 

Yes you are correct--JBC's wound, which had been debrided in surgery (and enlarged) could have been larger even intially, due JBC's back not being a perfect 90-degree angle to the shot. In other words, if JBC was leaning back at the time he was struck, the bullet would enter his body at an angle, leaving a larger oval-ish wound. 

 

 

[Mark Ulrik]

55 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

the Myers father/son team

The Haags?

[Chris Bristow]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

All well and good---but we have the bullet hole in JBC's shirt. 

The bullet that struck JBC was not tumbling. 

Yes you are correct--JBC's wound, which had been debrided in surgery (and enlarged) could have been larger even intially, due JBC's back not being a perfect 90-degree angle to the shot. In other words, if JBC was leaning back at the time he was struck, the bullet would enter his body at an angle, leaving a larger oval-ish wound. 

 

 

Yes I agree. The shirt and the coat put an end to the tumbling bullet theory.

[Chris Bristow]

2 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

The Haags?

Yes, I just checked and it was Haag and son.

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Oh please. not the Haag's from AFTE that publishes poorly-designed studies that do not conform to statistical standards ( I have attended several CSAFE seminats where the AFTE studies have been eviscerated). They use junk science to support their occupation. Do you guys only look to researchers who support your lone gunman theory?

According to Gary Aguilar's article:

the Governor’s back wound measured 1.5 cm in its largest diameter when Dr. Shaw first examined him, 21 exactly the size of the “entrance wound” in his jacket. In testimony to the Warren Commission and to the House Select Committee, Dr. Shaw repeatedly explained that 3-cm was the size of the wound after he had surgically debrided it.  [emphsis added]

The House Select Committee offered a clear explanation. Dr. Shaw, it reported, and had said:

“The rear entrance wound was not 3 centimeters [in diameter] (sic) as indicated in one of the operative notes. It was a puncture-type wound, as if a bullet  ad struck the body at a slight declination [i.e., not at a right angle] (sic). The wound was actually approximately 1.5 centimeters in diameter. The ragged edges of the wound were surgically cut away, effectively enlarging it to approximately 3 centimeters.” [emphsis added]

The wound’s true size was further corroborated by the HSCA’s finding that the entrance defect in the back of the Governor’s shirt, much like that in his jacket, measured .8-cm by 1.3-cm.24 Thus the “wounds” in the Governor’s shirt, jacket and back mutually corroborate a fairly small “puncture-type wound,” one that resulted, as Dr. Shaw put it, as “if a bullet had struck the (Governor’s) body at a slight declination.” It is to be expected that bullets not striking perfectly perpendicular to their targets will leave an ovoid wound, just as the wound in JFK’s scalp did. [emphasis added]

The autopsy report discloses that, like Connally’s back wound, Kennedy’s scalp wound measured 1.5 by .6 cm,25 and it has never been
suggested that the penetrating bullet that caused JFK’s ovoid scalp wound had hit something else first "

   

[Charles Blackmon]

2 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Oh please. not the Haag's from AFTE that publishes poorly-designed studies that do not conform to statistical standards ( I have attended several CSAFE seminats where the AFTE studies have been eviscerated). They use junk science to support their occupation. Do you guys only look to researchers who support your lone gunman theory?

According to Gary Aguilar's article:

the Governor’s back wound measured 1.5 cm in its largest diameter when Dr. Shaw first examined him, 21 exactly the size of the “entrance wound” in his jacket. In testimony to the Warren Commission and to the House Select Committee, Dr. Shaw repeatedly explained that 3-cm was the size of the wound after he had surgically debrided it.  [emphsis added]

The House Select Committee offered a clear explanation. Dr. Shaw, it reported, and had said:

“The rear entrance wound was not 3 centimeters [in diameter] (sic) as indicated in one of the operative notes. It was a puncture-type wound, as if a bullet  ad struck the body at a slight declination [i.e., not at a right angle] (sic). The wound was actually approximately 1.5 centimeters in diameter. The ragged edges of the wound were surgically cut away, effectively enlarging it to approximately 3 centimeters.” [emphsis added]

The wound’s true size was further corroborated by the HSCA’s finding that the entrance defect in the back of the Governor’s shirt, much like that in his jacket, measured .8-cm by 1.3-cm.24 Thus the “wounds” in the Governor’s shirt, jacket and back mutually corroborate a fairly small “puncture-type wound,” one that resulted, as Dr. Shaw put it, as “if a bullet had struck the (Governor’s) body at a slight declination.” It is to be expected that bullets not striking perfectly perpendicular to their targets will leave an ovoid wound, just as the wound in JFK’s scalp did. [emphasis added]

The autopsy report discloses that, like Connally’s back wound, Kennedy’s scalp wound measured 1.5 by .6 cm,25 and it has never been
suggested that the penetrating bullet that caused JFK’s ovoid scalp wound had hit something else first "

   

The SBT is pure bunk. Maybe we need a Forum poll with a question like: "Do you believe the Magic Bullet Theory is plausible, or is it based on junk science?"

[Bill Brown]

18 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I think Dr Shaw mentioned in his WC testimony that he couldn't be sure if the 1.5 cm entry wound was the result of tumbling or the downward angle of the trajectory. But he did say the clothing might have "occasioned" it. I take that to mean a tumbling bullet would have left an oblong hole in the clothing.

Joseph Dolce mentioned that the tip of ce399 was pristine. That gets pretty hard to explain if the bullet struck the fifth rib nose first.

 I know the Myers father/son team fired a Carcano round into a stack of pine and it came out undamaged. But they fired it from about 10 ft away which means it first struck the boards at virtually full velocity. Specifically they measured it at 2050 ft per second.

The SBT claim is that the bullets slowed down enough to prevent deforming while still damaging bone. but the Myers test struck the pine at full velocity and still didn't damage the bullet. What they proved was that Pine is too soft to test for bullet deformation since even at full velocity it couldn't damage the bullet.

 

"I know the Myers father/son team fired a Carcano round into a stack of pine and it came out undamaged."

 

Haag.  Not Myers.

 

"But they fired it from about 10 ft away which means it first struck the boards at virtually full velocity. Specifically they measured it at 2050 ft per second."

 

From only ten feet away?  No.  I don't think so.  Your comment that the Haags fired the bullet from only ten feet away is not true at all.

 

You're confusing their statement that the bullet was traveling just under 2100 feet per second when it was ten feet from the muzzle to mean they fired at the pine boards from ten feet away.

 

Edited June 11, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Lawrence Schnapf]

The Haags engage in junk science experiments to prop up their business. CSAFE has repudiated many of the studies by Haag's AFTE.   

[Chris Bristow]

44 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

"I know the Myers father/son team fired a Carcano round into a stack of pine and it came out undamaged."

 

Haag.  Not Myers.

 

"But they fired it from about 10 ft away which means it first struck the boards at virtually full velocity. Specifically they measured it at 2050 ft per second."

 

From only ten feet away?  No.  I don't think so.  Your comment that the Haags fired the bullet from only ten feet away is not true at all.

 

You're confusing their statement that the bullet was traveling just under 2100 feet per second when it was teen feet from the muzzle to mean they fired at the pine boards from ten feet away.

 

Yes, correct. I found the video on YouTube and my memory was wrong. It's closer to 130 ft Maybe. So it was going closer to 1900 feet per second.

[Benjamin Cole]

On 6/11/2023 at 12:55 AM, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Oh please. not the Haag's from AFTE that publishes poorly-designed studies that do not conform to statistical standards ( I have attended several CSAFE seminats where the AFTE studies have been eviscerated). They use junk science to support their occupation. Do you guys only look to researchers who support your lone gunman theory?

According to Gary Aguilar's article:

the Governor’s back wound measured 1.5 cm in its largest diameter when Dr. Shaw first examined him, 21 exactly the size of the “entrance wound” in his jacket. In testimony to the Warren Commission and to the House Select Committee, Dr. Shaw repeatedly explained that 3-cm was the size of the wound after he had surgically debrided it.  [emphsis added]

The House Select Committee offered a clear explanation. Dr. Shaw, it reported, and had said:

“The rear entrance wound was not 3 centimeters [in diameter] (sic) as indicated in one of the operative notes. It was a puncture-type wound, as if a bullet  ad struck the body at a slight declination [i.e., not at a right angle] (sic). The wound was actually approximately 1.5 centimeters in diameter. The ragged edges of the wound were surgically cut away, effectively enlarging it to approximately 3 centimeters.” [emphsis added]

The wound’s true size was further corroborated by the HSCA’s finding that the entrance defect in the back of the Governor’s shirt, much like that in his jacket, measured .8-cm by 1.3-cm.24 Thus the “wounds” in the Governor’s shirt, jacket and back mutually corroborate a fairly small “puncture-type wound,” one that resulted, as Dr. Shaw put it, as “if a bullet had struck the (Governor’s) body at a slight declination.” It is to be expected that bullets not striking perfectly perpendicular to their targets will leave an ovoid wound, just as the wound in JFK’s scalp did. [emphasis added]

The autopsy report discloses that, like Connally’s back wound, Kennedy’s scalp wound measured 1.5 by .6 cm,25 and it has never been
suggested that the penetrating bullet that caused JFK’s ovoid scalp wound had hit something else first "

   

Thanks Larry.

The SBT'ers look to have been hoisted on their own petards.

They said JBC's large scar was proof the bullet was tumbling when it struck JBC, as it was inevitably tumbling as it had passed through JFK's neck. 

But we know from JBC's shirt, the bullet was not tumbling that struck JBC. In addition, we have Dr. Shaw's testimony.

The lamentable upshot from this is that separate shots struck JFK and JBC---meaning there was not enough time for a lone gunman armed with a single shot rifle to accomplish the JFKA and other shots. 

One can only wonder what voodoo was performed on Robert Blakey (HSCA counsel) and Michael Baden (HSCA pathologist) for them to believe JBC's large scar resulted from a tumbling bullet. 

 

Edited June 12, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[Lawrence Schnapf]

The 3D animation project of former DOJ attorney John Orr conclusively shows that  a bullet exiting JFK would not have created the same wound to JBC as he was not correctly  positioned and the trajectory was wrong. And defenders of SBT, dont point to Myer's animation. His recreation is a cartoon with the body sizes wrong, the body relationships and other calculations incorrect. Myers' work was designed to prove the SBT, not a true scientific investigation. Of course, there is more money and fame in defending the official position.....

[Michael Griffith]

On 6/10/2023 at 2:10 AM, Benjamin Cole said:

DAVID VON PEIN SAID (From his blog, no edits): 

The topic of the size of the entry wound in John Connally's back and whether or not the bullet was tumbling as it entered Connally is, indeed, interesting. Dr. John Lattimer's tests clearly indicate that a Carcano/Western Cartridge bullet that has passed through a simulated JFK neck will nearly always tumble before reaching the Connally target and, hence, result in a larger-sized entry hole in the Connally target:

Quoting Dr. Lattimer:

"Five cardboard skins simulating Connally were placed the same distance from Kennedy's neck as Connally was seated in the automobile in front of the President. The Carcano bullets that made the holes in these targets had passed through a simulation of Kennedy's neck, striking only soft tissues. Five of the six bullets tumbled end over end after leaving the neck and struck Connally's skin traveling almost sideways. .... These results confirmed our previous observations that these bullets almost always tumbled after passing through a neck.

[...]

An oval hole in our simulated back of Connally was caused by our test bullet that had first passed through a simulation of Kennedy's neck, causing that bullet to wobble and start to tumble end over end. Connally's wound of entry was elongated, like the one in the center of [the test] target. The punctate round hole, with black margins, of the type that always occurred when our test bullets struck the Connally target without hitting something else first, can be seen to the right of Connally's outline in the photograph [via Figure 106 on Page 265 of "Kennedy And Lincoln"]. These bullets never wobbled or tumbled spontaneously; they were stable in their flight to the target UNLESS THEY HIT SOMETHING ELSE FIRST [DVP's emphasis], such as Kennedy's neck, whereupon they turned almost completely sideways." -- John K. Lattimer; Pages 237 and 265 of "Kennedy And Lincoln" (c.1980)

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=tumbling

-------------Here is a photo of the bullet hole in the rear of John Connally's shirt, after some amount of cloth has been removed for testing 

The archivists listed the bullet hole listed at 3/8th by 3/8ths inch, while the Western Cartridge ammo round is more than a quarter inch in diameter and about 1 1/4 inches long. 

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/sites/default/files/public/tslac/landing/documents/jfk-damaged-clothing18.pdf

This indisputable bullet hole indicates only a shot from a non-tumbling bullet entered JBC's back. 

Yet according to DVP and Lattimer, the bullet that passed though JFK's throat was almost inevitably tumbling when it left his throat. 

Meaning, according to DVP and Lattimer, that the bullet that passed through JFK could not be the one that struck JBC. 

That's according to Lattimer and DVP.  JBC was not struck by the bullet that passed through JFK. 

I agree.

As I've mentioned, I've never been able to get a plausible, sensible answer from WC apologists about how a tumbling bullet could have created the small (3-5 mm), neat, punched-in wound in JFK's throat seen by the Parkland doctors and nurses. 

Connally's back wound was the same length as JFK's rear head entry wound, yet no one suggests that JFK's head was hit by a tumbling bullet. Connally's wound was 1.5 x 0.8 cm. The wound was 1.5 cm long because the bullet struck at an angle, not because it was tumbling. 

The single-bullet theory collapses for so many reasons it's hard to count all of them.

Edited June 12, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Lawrence Schnapf]

@Michael Griffith It is beyond absurd that david von pein would quote Lattimer- a urologist- for support. Shaw was an experienced surgeon at a hospital with an extraordinary number of gunshot wounds. He knew what entry wounds looked like and particularly the kind of wound that a tumbling bullet makes. 

There is an interesting backstory on Lattimer and he was one of the misguided "false patriots" who felt they were defending America's honor by goose-stepping for the Warren Commission.