This thread by Robert Prudhomme, whom I don't know, shreds the whole idea that JFK was hit with a short shot bullet in the back. First, he does the Math on why a weak bullet, which only had the energy to penetrate a mere inch into JFK's soft tissue, would have had to be so weak, it could not have reached him at all. Bullets start falling to the ground the second they leave the muzzle. The bullet has energy, but so does gravity, which is acting on it. And going at just a fraction of its normal speed, the bullet would also lose all stability in flight, making accuracy impossible.
And Robert makes another very good point that, that considering the anatomy of where the bullet struck, that it's JFK's lung that would been affected, and it wasn't, at least not in that spot.
"In order to reduce the penetrating power of a 6.5mm Carcano bullet, at a 50 yard range, to the point where this bullet will not penetrate more than an inch in soft tissue, its normal muzzle velocity of 2200 feet per second would have to be reduced to less than about 400 feet per second (fps). This presents all kinds of problems in a) accurately hitting within 20 feet of your target and 
actually getting the bullet to its target."
actually getting the bullet to its target."
"If you have a rifle that is properly sighted in at a range of, for argument sake, 100 yards, and you chamber a good round into the breech, hitting a target at 50-100 yards is a simple matter of aiming and squeezing the trigger. However, bullets begin to drop as soon as they leave the barrel, and if that bullet leaves the barrel travelling at 1/5th the expected velocity, and the shooter is aiming in a normal fashion and expecting his bullet to be travelling 2200 fps, that bullet will end up impacting the ground (or pavement) far short of the aim point. In the case of JFK, I would not even expect it to hit the back of the limo. This is why it is called a "short shot", as the bullet impacts far "short" of the point of aim."
"The next problem you would have with such a slow moving bullet is stability in flight. While the rifling grooves in the rifle's barrel that impart a gyroscopic spin to the bullet in flight account for most of the bullet's stability, the velocity that bullet is travelling at also plays a big part in whether the bullet remains stable in flight, or whether it begins to yaw and tumble on its way to its target. I have seen this problem when handloading rifle cartridges and experimenting with different types of gunpowder, different loads of gunpowder and different weights and styles of bullets. Just by changing the velocity of the bullet slightly, by adding more or less gunpowder, it is possible to over- or under-stabilize a bullet, with the resulting "keyhole" effect on a paper target. A "keyhole" is when a tumbling bullet goes through a paper target side on, leaving the inevitable "keyhole" in the target instead of a round hole. If a bullet still travelling in excess of 2000 fps can be under-stabilized by a reduction in velocity, imagine the lack of stability in the typical 2200 fps bullet reduced in velocity to only 400 fps."
"Quite frankly, I don't believe such a slow bullet could have ever made it to JFK's back, making the shallow back wound a myth."
RC: I don't know what Robert Prudhomme's position is about the assassination, although I know that he does not support the Single Bullet Theory, but he goes on to make another very good point, questioning how Dr. Hume could probe the entrance wound of a 6.5 mm Carcano bullet with his finger, "unless he had fingers like a 4 year old girl."
"Well, think about this for a minute. A 6.5mm Carcano bullet, which actually measures 6.8 mm in diameter, equates to just a shade over 1/4 inch in diameter (.2677 "). I measured my pinkie finger at the first knuckle and found my finger to be roughly 3/4 inch in diameter."
"Unless Humes had fingers like a 4 year old girl, how was he able to probe the entrance wound with his finger? Do you believe skin and muscle is elastic enough to stretch the entrance wound to three times its diameter?"
"This is why research in this case progresses to a certain point and then stalls. There are so many "facts" in this case that everyone seems to blindly accept. The key is to question everything."
"Just for comparison, I have attempted, in the past, to probe .30 calibre (.308") entrance wounds in a deer, and have been unable to insert my finger into one of these slightly larger entrance wounds."
RC: Note that two of the participants in this thread from the Education Forum advocated for the back wound being from a CIA MK-NAOMI dart, and they are Ron Ecker and Cliff Varnell. And as you know, that is what I believe.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.