Discussion:
More on Silencers
(too old to reply)
Andrew Mason
2003-08-27 18:28:00 UTC
Permalink
One of the few things Gerald Posner and I agree on, is that an early shot
was fired that missed President Kennedy, and struck the Elm St. pavement.
The President¹s own reactions then, as well as those of others, seems to
confirm that fact.
Key word is 'seems'.
But, for those who accept this argument, there remains a mystery. How did
a shooter, firing presumably from close range, manage to miss the entire
limousine and strike the pavement?
An incorrect finding of fact generally creates a mystery.
HSCA weapons expert, Larry Sturdivan and I discussed this issue at length,
and Larry is absolutely certain that Posner¹s theory that the bullet was
deflected as it hit a tree branch, is not correct.
Because he has looked at the physics of it and realizes that
those tree branches (seen in this photo series:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0454b.htm
cannot cause a 2000 fps 10 gram bullet to move more than a few
cm. off course. in the distance from the tree to the limo.
There is also the question of how a sniper managed to hit President
Kennedy in the upper back, when the obvious, preferred target had to have
been the head. That shot was off target by roughly six inches.
That is not a big question. The FBI marksmen were as much as 9
inches off in their shots with Oswald's MC. All FBI shots were
within a 9 inch circle. See: Testimony of Ronald Simmons, 3 H
447-448.
How do we explain such terrible shooting, especially since the fatal head
shot at Z312, apparently fired from a greater distance, was so perfect?
Perhaps your premise is wrong and none of the shots missed: ie.
JFK's neck wound and Connally's chest wound was caused by two
different bullets, just like JBC and Nellie said (and Nellie will
say again in her new book).
Perhaps the answer lies in an article I recently cited, by Mark White,
from *Small Arms Review*, entitled *The Use of Sound Suppressors on High
http://guns.connect.fi/gow/highpow.html
The author goes into great detail about the construction and design of
these suppressors, but he also tells us about some of the deficiences of
³A small error in machined accuracy on a single-point mount can result in
a disastrous misalignment problem near the muzzle of a suppressor...²
³Many baffles have asymmetrical surfaces, and these can bounce the blast
of high-pressure gas around in a way that disturbs the stability of an
exiting bullet... Keyholing, tumbling and baffle contact were common
because the bottle-shaped blast of muzzle gas overtook the exiting
bullets, deflected off the asymmetrical surfaces, and then deflected the
bullets. Accuracy was not good. Some manufacturers haven't learned this
lesson yet, and their suppressors are plagued with inherent instability
and resultant accuracy problems.²
Could it be that the these early shots were so terrible, for the same
reason that no-one heard the shot that hit the President at Z223?
Not according to the evidence. You can imagine anything occurred
if you don't require evidence for support.

Andrew Mason
Robert Harris
JayKHillnospam
2003-08-27 21:26:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Mason
Vol17_0454b.htm
cannot cause a 2000 fps 10 gram bullet to move more than a few
cm. off course. in the distance from the tree to the limo.
**********
Andrew, Since you are on record as having been incorrect in stating a branch,
twig or piece of shrubbery canNOT deflect a bullet, are you at least willing to
consider you might be wrong in your categorical assertion that such a twig
cannot have been the operative factor.
Was it O. Cromwell, writing to the Scottish Kirk, who said "I beseech
thee in the bowels of Christ to consider that you might be wrong."?
Are you at least WILLING to CONSIDER you might be wrong about how much a
particular bullet, in a single, probably singular ballistic episode, might be
deflected by a twig, branch, or a piece of shrubbery? Yes or no? Are you
willing to consider the propositon you might be wrong on this one as well?

John in VA
Andrew Mason
2003-08-28 02:08:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by JayKHillnospam
Post by Andrew Mason
Vol17_0454b.htm
cannot cause a 2000 fps 10 gram bullet to move more than a few
cm. off course. in the distance from the tree to the limo.
**********
Andrew, Since you are on record as having been incorrect in stating a branch,
twig or piece of shrubbery canNOT deflect a bullet, are you at least willing to
consider you might be wrong in your categorical assertion that such a twig
cannot have been the operative factor.
Was it O. Cromwell, writing to the Scottish Kirk, who said "I beseech
thee in the bowels of Christ to consider that you might be wrong."?
Are you at least WILLING to CONSIDER you might be wrong about how much a
particular bullet, in a single, probably singular ballistic episode, might be
deflected by a twig, branch, or a piece of shrubbery? Yes or no? Are you
willing to consider the propositon you might be wrong on this one as well?
Absolutely.

I could be wrong in my analysis of the physics which leads me to
conclude that the force required to deflect the bullet greatly
exceeds the force needed to pulverise wood so it cannot be
supplied by a wooden branch. If someone can provide some EVIDENCE
that 2000 FPS MC FMJ bullets can bounce off wood as you suggest,
I would be delighted to retract my conclusion and admit I goofed.

I could also be wrong in my conclusion that the destablising
effect of striking a branch will not cause the bullet to move off
course by more than a few cm in the ensuing 50-75 feet or so.
That is largely based on the article in the American Rifleman
that you kindly sent me and is also based on the physics. But I
would need some EVIDENCE - evidence showing that 2000 fps MC FMJ
bullets can be deflected by several feet in the 50-75 feet after
striking an oak branch. If you can provide evidence that it can
happen, I will be the first to congratulate you on showing that I
am wrong.

So far you have offered no evidence. You have offered
unverifiable anecdotes from hunters passing stories around the
lodge after a day of hunting and drinking.

Andrew Mason
Post by JayKHillnospam
John in VA
Jaykhill
2003-08-28 04:13:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by JayKHillnospam
deflected by a twig, branch, or a piece of shrubbery? Yes or no? Are you
Post by JayKHillnospam
willing to consider the propositon you might be wrong on this one as well?
Absolutely.
*****
Good.
Post by JayKHillnospam
deflect the bullet greatly
exceeds the force needed to pulverise wood so it cannot be
supplied by a wooden branch.
******

Now, you keep coming back to the data which you insist obtained in Dealey
Plaza. Fine. But I am not going there.

Forgetting, for a moment, if you can, that you are convinced only a single
twig or branch stood as a factor in Dealey Plaza.....let's take things
back a bit.

You admit that a twig, branch, or shrub CAN deflect a bullet--any bullet.
Do you admit the possibility (stay out of Dealey Plaza, pullleeeze) that
in a shooting scenario it might be possibe that a bullet might strike more
than one twig, branch, or piece of shrubbery during its ballistic
peregrenations?

John in VA
Andrew Mason
2003-08-28 14:28:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by JayKHillnospam
Post by JayKHillnospam
deflected by a twig, branch, or a piece of shrubbery? Yes or no? Are you
Post by JayKHillnospam
willing to consider the propositon you might be wrong on this one as well?
Absolutely.
*****
Good.
Post by JayKHillnospam
deflect the bullet greatly
exceeds the force needed to pulverise wood so it cannot be
supplied by a wooden branch.
******
Now, you keep coming back to the data which you insist obtained in Dealey
Plaza. Fine. But I am not going there.
Forgetting, for a moment, if you can, that you are convinced only a single
twig or branch stood as a factor in Dealey Plaza.....let's take things
back a bit.
You admit that a twig, branch, or shrub CAN deflect a bullet--any bullet.
Do you admit the possibility (stay out of Dealey Plaza, pullleeeze) that
in a shooting scenario it might be possibe that a bullet might strike more
than one twig, branch, or piece of shrubbery during its ballistic
peregrenations?
A twig branch or shrub can deflect any bullet, provided you set
no lower limit on the amount of deflection we are talking about
(for example, a change in direction of a few atomic diamaters
would count as a deflection). That seems to me to be a rather
useless statement, however.

And of course, there is nothing preventing one bullet striking
more than one twig or branch. It depends on whether there are two
such twigs or branches in its path, obviously.

Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
Post by JayKHillnospam
John in VA
Jaykhill
2003-08-29 03:57:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Mason
And of course, there is nothing preventing one bullet striking
more than one twig or branch. It depends on whether there are two
such twigs or branches in its path, obviously.
*****

Obviously. And I suppose you also would accept that a ''deflecting'
bullet could encounter even three or more ''such twigs and branches in its
path?"

I recall from my nimrod days people missing deer at fairly close range,
inside a line of mountain laurel--a form of shrubbery very much like wild
rhododenron.

So you accept the possibility a single bullet, in a single incident, could
be ''deflected'' by strikes on more than two branches. Am I expressing
you thinking correctly?

John in VA
Andrew Mason
2003-08-29 13:11:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jaykhill
Post by Andrew Mason
And of course, there is nothing preventing one bullet striking
more than one twig or branch. It depends on whether there are two
such twigs or branches in its path, obviously.
*****
Obviously. And I suppose you also would accept that a ''deflecting'
bullet could encounter even three or more ''such twigs and branches in its
path?"
I recall from my nimrod days people missing deer at fairly close range,
inside a line of mountain laurel--a form of shrubbery very much like wild
rhododenron.
So you accept the possibility a single bullet, in a single incident, could
be ''deflected'' by strikes on more than two branches. Am I expressing
you thinking correctly?
The slower the bullet the greater the deflection. A bullet
hitting two branches should deflect more. It is more likely to
have slowed down a little from the first and will deflect more
from the second branch than a bullet that hits only one branch.

But for a 6.5 mm 2000 fps MC FMJ bullet we're talking about
deflecting an extremely small amount of deflection in striking
one branch or even two branches. And there is no evidence that
the bullet struck one branch, let alone two or more, in Dealey
Plaza.

Andrew Mason
Post by Jaykhill
John in VA
Tom Purvis
2003-08-29 20:27:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Jaykhill
Post by Andrew Mason
And of course, there is nothing preventing one bullet striking
more than one twig or branch. It depends on whether there are two
such twigs or branches in its path, obviously.
*****
Obviously. And I suppose you also would accept that a ''deflecting'
bullet could encounter even three or more ''such twigs and branches in its
path?"
I recall from my nimrod days people missing deer at fairly close range,
inside a line of mountain laurel--a form of shrubbery very much like wild
rhododenron.
So you accept the possibility a single bullet, in a single incident, could
be ''deflected'' by strikes on more than two branches. Am I expressing
you thinking correctly?
The slower the bullet the greater the deflection. A bullet
hitting two branches should deflect more. It is more likely to
have slowed down a little from the first and will deflect more
from the second branch than a bullet that hits only one branch.
But for a 6.5 mm 2000 fps MC FMJ bullet we're talking about
deflecting an extremely small amount of deflection in striking
one branch or even two branches. And there is no evidence that
the bullet struck one branch, let alone two or more, in Dealey
Plaza.
Andrew, if you would conduct actual research, than you would know that
CE# 399 ABSOLUTELY struck one of the tree branches of the Live Oak
tree that is located directly in front of the TSDB. And, as previously
stated, you would know that members of the WC re-enactment were observed
cutting and removing the branches from the top of this tree on the day
after the WC completed it's re-enactment of the assassination.

Tom P
Post by Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
Post by Jaykhill
John in VA
--
Andrew Mason
2003-08-30 00:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Jaykhill
Post by Andrew Mason
And of course, there is nothing preventing one bullet striking
more than one twig or branch. It depends on whether there are two
such twigs or branches in its path, obviously.
*****
Obviously. And I suppose you also would accept that a ''deflecting'
bullet could encounter even three or more ''such twigs and branches in its
path?"
I recall from my nimrod days people missing deer at fairly close range,
inside a line of mountain laurel--a form of shrubbery very much like wild
rhododenron.
So you accept the possibility a single bullet, in a single incident, could
be ''deflected'' by strikes on more than two branches. Am I expressing
you thinking correctly?
The slower the bullet the greater the deflection. A bullet
hitting two branches should deflect more. It is more likely to
have slowed down a little from the first and will deflect more
from the second branch than a bullet that hits only one branch.
But for a 6.5 mm 2000 fps MC FMJ bullet we're talking about
deflecting an extremely small amount of deflection in striking
one branch or even two branches. And there is no evidence that
the bullet struck one branch, let alone two or more, in Dealey
Plaza.
Andrew, if you would conduct actual research, than you would know that
CE# 399 ABSOLUTELY struck one of the tree branches of the Live Oak
tree that is located directly in front of the TSDB. And, as previously
stated, you would know that members of the WC re-enactment were observed
cutting and removing the branches from the top of this tree on the day
after the WC completed it's re-enactment of the assassination.
Tom,

If you conducted this actual research you should be able to give
us references to the sources of your 'evidence'. What are they?

Andrew Mason
Post by Tom Purvis
Tom P
Post by Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
Post by Jaykhill
John in VA
--
Tom Purvis
2003-08-30 16:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Jaykhill
Post by Andrew Mason
And of course, there is nothing preventing one bullet striking
more than one twig or branch. It depends on whether there are two
such twigs or branches in its path, obviously.
*****
Obviously. And I suppose you also would accept that a ''deflecting'
bullet could encounter even three or more ''such twigs and branches in its
path?"
I recall from my nimrod days people missing deer at fairly close range,
inside a line of mountain laurel--a form of shrubbery very much like wild
rhododenron.
So you accept the possibility a single bullet, in a single incident, could
be ''deflected'' by strikes on more than two branches. Am I expressing
you thinking correctly?
The slower the bullet the greater the deflection. A bullet
hitting two branches should deflect more. It is more likely to
have slowed down a little from the first and will deflect more
from the second branch than a bullet that hits only one branch.
But for a 6.5 mm 2000 fps MC FMJ bullet we're talking about
deflecting an extremely small amount of deflection in striking
one branch or even two branches. And there is no evidence that
the bullet struck one branch, let alone two or more, in Dealey
Plaza.
Andrew, if you would conduct actual research, than you would know that
CE# 399 ABSOLUTELY struck one of the tree branches of the Live Oak
tree that is located directly in front of the TSDB. And, as previously
stated, you would know that members of the WC re-enactment were observed
cutting and removing the branches from the top of this tree on the day
after the WC completed it's re-enactment of the assassination.
Tom,
If you conducted this actual research you should be able to give
us references to the sources of your 'evidence'. What are they?
ME!
In event you wish to acquire some of the Photo's taken during
this work, SEND MONEY!

Otherwise, you can wait for additional verification from Chad Zimmerman
who is taking this testing to the next level.

Tom P
Andrew Mason
2003-08-30 23:44:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Jaykhill
Post by Andrew Mason
And of course, there is nothing preventing one bullet striking
more than one twig or branch. It depends on whether there are two
such twigs or branches in its path, obviously.
*****
Obviously. And I suppose you also would accept that a ''deflecting'
bullet could encounter even three or more ''such twigs and branches in its
path?"
I recall from my nimrod days people missing deer at fairly close range,
inside a line of mountain laurel--a form of shrubbery very much like wild
rhododenron.
So you accept the possibility a single bullet, in a single incident, could
be ''deflected'' by strikes on more than two branches. Am I expressing
you thinking correctly?
The slower the bullet the greater the deflection. A bullet
hitting two branches should deflect more. It is more likely to
have slowed down a little from the first and will deflect more
from the second branch than a bullet that hits only one branch.
But for a 6.5 mm 2000 fps MC FMJ bullet we're talking about
deflecting an extremely small amount of deflection in striking
one branch or even two branches. And there is no evidence that
the bullet struck one branch, let alone two or more, in Dealey
Plaza.
Andrew, if you would conduct actual research, than you would know that
CE# 399 ABSOLUTELY struck one of the tree branches of the Live Oak
tree that is located directly in front of the TSDB. And, as previously
stated, you would know that members of the WC re-enactment were observed
cutting and removing the branches from the top of this tree on the day
after the WC completed it's re-enactment of the assassination.
Tom,
If you conducted this actual research you should be able to give
us references to the sources of your 'evidence'. What are they?
ME!
In event you wish to acquire some of the Photo's taken during
this work, SEND MONEY!
So how does your 'research' prove that "CE# 399 ABSOLUTELY struck
one of the tree branches of the Live Oak tree that is located
directly in front of the TSDB"? At best it might show that CE399
could have struck a tree branch. Where is the evidence that it
did?

Also, what is the evidence that the FBI cut and removed branches
from the top of the tree?

The answer can't be "ME!" to either question.

Andrew Mason
Post by Tom Purvis
Otherwise, you can wait for additional verification from Chad Zimmerman
who is taking this testing to the next level.
Tom P
Russ Burr
2003-08-30 02:40:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jaykhill
Post by Andrew Mason
And of course, there is nothing preventing one bullet striking
more than one twig or branch. It depends on whether there are two
such twigs or branches in its path, obviously.
*****
Obviously. And I suppose you also would accept that a ''deflecting'
bullet could encounter even three or more ''such twigs and branches in its
path?"
I recall from my nimrod days people missing deer at fairly close range,
inside a line of mountain laurel--a form of shrubbery very much like wild
rhododenron.
So you accept the possibility a single bullet, in a single incident, could
be ''deflected'' by strikes on more than two branches. Am I expressing
you thinking correctly?
John in VA
Personally and I'm no gun expert, I find it unreasonable to believe that a
bullet traveling at almost 2000 fps would be deflected by a couple tree
twigs that were close to the muzzle firing from the SE corner of the 6th
floor. If it was a thick branch, yes, but a twig??

I once asked gary mack if anyone had examined the Texas Oak and he said
that it had been and there was no indication of any branch being struck by
a bullet. Of course he noted that the tree has grown since '63 but he
didn't give me an idea of where they were searching. Also, I should have
asked him whether the tree had been trimmed during the past three or four
decades.

Russ
Ricky Tobias
2003-08-30 05:00:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Russ Burr
Post by Jaykhill
Post by Andrew Mason
And of course, there is nothing preventing one bullet striking
more than one twig or branch. It depends on whether there are two
such twigs or branches in its path, obviously.
*****
Obviously. And I suppose you also would accept that a ''deflecting'
bullet could encounter even three or more ''such twigs and branches in its
path?"
I recall from my nimrod days people missing deer at fairly close range,
inside a line of mountain laurel--a form of shrubbery very much like wild
rhododenron.
So you accept the possibility a single bullet, in a single incident, could
be ''deflected'' by strikes on more than two branches. Am I expressing
you thinking correctly?
John in VA
Personally and I'm no gun expert, I find it unreasonable to believe that a
bullet traveling at almost 2000 fps would be deflected by a couple tree
twigs that were close to the muzzle firing from the SE corner of the 6th
floor. If it was a thick branch, yes, but a twig??
I once asked gary mack if anyone had examined the Texas Oak and he said
that it had been and there was no indication of any branch being struck by
a bullet. Of course he noted that the tree has grown since '63 but he
didn't give me an idea of where they were searching. Also, I should have
asked him whether the tree had been trimmed during the past three or four
decades.
Russ
Yes it has been trimmed as late as of this year.
Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Andrew Mason
2003-08-30 13:16:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Russ Burr
Post by Jaykhill
Post by Andrew Mason
And of course, there is nothing preventing one bullet striking
more than one twig or branch. It depends on whether there are two
such twigs or branches in its path, obviously.
*****
Obviously. And I suppose you also would accept that a ''deflecting'
bullet could encounter even three or more ''such twigs and branches in its
path?"
I recall from my nimrod days people missing deer at fairly close range,
inside a line of mountain laurel--a form of shrubbery very much like wild
rhododenron.
So you accept the possibility a single bullet, in a single incident, could
be ''deflected'' by strikes on more than two branches. Am I expressing
you thinking correctly?
John in VA
Personally and I'm no gun expert, I find it unreasonable to believe that a
bullet traveling at almost 2000 fps would be deflected by a couple tree
twigs that were close to the muzzle firing from the SE corner of the 6th
floor. If it was a thick branch, yes, but a twig??
I once asked gary mack if anyone had examined the Texas Oak and he said
that it had been and there was no indication of any branch being struck by
a bullet. Of course he noted that the tree has grown since '63 but he
didn't give me an idea of where they were searching. Also, I should have
asked him whether the tree had been trimmed during the past three or four
decades.
Russ
Yes it has been trimmed as late as of this year.
Ricky
Does anyone really think that a 6.5 mm MC bullet could strike one
of these tree branches and not completely sever the branch? Do
you think the bullet is just going to put a hole in a 1 or 2 inch
branch? Do you think it would go unnoticed? It would at least
make a noticeable noise in the tree and knock a few leaves off.

Andrew Mason
Post by Ricky Tobias
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Chad Zimmerman
2003-08-30 13:26:34 UTC
Permalink
Andrew,

I have shot 6.5mm FMJ rounds right through 2" diameter branches at about
10-15 feet and they don't blow apart, but the damage, nonetheless, is quite
evident...imho.

Chad
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Russ Burr
Post by Jaykhill
Post by Andrew Mason
And of course, there is nothing preventing one bullet striking
more than one twig or branch. It depends on whether there are two
such twigs or branches in its path, obviously.
*****
Obviously. And I suppose you also would accept that a ''deflecting'
bullet could encounter even three or more ''such twigs and branches in its
path?"
I recall from my nimrod days people missing deer at fairly close range,
inside a line of mountain laurel--a form of shrubbery very much like wild
rhododenron.
So you accept the possibility a single bullet, in a single incident, could
be ''deflected'' by strikes on more than two branches. Am I expressing
you thinking correctly?
John in VA
Personally and I'm no gun expert, I find it unreasonable to believe that a
bullet traveling at almost 2000 fps would be deflected by a couple tree
twigs that were close to the muzzle firing from the SE corner of the 6th
floor. If it was a thick branch, yes, but a twig??
I once asked gary mack if anyone had examined the Texas Oak and he said
that it had been and there was no indication of any branch being struck by
a bullet. Of course he noted that the tree has grown since '63 but he
didn't give me an idea of where they were searching. Also, I should have
asked him whether the tree had been trimmed during the past three or four
decades.
Russ
Yes it has been trimmed as late as of this year.
Ricky
Does anyone really think that a 6.5 mm MC bullet could strike one
of these tree branches and not completely sever the branch? Do
you think the bullet is just going to put a hole in a 1 or 2 inch
branch? Do you think it would go unnoticed? It would at least
make a noticeable noise in the tree and knock a few leaves off.
Andrew Mason
Post by Ricky Tobias
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Ricky Tobias
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Chad Zimmerman
2003-09-26 00:35:20 UTC
Permalink
The branches were secured at both ends, so no movement was really noticed.
And, of course, that image that you show doesn't show evidence of being
shot. How could that picture show that?

Anyhow, the experiments I did were for another researcher. That researcher
had me shoot through tree branches and into dirt. I then recovered the
bullets. He was just curious to see what the bullet would look like.

Nevertheless, the damage was quite noticeable on the branch. The bark was
blown off around the entrance and to a larger degree around the exit.

Chad
Post by JayKHillnospam
Andrew,
I have shot 6.5mm FMJ rounds right through 2" diameter branches at about
10-15 feet and they don't blow apart, but the damage, nonetheless, is quite
evident...imho.
Do these branches between the SN and the car (shown in early Dec. 1963 2
weeks after the assassination) look like any of the branches you have
shot? In other words do they give any indication of having been hit by a
MC bullet?
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0454b.htm
What does the branch do after it is hit? I would expect to see
some motion especially if it hits toward the ends of the branch.
Andrew Mason
Post by JayKHillnospam
Chad
says...
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Russ Burr
Post by Jaykhill
Post by Andrew Mason
And of course, there is nothing preventing one bullet striking
more than one twig or branch. It depends on whether there are two
such twigs or branches in its path, obviously.
*****
Obviously. And I suppose you also would accept that a
''deflecting'
Post by JayKHillnospam
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Russ Burr
Post by Jaykhill
bullet could encounter even three or more ''such twigs and
branches in
Post by JayKHillnospam
its
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Russ Burr
Post by Jaykhill
path?"
I recall from my nimrod days people missing deer at fairly close
range,
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Russ Burr
Post by Jaykhill
inside a line of mountain laurel--a form of shrubbery very much
like
Post by JayKHillnospam
wild
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Russ Burr
Post by Jaykhill
rhododenron.
So you accept the possibility a single bullet, in a single
incident,
Post by JayKHillnospam
could
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Russ Burr
Post by Jaykhill
be ''deflected'' by strikes on more than two branches. Am I
expressing
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Russ Burr
Post by Jaykhill
you thinking correctly?
John in VA
Personally and I'm no gun expert, I find it unreasonable to believe
that a
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Russ Burr
bullet traveling at almost 2000 fps would be deflected by a couple tree
twigs that were close to the muzzle firing from the SE corner of
the
Post by JayKHillnospam
6th
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Russ Burr
floor. If it was a thick branch, yes, but a twig??
I once asked gary mack if anyone had examined the Texas Oak and he said
that it had been and there was no indication of any branch being
struck
Post by JayKHillnospam
by
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Russ Burr
a bullet. Of course he noted that the tree has grown since '63 but he
didn't give me an idea of where they were searching. Also, I should
have
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Russ Burr
asked him whether the tree had been trimmed during the past three
or
Post by JayKHillnospam
four
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Russ Burr
decades.
Russ
Yes it has been trimmed as late as of this year.
Ricky
Does anyone really think that a 6.5 mm MC bullet could strike one
of these tree branches and not completely sever the branch? Do
you think the bullet is just going to put a hole in a 1 or 2 inch
branch? Do you think it would go unnoticed? It would at least
make a noticeable noise in the tree and knock a few leaves off.
Andrew Mason
Post by Ricky Tobias
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Post by JayKHillnospam
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Ricky Tobias
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Tom Purvis
2003-08-31 13:22:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Russ Burr
Post by Jaykhill
Post by Andrew Mason
And of course, there is nothing preventing one bullet striking
more than one twig or branch. It depends on whether there are two
such twigs or branches in its path, obviously.
*****
Obviously. And I suppose you also would accept that a ''deflecting'
bullet could encounter even three or more ''such twigs and branches in its
path?"
I recall from my nimrod days people missing deer at fairly close range,
inside a line of mountain laurel--a form of shrubbery very much like wild
rhododenron.
So you accept the possibility a single bullet, in a single incident, could
be ''deflected'' by strikes on more than two branches. Am I expressing
you thinking correctly?
John in VA
Personally and I'm no gun expert, I find it unreasonable to believe that a
bullet traveling at almost 2000 fps would be deflected by a couple tree
twigs that were close to the muzzle firing from the SE corner of the 6th
floor. If it was a thick branch, yes, but a twig??
I once asked gary mack if anyone had examined the Texas Oak and he said
that it had been and there was no indication of any branch being struck by
a bullet. Of course he noted that the tree has grown since '63 but he
didn't give me an idea of where they were searching. Also, I should have
asked him whether the tree had been trimmed during the past three or four
decades.
Russ
Yes it has been trimmed as late as of this year.
Ricky
Does anyone really think that a 6.5 mm MC bullet could strike one
of these tree branches and not completely sever the branch? Do
you think the bullet is just going to put a hole in a 1 or 2 inch
branch? Do you think it would go unnoticed? It would at least
make a noticeable noise in the tree and knock a few leaves off.
YES! I do, but then again, I have ballistically tested these bullets
through a one-inch thick Live Oak limb, and you apparantly have not.

And YES, again, it could conceiveably knock a piece of the tree bark on
the exiting side down into the street, where someone could "see something
strike the street".

Bullets, hardly make noises when passing through small limbs, and hardly
ruffle the leaves.

You really should pick a subject to discuss in which you have some
experience or have at least done some form of research.

Tom P
Tom Purvis
2003-08-30 16:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Russ Burr
Post by Jaykhill
Post by Andrew Mason
And of course, there is nothing preventing one bullet striking
more than one twig or branch. It depends on whether there are two
such twigs or branches in its path, obviously.
*****
Obviously. And I suppose you also would accept that a ''deflecting'
bullet could encounter even three or more ''such twigs and branches in its
path?"
I recall from my nimrod days people missing deer at fairly close range,
inside a line of mountain laurel--a form of shrubbery very much like wild
rhododenron.
So you accept the possibility a single bullet, in a single incident, could
be ''deflected'' by strikes on more than two branches. Am I expressing
you thinking correctly?
John in VA
Personally and I'm no gun expert, I find it unreasonable to believe that a
bullet traveling at almost 2000 fps would be deflected by a couple tree
twigs that were close to the muzzle firing from the SE corner of the 6th
floor. If it was a thick branch, yes, but a twig??
I once asked gary mack if anyone had examined the Texas Oak and he said
that it had been and there was no indication of any branch being struck by
a bullet. Of course he noted that the tree has grown since '63 but he
didn't give me an idea of where they were searching. Also, I should have
asked him whether the tree had been trimmed during the past three or four
decades.
Russ
Yes it has been trimmed as late as of this year.
Ricky
Actually;

The day after completion of the WC re-enactment, members of this
re-enactment group secured a "bucket lift" and cut and removed limbs
from the top of this
tree.

They got the limb long before I got there to hunt for it!

Tom P
Russ Burr
2003-08-31 01:14:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Russ Burr
Post by Jaykhill
Post by Andrew Mason
And of course, there is nothing preventing one bullet striking
more than one twig or branch. It depends on whether there are two
such twigs or branches in its path, obviously.
*****
Obviously. And I suppose you also would accept that a ''deflecting'
bullet could encounter even three or more ''such twigs and branches in its
path?"
I recall from my nimrod days people missing deer at fairly close range,
inside a line of mountain laurel--a form of shrubbery very much like wild
rhododenron.
So you accept the possibility a single bullet, in a single incident, could
be ''deflected'' by strikes on more than two branches. Am I expressing
you thinking correctly?
John in VA
Personally and I'm no gun expert, I find it unreasonable to believe that a
bullet traveling at almost 2000 fps would be deflected by a couple tree
twigs that were close to the muzzle firing from the SE corner of the 6th
floor. If it was a thick branch, yes, but a twig??
I once asked gary mack if anyone had examined the Texas Oak and he said
that it had been and there was no indication of any branch being struck by
a bullet. Of course he noted that the tree has grown since '63 but he
didn't give me an idea of where they were searching. Also, I should have
asked him whether the tree had been trimmed during the past three or four
decades.
Russ
Yes it has been trimmed as late as of this year.
Ricky
Actually;
The day after completion of the WC re-enactment, members of this
re-enactment group secured a "bucket lift" and cut and removed limbs
from the top of this
tree.
They got the limb long before I got there to hunt for it!
Tom P
Tom, Thanks for the info...very helpful!

Russ
Tom Purvis
2003-08-31 20:23:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Russ Burr
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Russ Burr
Post by Jaykhill
Post by Andrew Mason
And of course, there is nothing preventing one bullet striking
more than one twig or branch. It depends on whether there are two
such twigs or branches in its path, obviously.
*****
Obviously. And I suppose you also would accept that a ''deflecting'
bullet could encounter even three or more ''such twigs and branches in its
path?"
I recall from my nimrod days people missing deer at fairly close range,
inside a line of mountain laurel--a form of shrubbery very much like wild
rhododenron.
So you accept the possibility a single bullet, in a single incident, could
be ''deflected'' by strikes on more than two branches. Am I expressing
you thinking correctly?
John in VA
Personally and I'm no gun expert, I find it unreasonable to believe that a
bullet traveling at almost 2000 fps would be deflected by a couple tree
twigs that were close to the muzzle firing from the SE corner of the 6th
floor. If it was a thick branch, yes, but a twig??
I once asked gary mack if anyone had examined the Texas Oak and he said
that it had been and there was no indication of any branch being struck by
a bullet. Of course he noted that the tree has grown since '63 but he
didn't give me an idea of where they were searching. Also, I should have
asked him whether the tree had been trimmed during the past three or four
decades.
Russ
Yes it has been trimmed as late as of this year.
Ricky
Actually;
The day after completion of the WC re-enactment, members of this
re-enactment group secured a "bucket lift" and cut and removed limbs
from the top of this
tree.
They got the limb long before I got there to hunt for it!
Tom P
Tom, Thanks for the info...very helpful!
Russ
Russ:

No Problem! On another forum is posted the "Story" of the limb
removal.

Anyway;

Having resolved the CE# 399 issue, I planned my first trip to Dealy
Plaza
for Nov 22, 1990. This was principally to get a first hand look at
the
tree and to meet with Mr. Robert West.

I had corresponded with Mr. West for many months and had received from
him
copies of the three separate re-enactment surveys (Time/Life(&SS);
FBI/SS;
and WC) along with copies of all his survey notes and survey data.

Mr. West and I had in common that I had been to survey school, and was
friends
with an OLD West Texas surveyor of whom Mr. West was fully acquainted.

By this time, I had also found the alteration to the survey
data/Z-film
re-enactment, and wanted to discuss this with Mr. West.

After viewing Dealy Plaza and the annual Nov. 22 "running of the
squirrels",
I went to the home of Mr. West on Turtle Creek Drive. (one of later to
be
several visits).

Mr. West and I spoke at great length on the various re-enactments, and
talked
for at least two hours on just the WC and all the shenanigans which
they
did. By this time, I knew what I thought was most of these, but found
that
there were many to be added.

After fully assuring myself that Mr. West was in no way connected to
this
intentional obfuscation, Mr. West was shown the alteration/change of
his
survey data/Z-film#. He was fully astonished!

After which, I explained a large part of the reason for this, that
being the
tree limb and that CE# 399 had struck one of these limbs.

With this, Mr. West laughed, he than informed me that he had
personally observed members of the WC re-enactment group cutting and
removing limbs from
the top of the tree the day after completion of the WC re-enactment.

Mr. West, who's office was directly across from Dealy Plaza if I
recall correctly, had gone back to Dealy Plaza to secure some
additional measurements
he needed to complete the Survey Plat. Upon entering Dealy Plaza, he
observed these persons from the WC re-enactment in a bucket lift,
cutting and removing
limbs from the top of the tree.

We both had good laughs at what the WC did, and Mr. West enlightened
me as did
I to him.

I had also long ago resolved the "adjusted position" as described in
the
WC, in which the aiming point "through the rifle scope" was in fact at
a
point/position that was in fact 10-inches higher than was the head of
JFK
at the time of the assassination. This 10-inch height differential,
also
helped the line-0f-sight to clear the tree limbs.

When I discussed this with Mr. West, he laughed again and told me
about how the
rifle was "jacked" up in the window of the TSDB. I had missed this
one, but CE# 887 shows exactly what Mr. West was referring to. He
stated to me
"no one could have accurately fired that rifle the way they had it
"jacked up".

Although I had seen CE# 887, it had not registered at the time.

So, we have a "jacked up" rifle in the window, and we have an
"adjusted position" aiming point that is in fact 10-inches higher than
was JFK.

Add to this that the WC, rather than correct the aiming elevation
error, moved the re-enactment vehicle approximately two frames of the
Z-film farther down
Elm St. to get the photograph/aiming point. This entire episode is a
"mirage/
illusion".

As an example: The survey data as presented by the WC for Frame# 210
of the Z-film, is in fact survey data for frame# 208 of which Mr. West
fully completed
survey data acquisition. The rifle in window, was held in a fixed
position, and the re-enactment vehicle was "moved" (sometimes pushed)
into position
slightly past this survey point until such time as the back of the
head of
the JFK stand-in came in alignment with the rifle sight.

Thereby, assuring that the tree limbs never came into play/position
with
the first shot.

No Survey work was done for frame# 210, yet the WC then made
composites which
represented the WC frame# 210 with the Z-frame#210.

The Survey data as shown in the WC re-enactment/survey plat, is for
the physical location of JFK on Elm St at Z_208. The Exhibit(Z-210
comparison/composite) is taken approximately one and one-half to two
feet
farther down Elm St, at an elevation that is 10 inches higher than was
the
actual head of JFK.

It is ALL "CREATIVE ILLUSION"!

Tom P

Lower them both to the actual/correct elevations and you have/had a
tree limb
in the bullet line-of-flight.

Mr. West in his survey calculations, corrected all angles (deducted
the 10-inch
height difference), but the photo's are taken at the incorrect
heighth.

Mr. West was one of the finest persons it will ever be my pleasure to
have met in life. And, I will always treasure our conversations.

Tom Purvis
Jaykhill
2003-09-02 14:24:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Russ Burr
Personally and I'm no gun expert, I find it unreasonable to believe that a
bullet traveling at almost 2000 fps would be deflected by a couple tree
twigs
*****
Russ, it happens frequently enough to be part of basic hunting lore and
tradition. As a matter of fact, certain kinds of bullet weights, sizes, and
shape, within acertain velocity parameters, are considered by hunters to be
better ''brush busters'' than others.
In the article from American Rifleman posted by Andrew Mason, these hunter's
''prejudices'' or received wisdom might receive some empirical support. It
appears that the heavier and slower the bullet, the better ''brush buster'' it
is. Hunters have been saying that since the 1890s.
Andrew Mason
2003-09-02 19:12:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jaykhill
Post by Russ Burr
Personally and I'm no gun expert, I find it unreasonable to believe that a
bullet traveling at almost 2000 fps would be deflected by a couple tree
twigs
*****
Russ, it happens frequently enough to be part of basic hunting lore and
tradition. As a matter of fact, certain kinds of bullet weights, sizes, and
shape, within acertain velocity parameters, are considered by hunters to be
better ''brush busters'' than others.
In the article from American Rifleman posted by Andrew Mason, these hunter's
''prejudices'' or received wisdom might receive some empirical support. It
appears that the heavier and slower the bullet, the better ''brush buster'' it
is. Hunters have been saying that since the 1890s.
You must mean: "the heavier and FASTER the bullet, the better
''brush buster'' it is". A slower bullet will deflect more
easily. Even I know that.

Andrew Mason
Jaykhill
2003-09-03 03:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Mason
You must mean: "the heavier and FASTER the bullet, the better
''brush buster'' it is". A slower bullet will deflect more
easily. Even I know th
****

You do not know that. You know precious little about the subject at hand.
You have been wrong so often it is laughable. Now you ''know'' about
bullet deflection based upon a single article, with highly selected test
results. What a tiresome intellect it is that can make so many
''knowledgeable'' assertions upon so little information.

John (gimme a 45-70 anytime in the eastern woods) in VA
Ricky Tobias
2003-09-03 13:13:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jaykhill
Post by Andrew Mason
You must mean: "the heavier and FASTER the bullet, the better
''brush buster'' it is". A slower bullet will deflect more
easily. Even I know th
****
You do not know that. You know precious little about the subject at hand.
You have been wrong so often it is laughable. Now you ''know'' about
bullet deflection based upon a single article, with highly selected test
results. What a tiresome intellect it is that can make so many
''knowledgeable'' assertions upon so little information.
John (gimme a 45-70 anytime in the eastern woods) in VA
The standard gun lore is that fast bullets deflect more than slow
bullets. Light bullets deflect more than heavy bullets. I would bet
the physics would support such assessment.

Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Andrew Mason
2003-09-03 19:02:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Jaykhill
Post by Andrew Mason
You must mean: "the heavier and FASTER the bullet, the better
''brush buster'' it is". A slower bullet will deflect more
easily. Even I know th
****
You do not know that. You know precious little about the subject at hand.
You have been wrong so often it is laughable. Now you ''know'' about
bullet deflection based upon a single article, with highly selected test
results. What a tiresome intellect it is that can make so many
''knowledgeable'' assertions upon so little information.
John (gimme a 45-70 anytime in the eastern woods) in VA
The standard gun lore is that fast bullets deflect more than slow
bullets. Light bullets deflect more than heavy bullets. I would bet
the physics would support such assessment.
The physics are simple. The faster the bullet, the shorter time
that it experiences a force in passing through something. The
shorter time that a deflecting force acts, the stronger the
deflecting force must be to deflect a bullet a given angle. The
force required varies inversely as the square of the time during
which the force acts. The heavier the bullet, the stronger the
force required to deflect it a given angle. The force required is
proportional to the mass.

I know 'experience' is everything with gun enthusiasts, but I get
the sense the there is a lot of incorrect 'lore' out there.

Andrew Mason
Post by Ricky Tobias
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ricky Tobias
2003-09-04 02:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Jaykhill
Post by Andrew Mason
You must mean: "the heavier and FASTER the bullet, the better
''brush buster'' it is". A slower bullet will deflect more
easily. Even I know th
****
You do not know that. You know precious little about the subject at hand.
You have been wrong so often it is laughable. Now you ''know'' about
bullet deflection based upon a single article, with highly selected test
results. What a tiresome intellect it is that can make so many
''knowledgeable'' assertions upon so little information.
John (gimme a 45-70 anytime in the eastern woods) in VA
The standard gun lore is that fast bullets deflect more than slow
bullets. Light bullets deflect more than heavy bullets. I would bet
the physics would support such assessment.
The physics are simple. The faster the bullet, the shorter time
that it experiences a force in passing through something. The
shorter time that a deflecting force acts, the stronger the
deflecting force must be to deflect a bullet a given angle. The
force required varies inversely as the square of the time during
which the force acts. The heavier the bullet, the stronger the
force required to deflect it a given angle. The force required is
proportional to the mass.
I know 'experience' is everything with gun enthusiasts, but I get
the sense the there is a lot of incorrect 'lore' out there.
Andrew Mason
No the lore is very accurate. The reason is that fast bullets tend to
become unstable after contact probably due to aerodynamics more so
than impact forces. I will need to see some numbers and then do some
experiments.
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Ricky Tobias
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ken West
2003-09-03 19:12:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricky Tobias
The standard gun lore is that fast bullets deflect more than slow
bullets
. . . . snip . . .
Post by Ricky Tobias
I would bet the physics would support such assessment.
Ricky
You're on the moon, and you drop a pebble onto a fixed stick from
the height of one foot.
The stick is just thick and strong enough to deflect the stone,
aside, without the stick breaking.

Now you drop the same pebble on the same stick from a height of
100 miles. (Call it a magic pebble, if you will.)
Will the pebble deflect?
Or,
Will the stick break?

Hmmmm.

Ken West
Ricky Tobias
2003-09-04 03:01:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken West
Post by Ricky Tobias
The standard gun lore is that fast bullets deflect more than slow
bullets
. . . . snip . . .
Post by Ricky Tobias
I would bet the physics would support such assessment.
Ricky
You're on the moon, and you drop a pebble onto a fixed stick from
the height of one foot.
The stick is just thick and strong enough to deflect the stone,
aside, without the stick breaking.
I do not know the speed of gravity on the moon but I recall it is
1/6th of earth so it would fall about 5 fps. Assuming it is 5' above
the stick it is going 5fps.
Post by Ken West
Now you drop the same pebble on the same stick from a height of
100 miles. (Call it a magic pebble, if you will.)
Will the pebble deflect?
Or,
Will the stick break?
It will probably not break and will deflect. the pebble will reach a
maximum terminal velocity equal to the speed of the moon's gravity.
Getting it to hit the stick from that distance will be difficult. ;-)
Post by Ken West
Hmmmm.
Ken West
Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ken West
2003-09-04 04:54:32 UTC
Permalink
Ricky, I won't challenge your expertise on ballistics, but my
example was meant to illustrate "the physics" that you reference.

I used the moon to avoid any issues about air resistance.

Gravity, earth or moon, is a force causing acceleration, so the
velocity is always increasing. With no air resistance, there is
no "terminal velocity" -- velocity will increase until impact.

I used extreme measurements (1 ft, 100 miles) to illustrate
something which I used to be able to calculate, and perhaps Mason
still can. I was trying to create an image we could buy into.

My point is, that at the extremely high velocity of a pebble
falling 100 miles, I thought that we all could agree that the
impact would smash the stick without causing any measurable
deflection in the pebble. The same pebble, same stick, at 1ft,
would be very much slower with a very different result. I trust
the same vision can then be transferred to bullets and branches.

Summary: I agree with Mason about the physics. Ballistics? I
never touch the stuff.

Ken West
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Ken West
Post by Ricky Tobias
The standard gun lore is that fast bullets deflect more than slow
bullets
. . . . snip . . .
Post by Ricky Tobias
I would bet the physics would support such assessment.
Ricky
You're on the moon, and you drop a pebble onto a fixed stick from
the height of one foot.
The stick is just thick and strong enough to deflect the stone,
aside, without the stick breaking.
I do not know the speed of gravity on the moon but I recall it is
1/6th of earth so it would fall about 5 fps. Assuming it is 5' above
the stick it is going 5fps.
Post by Ken West
Now you drop the same pebble on the same stick from a height of
100 miles. (Call it a magic pebble, if you will.)
Will the pebble deflect?
Or,
Will the stick break?
It will probably not break and will deflect. the pebble will reach a
maximum terminal velocity equal to the speed of the moon's gravity.
Getting it to hit the stick from that distance will be difficult. ;-)
Post by Ken West
Hmmmm.
Ken West
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Andrew Mason
2003-09-04 11:39:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken West
Ricky, I won't challenge your expertise on ballistics, but my
example was meant to illustrate "the physics" that you reference.
I used the moon to avoid any issues about air resistance.
Gravity, earth or moon, is a force causing acceleration, so the
velocity is always increasing. With no air resistance, there is
no "terminal velocity" -- velocity will increase until impact.
Quite right.
Post by Ken West
I used extreme measurements (1 ft, 100 miles) to illustrate
something which I used to be able to calculate, and perhaps Mason
still can. I was trying to create an image we could buy into.
It was a good example.
Post by Ken West
My point is, that at the extremely high velocity of a pebble
falling 100 miles, I thought that we all could agree that the
impact would smash the stick without causing any measurable
deflection in the pebble.
Kind of like a 160 grain fmj bullet at 2100 fps striking a twig.
Looks like a fair analogy to me.
Post by Ken West
The same pebble, same stick, at 1ft,
would be very much slower with a very different result. I trust
the same vision can then be transferred to bullets and branches.
Summary: I agree with Mason about the physics. Ballistics? I
never touch the stuff.
Ballistics - generally the study of the motion of bullets through
air and other materials - is not simple. It involves all sorts of
complicated physics of air dynamics, fluid dynamics, and strength
of materials etc. One can be easily fooled by one's intuition
because it is easy to forget about some factor or
under/over-estimate its effect. Experimenting is often necessary.

But an fmj bullet striking a twig is a relatively uncomplicated
event. We know that the bullet will not move around the twig. We
know that the forces keeping the twig together are not nearly as
strong as the forces keeping the bullet together. And we can
confirm by experiment that a 2100 fps fmj 160 grain bullet
pointing nose first will go through wood and not bounce off it.

We can calculate the amount of force that a bullet of a certain
mass and speed must experience in order to deflect a given amount
as it passes through a given distance. That is just physics. The
question then is: can the target supply such a force? If the
answer is no, then the bullet will be deflected by something less
than the amount in question.

Andrew Mason
Post by Ken West
Ken West
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Ken West
Post by Ricky Tobias
The standard gun lore is that fast bullets deflect more than slow
bullets
. . . . snip . . .
Post by Ricky Tobias
I would bet the physics would support such assessment.
Ricky
You're on the moon, and you drop a pebble onto a fixed stick from
the height of one foot.
The stick is just thick and strong enough to deflect the stone,
aside, without the stick breaking.
I do not know the speed of gravity on the moon but I recall it is
1/6th of earth so it would fall about 5 fps. Assuming it is 5' above
the stick it is going 5fps.
Post by Ken West
Now you drop the same pebble on the same stick from a height of
100 miles. (Call it a magic pebble, if you will.)
Will the pebble deflect?
Or,
Will the stick break?
It will probably not break and will deflect. the pebble will reach a
maximum terminal velocity equal to the speed of the moon's gravity.
Getting it to hit the stick from that distance will be difficult. ;-)
Post by Ken West
Hmmmm.
Ken West
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Andrew Mason
2003-09-04 11:41:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken West
I used extreme measurements (1 ft, 100 miles) to illustrate
something which I used to be able to calculate, and perhaps Mason
still can. I was trying to create an image we could buy into.
And it is a good one, as it turns out.

To do a really accurate calculation of the time and speed of the
pebble you would have to do some calculus. But one can do a
reasonable approximation by ignoring the change in gravity with
distance (see note, below).

Using s=(1/2)gt^2, the time of fall is t = (2s/g)^1/2 where
s=160,900 meters and g=1.6 m/sec^2
t=448 seconds
After falling 448 seconds at an acceleration of 1.6 m/sec^2, the
speed, v = gt = 609.28 m/sec or about 2000 fps, which is about
the speed of an MC bullet!

[I have checked the numbers but I am certainly not above making
simple mistakes]

So: your example is quite good. The 100 mile drop results in a
speed very close to that of an MC rifle bullet.

[Note: determining the exact speed of an object dropped from a
height of 100 miles above the moon is a little complicated
because the acceleration due to gravity at 100 miles is less than
it is on the surface of the moon. Gravity is a function of
distance from the center of the moon - it is not quite the same
over the whole 100 miles. But it is not a whole lot less (moon's
diameter is a bit more than 1/4 that of the earth - about 3500
km. (radius - 1750 km) at 100 miles up the radius is increased by
less than 10% which decreases the gravity by about 16%]

Andrew Mason
Post by Ken West
Ken West
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Ken West
Post by Ricky Tobias
The standard gun lore is that fast bullets deflect more than slow
bullets
. . . . snip . . .
Post by Ricky Tobias
I would bet the physics would support such assessment.
Ricky
You're on the moon, and you drop a pebble onto a fixed stick from
the height of one foot.
The stick is just thick and strong enough to deflect the stone,
aside, without the stick breaking.
I do not know the speed of gravity on the moon but I recall it is
1/6th of earth so it would fall about 5 fps. Assuming it is 5' above
the stick it is going 5fps.
Post by Ken West
Now you drop the same pebble on the same stick from a height of
100 miles. (Call it a magic pebble, if you will.)
Will the pebble deflect?
Or,
Will the stick break?
It will probably not break and will deflect. the pebble will reach a
maximum terminal velocity equal to the speed of the moon's gravity.
Getting it to hit the stick from that distance will be difficult. ;-)
Post by Ken West
Hmmmm.
Ken West
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ken West
2003-09-04 23:15:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Ken West
I used extreme measurements (1 ft, 100 miles) to illustrate
something which I used to be able to calculate, and perhaps Mason
still can. I was trying to create an image we could buy into.
And it is a good one, as it turns out.
To do a really accurate calculation of the time and speed of the
pebble you would have to do some calculus. But one can do a
reasonable approximation by ignoring the change in gravity with
distance (see note, below).
Understood. When I was doing physics in school, I could do the
formula and the calculation in my head. The business world
tends to dull this skill.
Post by Andrew Mason
Using s=(1/2)gt^2, the time of fall is t = (2s/g)^1/2 where
s=160,900 meters and g=1.6 m/sec^2
t=448 seconds
After falling 448 seconds at an acceleration of 1.6 m/sec^2, the
speed, v = gt = 609.28 m/sec or about 2000 fps, which is about
the speed of an MC bullet!
WHO KNEW?!?!? That's a total hoot!
Post by Andrew Mason
[I have checked the numbers but I am certainly not above making
simple mistakes]
So: your example is quite good. The 100 mile drop results in a
speed very close to that of an MC rifle bullet.
I pride myself on rough guestimates, but this is ridiculous!
Post by Andrew Mason
[Note: determining the exact speed of an object dropped from a
height of 100 miles above the moon is a little complicated
because the acceleration due to gravity at 100 miles is less than
it is on the surface of the moon. Gravity is a function of
distance from the center of the moon - it is not quite the same
over the whole 100 miles. But it is not a whole lot less (moon's
diameter is a bit more than 1/4 that of the earth - about 3500
km. (radius - 1750 km) at 100 miles up the radius is increased by
less than 10% which decreases the gravity by about 16%]
Right, and that's why to do a totally accurate calculation, you
need some calculus (which I also used to be able to do.)

I guess my "image" has got this thread off topic, but
thanks for taking the time to give me a chuckle.
Post by Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
regards,
Ken West
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Ken West
Ken West
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Ken West
Post by Ricky Tobias
The standard gun lore is that fast bullets deflect more than slow
bullets
. . . . snip . . .
Post by Ricky Tobias
I would bet the physics would support such assessment.
Ricky
You're on the moon, and you drop a pebble onto a fixed stick from
the height of one foot.
The stick is just thick and strong enough to deflect the stone,
aside, without the stick breaking.
I do not know the speed of gravity on the moon but I recall it is
1/6th of earth so it would fall about 5 fps. Assuming it is 5' above
the stick it is going 5fps.
Post by Ken West
Now you drop the same pebble on the same stick from a height of
100 miles. (Call it a magic pebble, if you will.)
Will the pebble deflect?
Or,
Will the stick break?
It will probably not break and will deflect. the pebble will reach a
maximum terminal velocity equal to the speed of the moon's gravity.
Getting it to hit the stick from that distance will be difficult. ;-)
Post by Ken West
Hmmmm.
Ken West
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ricky Tobias
2003-09-07 03:49:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken West
Ricky, I won't challenge your expertise on ballistics, but my
example was meant to illustrate "the physics" that you reference.
I used the moon to avoid any issues about air resistance.
Gravity, earth or moon, is a force causing acceleration, so the
velocity is always increasing. With no air resistance, there is
no "terminal velocity" -- velocity will increase until impact.
OK.
Post by Ken West
I used extreme measurements (1 ft, 100 miles) to illustrate
something which I used to be able to calculate, and perhaps Mason
still can. I was trying to create an image we could buy into.
My point is, that at the extremely high velocity of a pebble
falling 100 miles, I thought that we all could agree that the
impact would smash the stick without causing any measurable
deflection in the pebble. The same pebble, same stick, at 1ft,
would be very much slower with a very different result. I trust
the same vision can then be transferred to bullets and branches.
Yes. A bullet at 500 fps will deflect without penetration of say a 1"
branch while the same bullet at 3000 fps will penetrate the branch and
may even shatter it.
Post by Ken West
Summary: I agree with Mason about the physics. Ballistics? I
never touch the stuff.
Physics is only what I see when I shoot bullets. I can shoot my .270
at about 3000 fps and never miss on the open range but in the brush
deflections occur. My 30-30 does not mind the brush. To what degree
this is physics or my personal shooting trate I do not know.
Post by Ken West
Ken West
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Ken West
Post by Ricky Tobias
The standard gun lore is that fast bullets deflect more than slow
bullets
. . . . snip . . .
Post by Ricky Tobias
I would bet the physics would support such assessment.
Ricky
You're on the moon, and you drop a pebble onto a fixed stick from
the height of one foot.
The stick is just thick and strong enough to deflect the stone,
aside, without the stick breaking.
I do not know the speed of gravity on the moon but I recall it is
1/6th of earth so it would fall about 5 fps. Assuming it is 5' above
the stick it is going 5fps.
Post by Ken West
Now you drop the same pebble on the same stick from a height of
100 miles. (Call it a magic pebble, if you will.)
Will the pebble deflect?
Or,
Will the stick break?
It will probably not break and will deflect. the pebble will reach a
maximum terminal velocity equal to the speed of the moon's gravity.
Getting it to hit the stick from that distance will be difficult. ;-)
Post by Ken West
Hmmmm.
Ken West
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Andrew Mason
2003-09-04 04:46:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Ken West
Post by Ricky Tobias
The standard gun lore is that fast bullets deflect more than slow
bullets
. . . . snip . . .
Post by Ricky Tobias
I would bet the physics would support such assessment.
Ricky
You're on the moon, and you drop a pebble onto a fixed stick from
the height of one foot.
The stick is just thick and strong enough to deflect the stone,
aside, without the stick breaking.
I do not know the speed of gravity on the moon but I recall it is
1/6th of earth so it would fall about 5 fps. Assuming it is 5' above
the stick it is going 5fps.
Ricky: gravity accelerates things. They don't drop at constant
speed. This is pretty basic stuff.

s=(1/2)gt^2
t=(2s/g)^1/2
s= 1.52 m. (5 ft) and g=1.63 m/sec^2 (earth = 9.8 m/sec^2) -
acceleration due to gravity on the moon.
So: t=1.36 seconds.

So it takes 1.36 seconds to fall 5 feet on the moon.

In 1.36 seconds, its speed is V=gt = 2.21 m/sec or about 7.2 fps.
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Ken West
Now you drop the same pebble on the same stick from a height of
100 miles. (Call it a magic pebble, if you will.)
Will the pebble deflect?
Or,
Will the stick break?
It will probably not break and will deflect. the pebble will reach a
maximum terminal velocity equal to the speed of the moon's gravity.
Getting it to hit the stick from that distance will be difficult. ;-)
Terminal velocity only occurs if there is an atmosphere. Those astronauts
were wearing fancy suits because there is no atmosphere on the moon.
Things just keep accelerating. BTW, what is the "speed" of the moon's
gravity?

Andrew Mason
K Wind
2003-09-04 23:12:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Ken West
Post by Ricky Tobias
The standard gun lore is that fast bullets deflect more than slow
bullets
. . . . snip . . .
Post by Ricky Tobias
I would bet the physics would support such assessment.
Ricky
You're on the moon, and you drop a pebble onto a fixed stick from
the height of one foot.
The stick is just thick and strong enough to deflect the stone,
aside, without the stick breaking.
I do not know the speed of gravity on the moon but I recall it is
1/6th of earth so it would fall about 5 fps. Assuming it is 5' above
the stick it is going 5fps.
Ricky: gravity accelerates things. They don't drop at constant
speed. This is pretty basic stuff.
s=(1/2)gt^2
t=(2s/g)^1/2
s= 1.52 m. (5 ft) and g=1.63 m/sec^2 (earth = 9.8 m/sec^2) -
acceleration due to gravity on the moon.
So: t=1.36 seconds.
So it takes 1.36 seconds to fall 5 feet on the moon.
In 1.36 seconds, its speed is V=gt = 2.21 m/sec or about 7.2 fps.
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Ken West
Now you drop the same pebble on the same stick from a height of
100 miles. (Call it a magic pebble, if you will.)
Will the pebble deflect?
Or,
Will the stick break?
It will probably not break and will deflect. the pebble will reach a
maximum terminal velocity equal to the speed of the moon's gravity.
Getting it to hit the stick from that distance will be difficult. ;-)
Terminal velocity only occurs if there is an atmosphere. Those astronauts
were wearing fancy suits because there is no atmosphere on the moon.
Things just keep accelerating. BTW, what is the "speed" of the moon's
gravity?
I wanted to respond to Ricky, but my knowledge of physics just is not what
it used to be. What he said didn't make sense. Neither does the idea of a
twig deflecting a faster bullet more than a slower one. It sounds like this
defies physics. The amount of energy rises exponentially as the velocity
increases. If the velocity doubles, the energy quadruples. The twig has to
impart enough force on the bullet to deflect it. Right?

This reminds me of overhearing tow guys talking about why a shotgun slug
hits the ground before a 30/30. They both agreed that the reason for this
was because the shotgun slug was heavier. I have always thought it is
because the shotgun slug comes out of the gun at a slower speed.

Ken
Post by Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
2003-09-05 00:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by K Wind
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Ken West
Post by Ricky Tobias
The standard gun lore is that fast bullets deflect more than slow
bullets
. . . . snip . . .
Post by Ricky Tobias
I would bet the physics would support such assessment.
Ricky
You're on the moon, and you drop a pebble onto a fixed stick from
the height of one foot.
The stick is just thick and strong enough to deflect the stone,
aside, without the stick breaking.
I do not know the speed of gravity on the moon but I recall it is
1/6th of earth so it would fall about 5 fps. Assuming it is 5' above
the stick it is going 5fps.
Ricky: gravity accelerates things. They don't drop at constant
speed. This is pretty basic stuff.
s=(1/2)gt^2
t=(2s/g)^1/2
s= 1.52 m. (5 ft) and g=1.63 m/sec^2 (earth = 9.8 m/sec^2) -
acceleration due to gravity on the moon.
So: t=1.36 seconds.
So it takes 1.36 seconds to fall 5 feet on the moon.
In 1.36 seconds, its speed is V=gt = 2.21 m/sec or about 7.2 fps.
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Ken West
Now you drop the same pebble on the same stick from a height of
100 miles. (Call it a magic pebble, if you will.)
Will the pebble deflect?
Or,
Will the stick break?
It will probably not break and will deflect. the pebble will reach a
maximum terminal velocity equal to the speed of the moon's gravity.
Getting it to hit the stick from that distance will be difficult. ;-)
Terminal velocity only occurs if there is an atmosphere. Those astronauts
were wearing fancy suits because there is no atmosphere on the moon.
Things just keep accelerating. BTW, what is the "speed" of the moon's
gravity?
I wanted to respond to Ricky, but my knowledge of physics just is not what
it used to be. What he said didn't make sense. Neither does the idea of a
twig deflecting a faster bullet more than a slower one. It sounds like this
defies physics. The amount of energy rises exponentially as the velocity
increases. If the velocity doubles, the energy quadruples. The twig has to
impart enough force on the bullet to deflect it. Right?
Absolutely right. And it has to move it in the time it is in
contact with the bullet. With a fast bullet, this time is very
small. The required force varies inversely as the square of the
time during which it acts (so to move the bullet a given distance
in half the time takes 4 x the force).
Post by K Wind
This reminds me of overhearing tow guys talking about why a shotgun slug
hits the ground before a 30/30. They both agreed that the reason for this
was because the shotgun slug was heavier. I have always thought it is
because the shotgun slug comes out of the gun at a slower speed.
Actually, if they are fired parallel to the earth and there is no
downward spread of the shot, they both hit the ground at the same
time. It is just that the 30/30 hits the ground much further away
because it moves faster. This is a good example of why you cannot
rely on hunter's lore to determine what bullets do, Jaykhill
notwithstanding.

Andrew Mason
Post by K Wind
Ken
Post by Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
K Wind
2003-09-05 02:39:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by K Wind
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Ken West
Post by Ricky Tobias
The standard gun lore is that fast bullets deflect more than slow
bullets
. . . . snip . . .
Post by Ricky Tobias
I would bet the physics would support such assessment.
Ricky
You're on the moon, and you drop a pebble onto a fixed stick from
the height of one foot.
The stick is just thick and strong enough to deflect the stone,
aside, without the stick breaking.
I do not know the speed of gravity on the moon but I recall it is
1/6th of earth so it would fall about 5 fps. Assuming it is 5' above
the stick it is going 5fps.
Ricky: gravity accelerates things. They don't drop at constant
speed. This is pretty basic stuff.
s=(1/2)gt^2
t=(2s/g)^1/2
s= 1.52 m. (5 ft) and g=1.63 m/sec^2 (earth = 9.8 m/sec^2) -
acceleration due to gravity on the moon.
So: t=1.36 seconds.
So it takes 1.36 seconds to fall 5 feet on the moon.
In 1.36 seconds, its speed is V=gt = 2.21 m/sec or about 7.2 fps.
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Ken West
Now you drop the same pebble on the same stick from a height of
100 miles. (Call it a magic pebble, if you will.)
Will the pebble deflect?
Or,
Will the stick break?
It will probably not break and will deflect. the pebble will reach a
maximum terminal velocity equal to the speed of the moon's gravity.
Getting it to hit the stick from that distance will be difficult. ;-)
Terminal velocity only occurs if there is an atmosphere. Those astronauts
were wearing fancy suits because there is no atmosphere on the moon.
Things just keep accelerating. BTW, what is the "speed" of the moon's
gravity?
I wanted to respond to Ricky, but my knowledge of physics just is not what
it used to be. What he said didn't make sense. Neither does the idea of a
twig deflecting a faster bullet more than a slower one. It sounds like this
defies physics. The amount of energy rises exponentially as the velocity
increases. If the velocity doubles, the energy quadruples. The twig has to
impart enough force on the bullet to deflect it. Right?
Absolutely right. And it has to move it in the time it is in
contact with the bullet. With a fast bullet, this time is very
small. The required force varies inversely as the square of the
time during which it acts (so to move the bullet a given distance
in half the time takes 4 x the force).
Post by K Wind
This reminds me of overhearing tow guys talking about why a shotgun slug
hits the ground before a 30/30. They both agreed that the reason for this
was because the shotgun slug was heavier. I have always thought it is
because the shotgun slug comes out of the gun at a slower speed.
Actually, if they are fired parallel to the earth and there is no
downward spread of the shot, they both hit the ground at the same
time. It is just that the 30/30 hits the ground much further away
because it moves faster. This is a good example of why you cannot
rely on hunter's lore to determine what bullets do, Jaykhill
notwithstanding.
Yes, I should have made that point. I knew I forgot something.

Ken
Jaykhill
2003-09-05 14:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Mason
rely on hunter's lore to determine what bullets do, Jaykhill
Post by Andrew Mason
notwithstanding.
******
That's for sure. I once heard of a guy what said categorically that his new
.300 Winchester Magnum ''didn't drop." There are problems with such
individula hunter's or shooter's ignorance. There is also the intellectual
problem of received ignorance. Good stories that are great for the retelling.
When first I read or heard about a blade of grass demolishing a bullet, I
knew there was ''no way." All one needs is having a speeding bullet from a
22-250 ''disappear'' to suspect that it might be true.
The forces which act upon a bleeding pullet are often of a very high order
of magnitude; and the number of variables involved with it's motion can
approach infinity. Thus, prediction is a virtual impossibility.
One knows, intuitively, that unless one addresses the movement of physical
objects in, say, the Bermuda Triangle, the laws of classical physics must apply
with certaintly. To apply the intellectual tools of particle physics, however,
to state ex-cathedra that a certain bullet scenario cannot happen is, however,
a giant leap: the movements of a bullet in the brush are, it would seem,
subject to far more variables than a particle in a nucleur accelerator., it
would seem to me.
For example, to the best of my knowledge (which is nil) a particle in an
ion accelarator would not be subject to significant air resistance; nor could
it's physical shape and aerodynamic characteristics change as a result of a
collision. It is, however, possible, I ASS u ME., for a particle to shed mass
and energy after a collision and collisions--maybe even parts of itself
physically--I do not know.
But bullets can, and sometimes do, shed their jackets after collisions with
blades of grass, branches, twigs, or whatever; or become deformed as a result;
or yaw more wildly after a collision.
All such events may be multiplide in the woods in actual shooting bullet
events.
As a result, as I have stated ad nauseum, nothing, absolutely nothing, an
individual bullet does, shall ever completely surprise me. I am certain that
any thinking, knowledgeable shootists lurking about this newsgroup will accept
that statement. Lawyers, though...........


John in VA
Andrew Mason
2003-09-05 21:36:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by JayKHillnospam
Post by Andrew Mason
rely on hunter's lore to determine what bullets do, Jaykhill
Post by Andrew Mason
notwithstanding.
******
That's for sure. I once heard of a guy what said categorically that his new
.300 Winchester Magnum ''didn't drop." There are problems with such
individula hunter's or shooter's ignorance. There is also the intellectual
problem of received ignorance. Good stories that are great for the retelling.
When first I read or heard about a blade of grass demolishing a bullet, I
knew there was ''no way." All one needs is having a speeding bullet from a
22-250 ''disappear'' to suspect that it might be true.
The forces which act upon a bleeding pullet are often of a very high order
of magnitude; and the number of variables involved with it's motion can
approach infinity. Thus, prediction is a virtual impossibility.
I am not disagreeing here, but there may be a difference between
predicting what it will do and saying what it can't do. I may not
be able to predict how a bullet is going to travel through a
person but I can predict if I shoot a person in the chest with a
6.5 mm. bullet from a MC rifle that it is not going to bounce off
his chest (lets assume no steel plate or bullet proof vest).
Post by JayKHillnospam
One knows, intuitively, that unless one addresses the movement of physical
objects in, say, the Bermuda Triangle, the laws of classical physics must apply
with certaintly. To apply the intellectual tools of particle physics, however,
to state ex-cathedra that a certain bullet scenario cannot happen is, however,
a giant leap: the movements of a bullet in the brush are, it would seem,
subject to far more variables than a particle in a nucleur accelerator., it
would seem to me.
No question. But in particle physics you are interested in the
collision of a one particle with another, usually a small
particle with an atomic nucleus. If all you are interested is
analysing the collision of a bullet with a twig, and not trying
to figure out exactly where the bullet ends up half a mile later
after tumbling through air, it is much easier to analyse. There
are certain things that you can say about that collision based on
physics.
Post by JayKHillnospam
For example, to the best of my knowledge (which is nil) a particle in an
ion accelarator would not be subject to significant air resistance; nor could
it's physical shape and aerodynamic characteristics change as a result of a
collision. It is, however, possible, I ASS u ME., for a particle to shed mass
and energy after a collision and collisions--maybe even parts of itself
physically--I do not know.
But bullets can, and sometimes do, shed their jackets after collisions with
blades of grass, branches, twigs, or whatever; or become deformed as a result;
or yaw more wildly after a collision.
All such events may be multiplide in the woods in actual shooting bullet
events.
As a result, as I have stated ad nauseum, nothing, absolutely nothing, an
individual bullet does, shall ever completely surprise me. I am certain that
any thinking, knowledgeable shootists lurking about this newsgroup will accept
that statement. Lawyers, though...........
.... lawyers like to see proof. I thought I'd finish that
sentence for you. I knew you were searching for those words,
John,... right?

Andrew Mason
Post by JayKHillnospam
John in VA
Ricky Tobias
2003-09-06 06:07:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by JayKHillnospam
Post by Andrew Mason
rely on hunter's lore to determine what bullets do, Jaykhill
Post by Andrew Mason
notwithstanding.
******
That's for sure. I once heard of a guy what said categorically that his new
.300 Winchester Magnum ''didn't drop." There are problems with such
individula hunter's or shooter's ignorance. There is also the intellectual
problem of received ignorance. Good stories that are great for the retelling.
When first I read or heard about a blade of grass demolishing a bullet, I
knew there was ''no way." All one needs is having a speeding bullet from a
22-250 ''disappear'' to suspect that it might be true.
The forces which act upon a bleeding pullet are often of a very high order
of magnitude; and the number of variables involved with it's motion can
approach infinity. Thus, prediction is a virtual impossibility.
I am not disagreeing here, but there may be a difference between
predicting what it will do and saying what it can't do. I may not
be able to predict how a bullet is going to travel through a
person but I can predict if I shoot a person in the chest with a
6.5 mm. bullet from a MC rifle that it is not going to bounce off
his chest (lets assume no steel plate or bullet proof vest).
Post by JayKHillnospam
One knows, intuitively, that unless one addresses the movement of physical
objects in, say, the Bermuda Triangle, the laws of classical physics must apply
with certaintly. To apply the intellectual tools of particle physics, however,
to state ex-cathedra that a certain bullet scenario cannot happen is, however,
a giant leap: the movements of a bullet in the brush are, it would seem,
subject to far more variables than a particle in a nucleur accelerator., it
would seem to me.
No question. But in particle physics you are interested in the
collision of a one particle with another, usually a small
particle with an atomic nucleus. If all you are interested is
analysing the collision of a bullet with a twig, and not trying
to figure out exactly where the bullet ends up half a mile later
after tumbling through air, it is much easier to analyse. There
are certain things that you can say about that collision based on
physics.
Post by JayKHillnospam
For example, to the best of my knowledge (which is nil) a particle in an
ion accelarator would not be subject to significant air resistance; nor could
it's physical shape and aerodynamic characteristics change as a result of a
collision. It is, however, possible, I ASS u ME., for a particle to shed mass
and energy after a collision and collisions--maybe even parts of itself
physically--I do not know.
But bullets can, and sometimes do, shed their jackets after collisions with
blades of grass, branches, twigs, or whatever; or become deformed as a result;
or yaw more wildly after a collision.
All such events may be multiplide in the woods in actual shooting bullet
events.
As a result, as I have stated ad nauseum, nothing, absolutely nothing, an
individual bullet does, shall ever completely surprise me. I am certain that
any thinking, knowledgeable shootists lurking about this newsgroup will accept
that statement. Lawyers, though...........
.... lawyers like to see proof. I thought I'd finish that
sentence for you. I knew you were searching for those words,
John,... right?
...lawyers have a cause to advocate.
Post by Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
Post by JayKHillnospam
John in VA
Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ricky Tobias
2003-09-05 02:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by K Wind
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Ken West
Post by Ricky Tobias
The standard gun lore is that fast bullets deflect more than slow
bullets
. . . . snip . . .
Post by Ricky Tobias
I would bet the physics would support such assessment.
Ricky
You're on the moon, and you drop a pebble onto a fixed stick from
the height of one foot.
The stick is just thick and strong enough to deflect the stone,
aside, without the stick breaking.
I do not know the speed of gravity on the moon but I recall it is
1/6th of earth so it would fall about 5 fps. Assuming it is 5' above
the stick it is going 5fps.
Ricky: gravity accelerates things. They don't drop at constant
speed. This is pretty basic stuff.
s=(1/2)gt^2
t=(2s/g)^1/2
s= 1.52 m. (5 ft) and g=1.63 m/sec^2 (earth = 9.8 m/sec^2) -
acceleration due to gravity on the moon.
So: t=1.36 seconds.
So it takes 1.36 seconds to fall 5 feet on the moon.
In 1.36 seconds, its speed is V=gt = 2.21 m/sec or about 7.2 fps.
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Ken West
Now you drop the same pebble on the same stick from a height of
100 miles. (Call it a magic pebble, if you will.)
Will the pebble deflect?
Or,
Will the stick break?
It will probably not break and will deflect. the pebble will reach a
maximum terminal velocity equal to the speed of the moon's gravity.
Getting it to hit the stick from that distance will be difficult. ;-)
Terminal velocity only occurs if there is an atmosphere. Those astronauts
were wearing fancy suits because there is no atmosphere on the moon.
Things just keep accelerating. BTW, what is the "speed" of the moon's
gravity?
I wanted to respond to Ricky, but my knowledge of physics just is not what
it used to be. What he said didn't make sense. Neither does the idea of a
twig deflecting a faster bullet more than a slower one. It sounds like this
defies physics. The amount of energy rises exponentially as the velocity
increases. If the velocity doubles, the energy quadruples. The twig has to
impart enough force on the bullet to deflect it. Right?
This reminds me of overhearing tow guys talking about why a shotgun slug
hits the ground before a 30/30. They both agreed that the reason for this
was because the shotgun slug was heavier. I have always thought it is
because the shotgun slug comes out of the gun at a slower speed.
Ken
Actually they should hit the ground at the same time but the distance
traveled will be more for one than the other. My understanding of physics
is limited and over 30 years old. My practical shooting experience is
considerable. Bullets are deflected by branches and that is a fact. How
much and why that deflection occurs is academic physics.
Post by K Wind
Post by Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
K Wind
2003-09-05 11:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by K Wind
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Ken West
Post by Ricky Tobias
The standard gun lore is that fast bullets deflect more than slow
bullets
. . . . snip . . .
Post by Ricky Tobias
I would bet the physics would support such assessment.
Ricky
You're on the moon, and you drop a pebble onto a fixed stick from
the height of one foot.
The stick is just thick and strong enough to deflect the stone,
aside, without the stick breaking.
I do not know the speed of gravity on the moon but I recall it is
1/6th of earth so it would fall about 5 fps. Assuming it is 5' above
the stick it is going 5fps.
Ricky: gravity accelerates things. They don't drop at constant
speed. This is pretty basic stuff.
s=(1/2)gt^2
t=(2s/g)^1/2
s= 1.52 m. (5 ft) and g=1.63 m/sec^2 (earth = 9.8 m/sec^2) -
acceleration due to gravity on the moon.
So: t=1.36 seconds.
So it takes 1.36 seconds to fall 5 feet on the moon.
In 1.36 seconds, its speed is V=gt = 2.21 m/sec or about 7.2 fps.
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Ken West
Now you drop the same pebble on the same stick from a height of
100 miles. (Call it a magic pebble, if you will.)
Will the pebble deflect?
Or,
Will the stick break?
It will probably not break and will deflect. the pebble will reach a
maximum terminal velocity equal to the speed of the moon's gravity.
Getting it to hit the stick from that distance will be difficult. ;-)
Terminal velocity only occurs if there is an atmosphere. Those astronauts
were wearing fancy suits because there is no atmosphere on the moon.
Things just keep accelerating. BTW, what is the "speed" of the moon's
gravity?
I wanted to respond to Ricky, but my knowledge of physics just is not what
it used to be. What he said didn't make sense. Neither does the idea of a
twig deflecting a faster bullet more than a slower one. It sounds like this
defies physics. The amount of energy rises exponentially as the velocity
increases. If the velocity doubles, the energy quadruples. The twig has to
impart enough force on the bullet to deflect it. Right?
This reminds me of overhearing tow guys talking about why a shotgun slug
hits the ground before a 30/30. They both agreed that the reason for this
was because the shotgun slug was heavier. I have always thought it is
because the shotgun slug comes out of the gun at a slower speed.
Ken
Actually they should hit the ground at the same time but the distance
traveled will be more for one than the other. My understanding of physics
is limited and over 30 years old. My practical shooting experience is
considerable. Bullets are deflected by branches and that is a fact. How
much and why that deflection occurs is academic physics.

My understanding of physics is pretty old too. A refresher may be in order,
but I do know that the bullets hit the ground at the same time. It should
have been included in what I wrote.

Ken
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by K Wind
Post by Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Post by Ricky Tobias
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Jaykhill
2003-09-03 19:14:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricky Tobias
The standard gun lore is that fast bullets deflect more than slow
bullets. Light bullets deflect more than heavy bullets. I would bet
the physics would support such assessment.
*******
You'll have to take the physics up with Andrew. He knows all about that, and
all about firearms and ballistics. He be a lawyer, ya know. 'Nuff said.

John in VA
Andrew Mason
2003-09-04 02:41:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by JayKHillnospam
Post by Ricky Tobias
The standard gun lore is that fast bullets deflect more than slow
bullets. Light bullets deflect more than heavy bullets. I would bet
the physics would support such assessment.
*******
You'll have to take the physics up with Andrew. He knows all about that, and
all about firearms and ballistics. He be a lawyer, ya know. 'Nuff said.
I never said I know all about firearms and ballistics. I said I
know physics. Although I have not spent much time firing big
bullets at big targets I have spent alot of time firing small
bullets (protons) at small hard targets (atomic nuclei) and
analysing data from these experiments.

I just said that faster bullets of a given mass will deflect less
in plowing through brush than will slower bullets of the same
mass. You seem to think that is wrong for some reason but you
haven't explained why.

BTW, do you think this guy knows what he is talking about?
http://www.huntingclub.com/document.asp?cID=172&dID=5

Quote: "Interestingly, research on projectile deflection has
proven that some of the worst offenders when it came to
deflections were the big, round - nosed, slower - moving
projectiles which some hunters continue to call "brush busters."

Andrew Mason
Post by JayKHillnospam
John in VA
Tom Purvis
2003-09-05 18:34:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by JayKHillnospam
Post by Ricky Tobias
The standard gun lore is that fast bullets deflect more than slow
bullets. Light bullets deflect more than heavy bullets. I would bet
the physics would support such assessment.
*******
You'll have to take the physics up with Andrew. He knows all about that, and
all about firearms and ballistics. He be a lawyer, ya know. 'Nuff said.
I never said I know all about firearms and ballistics. I said I
know physics. Although I have not spent much time firing big
bullets at big targets I have spent alot of time firing small
bullets (protons) at small hard targets (atomic nuclei) and
analysing data from these experiments.
I just said that faster bullets of a given mass will deflect less
in plowing through brush than will slower bullets of the same
mass. You seem to think that is wrong for some reason but you
haven't explained why.
BTW, do you think this guy knows what he is talking about?
http://www.huntingclub.com/document.asp?cID=172&dID=5
Quote: "Interestingly, research on projectile deflection has
proven that some of the worst offenders when it came to
deflections were the big, round - nosed, slower - moving
projectiles which some hunters continue to call "brush busters."
Andrew Mason
Andrew;

Does your physics demonstrate the correctional value to be applied for
"bullet drift"/the lateral movement in flight? Does it also
demonstrate
the correctional value to be applied for the "spin"/revolutions per
minute
and torque applied to the bullet which must be transferred upon
striking the
limb? Does it have a compensation value for right-handed twist as
opposed
to left-handed twist within the weapon rifling? What about actual
bullet
design and core materials? Isn't a cupro-nickle FMJ considerably
stronger
than a copper FMJ? Which is structurally more stable and less likely
to
allow bullet deformation from passage through the tree limb. What
formula
is utilized to calculate any bullet deformation and subsequent effect
on
trajectory?

Can it take into consideration the MVV which is muzzle velocity
variation
which is a deviation in velocity(decrease) due to wear within the
rifle
barrell and thereby loss of gas pressure around the projectile.

The answer to all these is NO!

And we have not even gotten into a good discussion on wood/tree grain
developement and growth.



Tom P
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by JayKHillnospam
John in VA
--
banwllm5
2003-09-07 00:58:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Purvis
Can it take into consideration the MVV which is muzzle velocity
variation
which is a deviation in velocity(decrease) due to wear within the
rifle
barrell and thereby loss of gas pressure around the projectile.
The answer to all these is NO!
And we have not even gotten into a good discussion on wood/tree grain
developement and growth.
Tom,

I'm glad to see that someone else has read the characterization of 2766's
rifling. John--to my recollection--assures that a worn bore is not
necessarily a detriment to accuracy, especially at close range. Memory
alone credits 2766 with turning in 4/4 1/2" at 100 yards, not bad at all.

Are you suggesting that the worn and pitted bore could have added to the
instability of the bullet? Have you checked a "care worn" Carcano against
a superior one to test for this?

As for the tree, even given right sort and age, what about the weather?
If Dallas had been having a wet year, wouldn't this have altered bullet
impact damage?

Finally, we know there were people on the knoll who took cover during the
shooting. Are you aware of any such reaction from those directly in front
of the TSBD?

Bill B
Tom Purvis
2003-09-07 14:45:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by banwllm5
Post by Tom Purvis
Can it take into consideration the MVV which is muzzle velocity
variation
which is a deviation in velocity(decrease) due to wear within the
rifle
barrell and thereby loss of gas pressure around the projectile.
The answer to all these is NO!
And we have not even gotten into a good discussion on wood/tree grain
developement and growth.
Tom,
I'm glad to see that someone else has read the characterization of 2766's
rifling. John--to my recollection--assures that a worn bore is not
necessarily a detriment to accuracy, especially at close range. Memory
alone credits 2766 with turning in 4/4 1/2" at 100 yards, not bad at all.
The reference to MVV which is considered to be a measurable amount of
wear/deviation from the factory established size, can be directly
correlated
to a velocity decrease for the projectile. This deviation is different
for
a pure lead bullet as opposed to a cupro-nickle and/or copper FMJ due
to the
seating capability of the specific metal. The tighter the "seat" of
the bullet, the less by-pass of explosive gases, and thus the higher
velocity.

For those mechanically inclined, similar to having cylinder wear on
your
car engine, and thereby allowing loss of pressure on the compression
stroke.
Post by banwllm5
Are you suggesting that the worn and pitted bore could have added to the
instability of the bullet? Have you checked a "care worn" Carcano against
a superior one to test for this?
The riflings on CE# 399 and other test bullets fired from 2766 serve
to indicate that this rifle barrel (the riflings) were in excellent
condition.
The barrel may have been "pitted", but the barrel was not worn.

The "sister" to this rifle in my possession produces bullets with
comparable
markings and this barrell is in excellent condition. Of the other
Carcano
rifles in my possession, some range from good to extremely poor.

For true and repeated accuracy, this was the Carcano's primary
problem. That
being that the steel was of such poor quality that the riflings wore
rapidly
from service.

That 2766's barrell was in excellent condition is further supported
that when
the HSCA test fired this weapon, the rounds could not be ballistically
matched
to CE# 399. Thus indicating "rapid" wear from the test firing
conducted by
the FBI. It seems that somewhere less than 100 rounds total had been
test fired
through the weapon, and this had worn the barrel down. This alone is
indicative of a barrel that was in excellent condition initially, as a
worn
barrell does not continue to wear at the rate/use of a new one.
Post by banwllm5
As for the tree, even given right sort and age, what about the weather?
If Dallas had been having a wet year, wouldn't this have altered bullet
impact damage?
If I recall the term correctly, it is osmosis to which you refer. If
so,
this is partially covered under the ring growth. However, another
consideration as you have pointed out is exactly what time of the year
it is in the cycle of the tree. Summer with a lot of rain and the
wood grain/pulp would be wet. Dry summer would change the pulp
consistancy as would winter when the tree decreases and/or ceases
growth.
Post by banwllm5
Finally, we know there were people on the knoll who took cover during the
shooting. Are you aware of any such reaction from those directly in front
of the TSBD?
I seem to recall that wasn't it SS Agent Youngblood who recognized it
as a shot and "jumped" on LBJ immediately?

If you were "directly in front" of the TSDB, the sound/shock wave was
directly
overhead as opposed to "laterally upwind". It is for all practical
purposes impossible to duplicate the sound pattern as it would have
been that day in
Dealy Plaza. Updrafts from the wind; additional noises from the crowd
and the motorcade, the air density/relative humidity; disruption of
sound due to trees;
etc.

The best example I can give is artillery fire within our military
service.
The smallest cannon being the 105 mm. The crew can stand behind this
weapon
and even be alongside the barrel when fired with little difficulty.
However,
one does not want to be alongside the end of the barrel or past the
end as
it will get your attention quickly. The 8-inch and 175 mm will
rupture the
ear drums if in FRONT of the barrel.

Tom P
Post by banwllm5
Bill B
Tom Purvis
2003-08-29 03:17:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by JayKHillnospam
Post by Andrew Mason
Vol17_0454b.htm
cannot cause a 2000 fps 10 gram bullet to move more than a few
cm. off course. in the distance from the tree to the limo.
**********
Andrew, Since you are on record as having been incorrect in stating a branch,
twig or piece of shrubbery canNOT deflect a bullet, are you at least willing to
consider you might be wrong in your categorical assertion that such a twig
cannot have been the operative factor.
Was it O. Cromwell, writing to the Scottish Kirk, who said "I beseech
thee in the bowels of Christ to consider that you might be wrong."?
Are you at least WILLING to CONSIDER you might be wrong about how much a
particular bullet, in a single, probably singular ballistic episode, might be
deflected by a twig, branch, or a piece of shrubbery? Yes or no? Are you
willing to consider the propositon you might be wrong on this one as well?
Absolutely.
I could be wrong in my analysis of the physics which leads me to
conclude that the force required to deflect the bullet greatly
exceeds the force needed to pulverise wood so it cannot be
supplied by a wooden branch. If someone can provide some EVIDENCE
that 2000 FPS MC FMJ bullets can bounce off wood as you suggest,
I would be delighted to retract my conclusion and admit I goofed.
This one is not a "physics" problem that can be resolved with a
formula.
There are just a few too many variables.

Andrew;

Shall we change this to "Less on Silencers" and more on the "Facts"?
Post by Andrew Mason
I could also be wrong in my conclusion that the destablising
effect of striking a branch will not cause the bullet to move off
course by more than a few cm in the ensuing 50-75 feet or so.
That is largely based on the article in the American Rifleman
that you kindly sent me and is also based on the physics. But I
would need some EVIDENCE - evidence showing that 2000 fps MC FMJ
bullets can be deflected by several feet in the 50-75 feet after
striking an oak branch. If you can provide evidence that it can
happen, I will be the first to congratulate you on showing that I
am wrong.
You are incorrect on this! There can be no definitive statement as to
either the amount of deflection and/or the lack thereof.

Having long ago fired multiple WCC 6.5mm Carcano Bullets through a
one-inch thick oak limb, a pattern can be established. However, this is
only a pattern and can not be stated as fact that each and every shot
fired will fall within the mean of the pattern.

First, all shots fired were done so on a "dead center" impact upon the
limb. I do not even need to fire a round on a "glancing" strike to a limb
to know that it can cause the bullet to vear off course considerably.

Secondly, the rifle to limb distance was extremely short in order to
assure a dead center strike. Therefore, the projectile did not have the
time/distance necessary to fully stabilize and eliminate "tail wag" and
for the spin/rpm's to fully stabilize the bullet.

Although I would have to "dig" to find the results, from memory, I know
that a minimum of three of these bullets varied as much as 1-foot off line
of site, 12 or 16-feet past the point of impact/passage through the limb.

In addition to the above, the exact nature of the wood is a key factor.
Whereas I specifically secured "Live Oak", for my tests, other Oaks could
result in totally different results due to the structure and tightness of
the wood grain.
Post by Andrew Mason
So far you have offered no evidence. You have offered
unverifiable anecdotes from hunters passing stories around the
lodge after a day of hunting and drinking.
It is assumed that this was meant for JayKHill. To date/to me, he appears
to be quite correct in most as regards this subject.

Yes, I believe it was Dr. Lattimer who showed us that the 6.5 FMJ Carcano
would penetrate 40-inches of Pine. Well here is a test which you can
perform.

Get two 10-penny nails! Get a green pine and green oak board of
equivelant thickness! Set up a hydraulic ram with adequate pressure
measurements. Then press a nail into each of the boards and measure the
force required to penetrate the pine as opposed to the oak.

OK, got the pressure required!

Now, re-construct the testing, only this time, mark the boards EXACT on
entry side and direct alignment exit side. Now, conduct the same testing
and see if the nail head exits EXACTLY on the designated/marked exit
point.

Do this multiple times at multiple angles and you may be suprised at the
variations in exit points away from the "direct alignment" point marked.

Tom P
Post by Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
P.S. Just for your information, on the day after the WC completed their
assassination re-enactment in Dealy Plaza, members of this group who
stayed behind, cut and removed the limbs from the top of the Live Oak tree
which is located on the corner of Elm St. directly in front of the TSDB.

The limb through which CE# 399 passed was apparantly removed at this
time.
Andrew Mason
2003-08-29 13:13:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by JayKHillnospam
Post by Andrew Mason
Vol17_0454b.htm
cannot cause a 2000 fps 10 gram bullet to move more than a few
cm. off course. in the distance from the tree to the limo.
**********
Andrew, Since you are on record as having been incorrect in stating a branch,
twig or piece of shrubbery canNOT deflect a bullet, are you at least willing to
consider you might be wrong in your categorical assertion that such a twig
cannot have been the operative factor.
Was it O. Cromwell, writing to the Scottish Kirk, who said "I beseech
thee in the bowels of Christ to consider that you might be wrong."?
Are you at least WILLING to CONSIDER you might be wrong about how much a
particular bullet, in a single, probably singular ballistic episode, might be
deflected by a twig, branch, or a piece of shrubbery? Yes or no? Are you
willing to consider the propositon you might be wrong on this one as well?
Absolutely.
I could be wrong in my analysis of the physics which leads me to
conclude that the force required to deflect the bullet greatly
exceeds the force needed to pulverise wood so it cannot be
supplied by a wooden branch. If someone can provide some EVIDENCE
that 2000 FPS MC FMJ bullets can bounce off wood as you suggest,
I would be delighted to retract my conclusion and admit I goofed.
This one is not a "physics" problem that can be resolved with a
formula.
There are just a few too many variables.
A 2000 fps 6.5 mm MC fmj pristine bullet hitting a thin tree
branch has too many variables?

It is not as if the bullet is going to move off course much. We
know it is going to penetrate the wood because the yield pressure
of wood is much less than the pressure exerted by the bullet at
that speed.

This is quite reproducible and has been done - see:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/american_rifleman_sept68_brush_tests.PDF

The maximum deflection of a rifle bullet over 75 yards after
passing through a 1 inch maple dowell was 22 inches. That is less
than 1/2 a degree.
Post by Tom Purvis
Andrew;
Shall we change this to "Less on Silencers" and more on the "Facts"?
How about more about twigs deflecting bullets?
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Andrew Mason
I could also be wrong in my conclusion that the destablising
effect of striking a branch will not cause the bullet to move off
course by more than a few cm in the ensuing 50-75 feet or so.
That is largely based on the article in the American Rifleman
that you kindly sent me and is also based on the physics. But I
would need some EVIDENCE - evidence showing that 2000 fps MC FMJ
bullets can be deflected by several feet in the 50-75 feet after
striking an oak branch. If you can provide evidence that it can
happen, I will be the first to congratulate you on showing that I
am wrong.
You are incorrect on this! There can be no definitive statement as to
either the amount of deflection and/or the lack thereof.
Having long ago fired multiple WCC 6.5mm Carcano Bullets through a
one-inch thick oak limb, a pattern can be established. However, this is
only a pattern and can not be stated as fact that each and every shot
fired will fall within the mean of the pattern.
Why not? The American Rifleman study seems to be pretty good.
Very consistent results.
Post by Tom Purvis
First, all shots fired were done so on a "dead center" impact upon the
limb. I do not even need to fire a round on a "glancing" strike to a limb
to know that it can cause the bullet to vear off course considerably.
We're talking about 6.5 mm 10 gram fmj bullet at 2000 fps.
Handguns don't count.
Post by Tom Purvis
Secondly, the rifle to limb distance was extremely short in order to
assure a dead center strike. Therefore, the projectile did not have the
time/distance necessary to fully stabilize and eliminate "tail wag" and
for the spin/rpm's to fully stabilize the bullet.
Although I would have to "dig" to find the results, from memory, I know
that a minimum of three of these bullets varied as much as 1-foot off line
of site, 12 or 16-feet past the point of impact/passage through the limb.
The results are there. Over 75 yards, the maximum drift was 22
inches. And that was with a 1" maple dowell.
Post by Tom Purvis
In addition to the above, the exact nature of the wood is a key factor.
Whereas I specifically secured "Live Oak", for my tests, other Oaks could
result in totally different results due to the structure and tightness of
the wood grain.
Show me the data. The simple fact is that the forces holding wood
together cannot begin to withstand the force of the nose of a 6.5
mm fmj MC bullet at 2000 fps. The bullet will simply go through
it like paper. See:
http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/exhibit-3.html
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Andrew Mason
So far you have offered no evidence. You have offered
unverifiable anecdotes from hunters passing stories around the
lodge after a day of hunting and drinking.
It is assumed that this was meant for JayKHill. To date/to me, he appears
to be quite correct in most as regards this subject.
Yes, I believe it was Dr. Lattimer who showed us that the 6.5 FMJ Carcano
would penetrate 40-inches of Pine. Well here is a test which you can
perform.
Get two 10-penny nails! Get a green pine and green oak board of
equivelant thickness! Set up a hydraulic ram with adequate pressure
measurements. Then press a nail into each of the boards and measure the
force required to penetrate the pine as opposed to the oak.
OK, got the pressure required!
Now, re-construct the testing, only this time, mark the boards EXACT on
entry side and direct alignment exit side. Now, conduct the same testing
and see if the nail head exits EXACTLY on the designated/marked exit
point.
Do this multiple times at multiple angles and you may be suprised at the
variations in exit points away from the "direct alignment" point marked.
You cannot begin to duplicate the effect of a 6.5 mc bullet at
2000 fps with pounding a nail. The force required to deflect the
nail is miniscule (in the order of 1/600,000,000th) compared to
the force required to deflect that bullet through a given angle.
The reason is: time. The force only has 1/24,000th of a second to
act in passing through a 1 inch branch. Pounding a nail one inch
into pine in 1 second takes 1/(24,000)^2 as much force to deflect
it a given angle.

You cannot use intuition for events that take place in 1/24,000th
of a second. Use f=ma and do the math.

Andrew Mason
Post by Tom Purvis
Tom P
Post by Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
P.S. Just for your information, on the day after the WC completed their
assassination re-enactment in Dealy Plaza, members of this group who
stayed behind, cut and removed the limbs from the top of the Live Oak tree
which is located on the corner of Elm St. directly in front of the TSDB.
The limb through which CE# 399 passed was apparantly removed at this
time.
Tom Purvis
2003-08-29 20:27:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by JayKHillnospam
Post by Andrew Mason
Vol17_0454b.htm
cannot cause a 2000 fps 10 gram bullet to move more than a few
cm. off course. in the distance from the tree to the limo.
**********
Andrew, Since you are on record as having been incorrect in stating a branch,
twig or piece of shrubbery canNOT deflect a bullet, are you at least willing to
consider you might be wrong in your categorical assertion that such a twig
cannot have been the operative factor.
Was it O. Cromwell, writing to the Scottish Kirk, who said "I beseech
thee in the bowels of Christ to consider that you might be wrong."?
Are you at least WILLING to CONSIDER you might be wrong about how much a
particular bullet, in a single, probably singular ballistic episode, might be
deflected by a twig, branch, or a piece of shrubbery? Yes or no? Are you
willing to consider the propositon you might be wrong on this one as well?
Absolutely.
I could be wrong in my analysis of the physics which leads me to
conclude that the force required to deflect the bullet greatly
exceeds the force needed to pulverise wood so it cannot be
supplied by a wooden branch. If someone can provide some EVIDENCE
that 2000 FPS MC FMJ bullets can bounce off wood as you suggest,
I would be delighted to retract my conclusion and admit I goofed.
You are correct! In that you are "wrong" in your analysis of the
physics.
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Tom Purvis
This one is not a "physics" problem that can be resolved with a
formula.
There are just a few too many variables.
A 2000 fps 6.5 mm MC fmj pristine bullet hitting a thin tree
branch has too many variables?
You got it!

How many angles of penetration can you come up with?
How many different positions can you rotate the tree/limb rings/grain
growth?
How tight are the ring/grain growths. They are tight in oak, and even
tighter
in the same tree in different years due to things like water supply;
heat;
etc; and totally different for different types of trees.
How many rifle to limb positions can you account for?
Exactly what formula was utilized in order to compensate for loss of
bullet
spin/rotation as a function of bullet stability, and what graph
represents
this?
Exactly what formula was utilized in order to compensate for change in
bullet
configeration as a function of stability, and exactly how were the
massive
amount of unknown potential changes in bullet configeration correlated
with the
massive amount of unknown bullet spin/rotation possibilities to arrive
at the
conclusion that no bullet could veer by more than 22 inches in 75
yards.

Especially, when I am telling you that of an initial five bullets
fired through
a one-inch thick Live oak tree limb that three of these initial five
bullets
veered by more than 1-foot in less than 16-feet, and that all of these
five
bullets had started to tumble in flight and had completed an entire
360-degree
rotational tumble in less than 10-feet after having exited the tree
limb.
Post by Andrew Mason
It is not as if the bullet is going to move off course much. We
know it is going to penetrate the wood because the yield pressure
of wood is much less than the pressure exerted by the bullet at
that speed.
You must have a mouse in your pocket to utilize the "we", as I know
this
is CRAP. And until such time as you are willing to do some actual
"real" research on your own, you will no doubt continue to believe
your "physics"
solution.

Perhaps a study of aerodynamics as opposed to physics is in order.

In event the bullet strikes in such as position that only one side of
the
bullet nose strikes the wood, do we still have exact pressure on both
sides
of the bullet nose. I hope not, considering the density of the wood
as opposed
to the density of air.

Therefore, we have tremendous pressure exerted on one side of the
bullet nose and at the same time have little or no pressure on the
opposite side of the bullet nose.

Guess what! Major deflection, thats what!
Post by Andrew Mason
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/american_rifleman_sept68_brush_tests.PDF
The maximum deflection of a rifle bullet over 75 yards after
passing through a 1 inch maple dowell was 22 inches. That is less
than 1/2 a degree.
I read this long ago, and do not recall all the specifics. However,
until
such time as someone can reproduce, with a 6.5mm Carcano rifle and FJM
bullets, and encompass all the variables and achieve the same
"maximum" deflection,
it is "apples" and "oranges" and irrelevant. And even then, I will
know
better as I have done my own testing.
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Tom Purvis
Andrew;
Shall we change this to "Less on Silencers" and more on the "Facts"?
How about more about twigs deflecting bullets?
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Andrew Mason
I could also be wrong in my conclusion that the destablising
effect of striking a branch will not cause the bullet to move off
course by more than a few cm in the ensuing 50-75 feet or so.
You are!
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Andrew Mason
That is largely based on the article in the American Rifleman
that you kindly sent me and is also based on the physics. But I
would need some EVIDENCE - evidence showing that 2000 fps MC FMJ
bullets can be deflected by several feet in the 50-75 feet after
striking an oak branch. If you can provide evidence that it can
happen, I will be the first to congratulate you on showing that I
am wrong.
You are incorrect on this! There can be no definitive statement as to
either the amount of deflection and/or the lack thereof.
Having long ago fired multiple WCC 6.5mm Carcano Bullets through a
one-inch thick oak limb, a pattern can be established. However, this is
only a pattern and can not be stated as fact that each and every shot
fired will fall within the mean of the pattern.
Why not? The American Rifleman study seems to be pretty good.
Very consistent results.
Post by Tom Purvis
First, all shots fired were done so on a "dead center" impact upon the
limb. I do not even need to fire a round on a "glancing" strike to a limb
to know that it can cause the bullet to vear off course considerably.
We're talking about 6.5 mm 10 gram fmj bullet at 2000 fps.
Yep! That is exactly what we are talking about. WCC 6.5mm Carcano
rounds fired from a model 91/38 Carcano. Same rifle, same bullets.
Even had plenty of old Italian FMJ and would not reload and use it. I
wanted the answers as
to what WCC 6.5mm ammo would do. As hard as it was to find the WCC
ammo, if
one is to duplicate conditions, he should strive to emulate the exact
ones.
Post by Andrew Mason
Handguns don't count.
Post by Tom Purvis
Secondly, the rifle to limb distance was extremely short in order to
assure a dead center strike. Therefore, the projectile did not have the
time/distance necessary to fully stabilize and eliminate "tail wag" and
for the spin/rpm's to fully stabilize the bullet.
Although I would have to "dig" to find the results, from memory, I know
that a minimum of three of these bullets varied as much as 1-foot off line
of site, 12 or 16-feet past the point of impact/passage through the limb.
The results are there. Over 75 yards, the maximum drift was 22
inches. And that was with a 1" maple dowell.
Bullet "drift" and bullet "deflection" are two seperate items. I hope
you are referring to deflection.

Nope! The results, utilizing a 6.5mm Carcano and WCC 6.5mm ammo
resulted in bullets deflecting as much as a foot in less than 16 feet.

Oh, by the way, each and every test bullet fired through the 0ne-inch
thick live oak limb started showing signs of instability at
approximately 48-inches
after having exited the limb. In addition to this, each and every
test bullet fired showed evidence of having completed a complete
360-degree tumble in flight
by the time the bullet passed 8-feet from the impact with the tree
limb.

Now, try and convince someone else that a tumbling 6.5mm carcano
bullet is not/
can not veer off course by more than 22 inches in 75 yards.

My dog will not even believe that!
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Tom Purvis
In addition to the above, the exact nature of the wood is a key factor.
Whereas I specifically secured "Live Oak", for my tests, other Oaks could
result in totally different results due to the structure and tightness of
the wood grain.
Show me the data. The simple fact is that the forces holding wood
together cannot begin to withstand the force of the nose of a 6.5
mm fmj MC bullet at 2000 fps. The bullet will simply go through
http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/exhibit-3.html
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Andrew Mason
So far you have offered no evidence. You have offered
unverifiable anecdotes from hunters passing stories around the
lodge after a day of hunting and drinking.
You were given the "evidence" and still chose to stick with your
physics
formula. It appears obvious that you are not willing to conduct the
ballistic testing yourself, and when informed of your errors by those
that have done so,
you wish to hide behind your mathmatical equation.

This is a "reality" equation, not a mathmatical one.
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Tom Purvis
It is assumed that this was meant for JayKHill. To date/to me, he appears
to be quite correct in most as regards this subject.
Yes, I believe it was Dr. Lattimer who showed us that the 6.5 FMJ Carcano
would penetrate 40-inches of Pine. Well here is a test which you can
perform.
Get two 10-penny nails! Get a green pine and green oak board of
equivelant thickness! Set up a hydraulic ram with adequate pressure
measurements. Then press a nail into each of the boards and measure the
force required to penetrate the pine as opposed to the oak.
OK, got the pressure required!
Now, re-construct the testing, only this time, mark the boards EXACT on
entry side and direct alignment exit side. Now, conduct the same testing
and see if the nail head exits EXACTLY on the designated/marked exit
point.
Do this multiple times at multiple angles and you may be suprised at the
variations in exit points away from the "direct alignment" point marked.
You cannot begin to duplicate the effect of a 6.5 mc bullet at
2000 fps with pounding a nail. The force required to deflect the
nail is miniscule (in the order of 1/600,000,000th) compared to
the force required to deflect that bullet through a given angle.
The reason is: time. The force only has 1/24,000th of a second to
act in passing through a 1 inch branch. Pounding a nail one inch
into pine in 1 second takes 1/(24,000)^2 as much force to deflect
it a given angle.
You cannot use intuition for events that take place in 1/24,000th
of a second. Use f=ma and do the math.
Better yet! Get you a 6.5mm Carcano Rifle and some good FMJ ammo and
conduct a "real" experiment for yourself. Then come back to us with
your answers and f=ma!

1.Interception with and the passing through the tree limb by a bullet
totally effects it's circular rotation (spin). It's called "grab"!
The circular rotation/spin is what keeps the bullet stable and true in
flight.
Affect the spin and the flight is totally changed.

2.Passage of a bullet through a tree limb can easily change the
shape/configuration of the bullet, as it did to CE# 399. The bullet
body configeration and the spin/rotation are a part of the bullet
stability.

So, exactly how much spin/rotation is lost due to the bullet having
passed
through the wood and exactly how was this compensated for? Exactly
what bullet configeration change is it that happens each and EVERY
time this bullet passes through the wood, that it can be calculated in
with an exact formula that works each and every time?

Kind of like the pressure/volume formula and forgetting to add in
temperature
as a factor isn't it? Except in this case, we have two unknown
variables which
can not be known.




Tom P
Post by Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
Post by Tom Purvis
Tom P
Post by Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
P.S. Just for your information, on the day after the WC completed their
assassination re-enactment in Dealy Plaza, members of this group who
stayed behind, cut and removed the limbs from the top of the Live Oak tree
which is located on the corner of Elm St. directly in front of the TSDB.
The limb through which CE# 399 passed was apparantly removed at this
time.
--
John James Cahill
2003-08-31 20:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Purvis
The limb through which CE# 399 passed was apparantly removed at this
time.
--
*************

What evidence is there that ''the'' bullet hit anything? If it
hit in the live oak tree, what evidence is there that the bullet hit
"A" twig or "A" limb?

John (dubious) in VA
Robert Harris
2003-08-27 21:27:31 UTC
Permalink
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------CE07B8C3052BA5B4F28F4C38
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
One of the few things Gerald Posner and I agree on, is that an early shot
was fired that missed President Kennedy, and struck the Elm St. pavement.
The President¹s own reactions then, as well as those of others, seems to
confirm that fact.
Key word is 'seems'.
What exactly is with you and Purvis?

Ok, I understand that you need to try to conjure up a LN scenario that's
consistent with the shooting pattern. But, it doesn't serve your cause to
posit theories that are physically impossible.

Look, why don't you just say "Oswald" fired at 223, 312, and whatever 2.3
seconds of frames, added on to 312 comes to - umm.. 354 or so? You make
that last shot a miss, and the one that caused the Tague wound.

Yes, there are some serious problems with that scenario, but they are not
nearly as obvious as the ones in your and Purvis's "theories".





Robert Harris
But, for those who accept this argument, there remains a mystery. How did
a shooter, firing presumably from close range, manage to miss the entire
limousine and strike the pavement?
An incorrect finding of fact generally creates a mystery.
HSCA weapons expert, Larry Sturdivan and I discussed this issue at length,
and Larry is absolutely certain that Posner¹s theory that the bullet was
deflected as it hit a tree branch, is not correct.
Because he has looked at the physics of it and realizes that
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0454b.htm
cannot cause a 2000 fps 10 gram bullet to move more than a few
cm. off course. in the distance from the tree to the limo.
There is also the question of how a sniper managed to hit President
Kennedy in the upper back, when the obvious, preferred target had to have
been the head. That shot was off target by roughly six inches.
That is not a big question. The FBI marksmen were as much as 9
inches off in their shots with Oswald's MC. All FBI shots were
within a 9 inch circle. See: Testimony of Ronald Simmons, 3 H
447-448.
How do we explain such terrible shooting, especially since the fatal head
shot at Z312, apparently fired from a greater distance, was so perfect?
Perhaps your premise is wrong and none of the shots missed: ie.
JFK's neck wound and Connally's chest wound was caused by two
different bullets, just like JBC and Nellie said (and Nellie will
say again in her new book).
Perhaps the answer lies in an article I recently cited, by Mark White,
from *Small Arms Review*, entitled *The Use of Sound Suppressors on High
http://guns.connect.fi/gow/highpow.html
The author goes into great detail about the construction and design of
these suppressors, but he also tells us about some of the deficiences of
³A small error in machined accuracy on a single-point mount can result in
a disastrous misalignment problem near the muzzle of a suppressor...²
³Many baffles have asymmetrical surfaces, and these can bounce the blast
of high-pressure gas around in a way that disturbs the stability of an
exiting bullet... Keyholing, tumbling and baffle contact were common
because the bottle-shaped blast of muzzle gas overtook the exiting
bullets, deflected off the asymmetrical surfaces, and then deflected the
bullets. Accuracy was not good. Some manufacturers haven't learned this
lesson yet, and their suppressors are plagued with inherent instability
and resultant accuracy problems.²
Could it be that the these early shots were so terrible, for the same
reason that no-one heard the shot that hit the President at Z223?
Not according to the evidence. You can imagine anything occurred
if you don't require evidence for support.
Andrew Mason
Robert Harris
--------------CE07B8C3052BA5B4F28F4C38
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="a.mason.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Andrew Mason
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="a.mason.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Mason;Andrew
tel;fax:(306) 244-2420
tel;work:(306) 343-4831
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.dufourlaw.com
org:Dufour Scott Phelps & Mason;Barristers & Solicitors
adr:;;400-135 21st Street East;Saskatoon;SK;S7K 0B4;Canada
version:2.1
note;quoted-printable:CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING=0D=0AThe information
contained in the e-mail is confidential and subject=0D=0A to
solicitor-client privilege. It is intended only for the use of the
=0D=0Aindividual or entity named above. If the reader of this
message=0D=0A is not the intended recipient, or the authorized agent
thereof,=0D=0A the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution =0D=0Aor copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited.
If you have =0D=0Areceived this communica
tion in error, please notify us immediately =0D=0Aby telephone and
delete all copies of the original message.=0D=0A =0D=0AThank you.=0D=0A
fn:Andrew Mason
end:vcard
--------------CE07B8C3052BA5B4F28F4C38--
--
What could be sadder than the fool who cannot win a debate, even when he is right?

R.E. Harris 8/22/03
Tom Purvis
2003-09-02 22:47:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Harris
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------CE07B8C3052BA5B4F28F4C38
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
One of the few things Gerald Posner and I agree on, is that an early shot
was fired that missed President Kennedy, and struck the Elm St. pavement.
The President¹s own reactions then, as well as those of others, seems to
confirm that fact.
Key word is 'seems'.
What exactly is with you and Purvis?
Ahah! Now, exactly who is it that is my co-conspirator?
Post by Robert Harris
Ok, I understand that you need to try to conjure up a LN scenario that's
consistent with the shooting pattern. But, it doesn't serve your cause to
posit theories that are physically impossible.
It is those who propose/see multiple assassins; silencers; manhole
man; black dog man; badgeman; and so on that appear to be conjureing
the spirits. As to
theories that are physically impossible, it is known not to what you
refer.
Post by Robert Harris
Look, why don't you just say "Oswald" fired at 223, 312, and whatever 2.3
seconds of frames, added on to 312 comes to - umm.. 354 or so? You make
that last shot a miss, and the one that caused the Tague wound.
There has already been more than adequate misprepresentation of the
facts of
the assassination by others. Actually, it is my opinion that the
quota is full and that it is now time for some truth and facts.
Post by Robert Harris
Yes, there are some serious problems with that scenario, but they are not
nearly as obvious as the ones in your and Purvis's "theories".
Silenced weapons; multiple assassins; body kidnappings and wound
alteration;
etc; etc; are theories.

How CE# 399 came to exist and the wounds that it created are forensic;
ballistic; pathological; and physical fact. Something that it is
recognized
is quite new to this subject as well as to many of it's associated
researchers.
Post by Robert Harris
In addition to CE# 399 and it's associated wounds, the other wounds to JFK
and JBC are physical fact. Once these facts are placed in their
proper perspective, there is little that is difficult on this subject.

Tom P
Post by Robert Harris
Robert Harris
But, for those who accept this argument, there remains a mystery. How did
a shooter, firing presumably from close range, manage to miss the entire
limousine and strike the pavement?
An incorrect finding of fact generally creates a mystery.
HSCA weapons expert, Larry Sturdivan and I discussed this issue at length,
and Larry is absolutely certain that Posner¹s theory that the bullet was
deflected as it hit a tree branch, is not correct.
Because he has looked at the physics of it and realizes that
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0454b.htm
cannot cause a 2000 fps 10 gram bullet to move more than a few
cm. off course. in the distance from the tree to the limo.
There is also the question of how a sniper managed to hit President
Kennedy in the upper back, when the obvious, preferred target had to have
been the head. That shot was off target by roughly six inches.
That is not a big question. The FBI marksmen were as much as 9
inches off in their shots with Oswald's MC. All FBI shots were
within a 9 inch circle. See: Testimony of Ronald Simmons, 3 H
447-448.
How do we explain such terrible shooting, especially since the fatal head
shot at Z312, apparently fired from a greater distance, was so perfect?
Perhaps your premise is wrong and none of the shots missed: ie.
JFK's neck wound and Connally's chest wound was caused by two
different bullets, just like JBC and Nellie said (and Nellie will
say again in her new book).
Perhaps the answer lies in an article I recently cited, by Mark White,
from *Small Arms Review*, entitled *The Use of Sound Suppressors on High
http://guns.connect.fi/gow/highpow.html
The author goes into great detail about the construction and design of
these suppressors, but he also tells us about some of the deficiences of
³A small error in machined accuracy on a single-point mount can result in
a disastrous misalignment problem near the muzzle of a suppressor...²
³Many baffles have asymmetrical surfaces, and these can bounce the blast
of high-pressure gas around in a way that disturbs the stability of an
exiting bullet... Keyholing, tumbling and baffle contact were common
because the bottle-shaped blast of muzzle gas overtook the exiting
bullets, deflected off the asymmetrical surfaces, and then deflected the
bullets. Accuracy was not good. Some manufacturers haven't learned this
lesson yet, and their suppressors are plagued with inherent instability
and resultant accuracy problems.²
Could it be that the these early shots were so terrible, for the same
reason that no-one heard the shot that hit the President at Z223?
Not according to the evidence. You can imagine anything occurred
if you don't require evidence for support.
Andrew Mason
Robert Harris
--------------CE07B8C3052BA5B4F28F4C38
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="a.mason.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Andrew Mason
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="a.mason.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Mason;Andrew
tel;fax:(306) 244-2420
tel;work:(306) 343-4831
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.dufourlaw.com
org:Dufour Scott Phelps & Mason;Barristers & Solicitors
adr:;;400-135 21st Street East;Saskatoon;SK;S7K 0B4;Canada
version:2.1
note;quoted-printable:CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING=0D=0AThe information
contained in the e-mail is confidential and subject=0D=0A to
solicitor-client privilege. It is intended only for the use of the
=0D=0Aindividual or entity named above. If the reader of this
message=0D=0A is not the intended recipient, or the authorized agent
thereof,=0D=0A the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution =0D=0Aor copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited.
If you have =0D=0Areceived this communica
tion in error, please notify us immediately =0D=0Aby telephone and
delete all copies of the original message.=0D=0A =0D=0AThank you.=0D=0A
fn:Andrew Mason
end:vcard
--------------CE07B8C3052BA5B4F28F4C38--
Ted Gittinger
2003-08-28 01:24:23 UTC
Permalink
One of the few things Gerald Posner and I agree on, is that an early shot
was fired that missed President Kennedy, and struck the Elm St. pavement.
The President¹s own reactions then, as well as those of others, seems to
confirm that fact.
But, for those who accept this argument, there remains a mystery. How did
a shooter, firing presumably from close range, manage to miss the entire
limousine and strike the pavement?
Buck fever?

That is the simplest explanation that fits the facts.
ted
Tom Purvis
2003-08-31 20:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted Gittinger
One of the few things Gerald Posner and I agree on, is that an early shot
was fired that missed President Kennedy, and struck the Elm St. pavement.
The President¹s own reactions then, as well as those of others, seems to
confirm that fact.
But, for those who accept this argument, there remains a mystery. How did
a shooter, firing presumably from close range, manage to miss the entire
limousine and strike the pavement?
Buck fever?
That is the simplest explanation that fits the facts.
ted
Ted;

The simplest explanation does fit the known facts, however, it is not
"buck" fever!

1. A "line-of-site" through the rifle scope is close to two-inches
higher
than the exit point of the bullet at the end of the rifle barrel.
Therefore,
said line-of-site from the sixth floor window of the TSDB to the head
of
JFK as he immediately cleared the limbs/foliage of the Live Oak tree
in front
of the TSDB, IS NOT the bullet flight path between these points.

The bullet must "climb" along it's path/arc/trajectory, in order to
coincide
with the "Zero" point for bullet trajectory and line-of-sight through
the
scope. Even the same is true for the fixed sights on most military
rifles which
are normally factory set for a "zero" of 100-yards.

Therefore, I could easily have had a clear shot at JFK as seen through
the
Scope, and yet had limbs obstructing the bullet flight path, as these
limbs
were only approximately 75-80 feet past the
window/rifle/sniper/assassin's
position.

Easy shot! Easy miss! Been there, done that too!

Now, let us apply the same philosophy to the Walker shooting. Easy
shot!
Line-of-site through the window utilizing the scope. Bullet exits and
travels below the line-of-sight and while travelling on it's UPWARD
arc/trajectory to intercept the LINE-OF-SITE, it strikes a small
portion
of the metal window frame.

COINCIDENCE? Possibly! However, I seem to recall some saying that
"for those who fail to learn from it, history will (or is doomed)to
repeat itself"

This is absolutely true when firing a rifle at targets of close range
with
a scope that is "zeroed" at longer ranges.

The head shot at Z-312/313 is not indicative of anyone who possessed
"buck fever". Waiting approximately 5.7 to 5.8 seconds(for whatever
reason) to
acquire the target and expend a second shot, is not indicative of
anyone
who had buck fever syndorme. Actually, it is indicative of someone
who knew
exactly what he was doing and exactly where and how he was going to do
it.

The one fallacy appearing to be a lack of close range targeting
experience utilizing a scope.

Tom P
Jaykhill
2003-09-02 14:21:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Purvis
Ted;
The simplest explanation does fit the known facts, however, it is not
"buck" fever!
*********
Tom and Ted,
Actually, buck fever is a good a guess as anything else which does not have any
hard data to support it.
Post by Tom Purvis
1. A "line-of-site" through the rifle scope is close to two-inches
higher
than the exit point of the bullet at the end of the rifle barrel.
Therefore,
said line-of-site from the sixth floor window of the TSDB to the head
of
JFK as he immediately cleared the limbs/foliage of the Live Oak tree
in front
of the TSDB, IS NOT the bullet flight path between these points.
*******
Post by Tom Purvis
The bullet must "climb" along it's path/arc/trajectory, in order to
coincide
with the "Zero" point for bullet trajectory and line-of-sight through
the
scope. Even the same is true for the fixed sights on most military
rifles which
are normally factory set for a "zero" of 100-yards.
******
This is not true, to the best of my knowledge and experience. The battle
sights are generally set at 200 yards, 200 meters. If you wish, I could get a
list of a few vintage military rifles with the zero point of the battle sight.

According to Richard Hobbs, the 91/38 Mannlicher/Carcano is zeroed at the
factory for 200 hundred meters, and the shooter cannot change that. At least no
easily.
Post by Tom Purvis
Easy shot! Easy miss! Been there, done that too!
******
Yup. I also. But do not fall into the trap the legal beagles of the Warren
Commission ASS u ME ing the shorter the shot, the easier the shot. The first
shot in the Dealey Plaza murder scenario, because of the sharper downward
angle, is actually the most difficult--the apparent angular motion is much
greater early on.

John in VA

BTW, There is, to the best of my knowledge, no way to know or to test
empirically whether or not the scope was used for sighting in any of the
shooting scenarios. And mounting position imposed by the en bloc clip system
on this particular class of weapons means that the factory iron sights are
totally, 100% useable at all times, even with the scope mounted. This latter
is a singularity often overlooked. (pun intended).
Post by Tom Purvis
Now, let us apply the same philosophy to the Walker shooting. Easy
shot!
Line-of-site through the window utilizing the scope. Bullet exits and
travels below the line-of-sight and while travelling on it's UPWARD
arc/trajectory to intercept the LINE-OF-SITE, it strikes a small
portion
of the metal window frame.
COINCIDENCE? Possibly! However, I seem to recall some saying that
"for those who fail to learn from it, history will (or is doomed)to
repeat itself"
This is absolutely true when firing a rifle at targets of close range
with
a scope that is "zeroed" at longer ranges.
The head shot at Z-312/313 is not indicative of anyone who possessed
"buck fever". Waiting approximately 5.7 to 5.8 seconds(for whatever
reason) to
acquire the target and expend a second shot, is not indicative of
anyone
who had buck fever syndorme. Actually, it is indicative of someone
who knew
exactly what he was doing and exactly where and how he was going to do
it.
The one fallacy appearing to be a lack of close range targeting
experience utilizing a scope.
Tom P
banwllm5
2003-09-07 00:56:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jaykhill
According to Richard Hobbs, the 91/38 Mannlicher/Carcano is zeroed at the
factory for 200 hundred meters, and the shooter cannot change that. At least no
easily.
John,

If Hobbs says 91/38's are set for 200 meters, so they be but

Hobbs argues "our" rifle is a special
model; my _recollection_ is that sight
set for 150, not 200 & can't find ----
Hobbs' book.

Carcano was very obscure back then.
Have you seen anything from 1963 on
sight setting?

Bill B
Jaykhill
2003-09-02 14:22:52 UTC
Permalink
The head shot at Z-312/313 is not indicative of anyone who possessed
Post by Tom Purvis
"buck fever". Waiting approximately 5.7 to 5.8 seconds(for whatever
reason) to
acquire the target and expend a second shot, is not indicative of buck
fever..."

Tom, I have hunted with guys who really got flustered on the first shot and
missed, and yet who settled down quite nicely for subsuquent shots. Never
happened to me, though: I allas staid flustered. VBG

John in VA
K Wind
2003-09-03 03:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
One of the few things Gerald Posner and I agree on, is that an early shot
was fired that missed President Kennedy, and struck the Elm St. pavement.
The President¹s own reactions then, as well as those of others, seems to
confirm that fact.
But, for those who accept this argument, there remains a mystery. How did
a shooter, firing presumably from close range, manage to miss the entire
limousine and strike the pavement?
Buck fever?
That is the simplest explanation that fits the facts.
ted
Ted;
The simplest explanation does fit the known facts, however, it is not
"buck" fever!
1. A "line-of-site" through the rifle scope is close to two-inches
higher
than the exit point of the bullet at the end of the rifle barrel.
Therefore,
How do you know Oswald used the scope?

Ken
Tom Purvis
2003-09-03 16:15:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
One of the few things Gerald Posner and I agree on, is that an early
shot
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
was fired that missed President Kennedy, and struck the Elm St.
pavement.
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
The President¹s own reactions then, as well as those of others, seems
to
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
confirm that fact.
But, for those who accept this argument, there remains a mystery. How
did
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
a shooter, firing presumably from close range, manage to miss the
entire
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
limousine and strike the pavement?
Buck fever?
That is the simplest explanation that fits the facts.
ted
Ted;
The simplest explanation does fit the known facts, however, it is not
"buck" fever!
1. A "line-of-site" through the rifle scope is close to two-inches
higher
than the exit point of the bullet at the end of the rifle barrel.
Therefore,
How do you know Oswald used the scope?
Ken
The same way you "know" it was Oswald!

Tom P
K Wind
2003-09-03 19:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
One of the few things Gerald Posner and I agree on, is that an early
shot
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
was fired that missed President Kennedy, and struck the Elm St.
pavement.
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
The President¹s own reactions then, as well as those of others, seems
to
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
confirm that fact.
But, for those who accept this argument, there remains a mystery. How
did
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
a shooter, firing presumably from close range, manage to miss the
entire
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
limousine and strike the pavement?
Buck fever?
That is the simplest explanation that fits the facts.
ted
Ted;
The simplest explanation does fit the known facts, however, it is not
"buck" fever!
1. A "line-of-site" through the rifle scope is close to two-inches
higher
than the exit point of the bullet at the end of the rifle barrel.
Therefore,
How do you know Oswald used the scope?
Ken
The same way you "know" it was Oswald!
Tom P
Okay, How do you know if the person who may have used the rifle found on the
sixth floor of the TSBD used the scope?

Ken
Jaykhill
2003-09-04 02:24:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by K Wind
Okay, How do you know if the person who may have used the rifle found on the
sixth floor of the TSBD used the scope?
Ken
***
There is no way to know. The one possibility I have considered is trying to
determine if, given a certain shooting position, the window sash might have
blockd the line of sight through the scope.

Any predication of the use of the scope for sighting is purely speculative.
And the legal beagles (ignorant of firearms matters) had to ASS u ME the scope
was used for sighting, simply ''because it was there."
Of course, in order to get the scope zeroed, they had to true up the mount,
align it, etc. etc. Again, there is no evidence--none--as to whether or not
the scope was properly mounted, bore sighted, zeroed, and sighted in. None.

John in VA
Tom Purvis
2003-09-04 02:28:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
One of the few things Gerald Posner and I agree on, is that an
early
shot
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
was fired that missed President Kennedy, and struck the Elm St.
pavement.
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
The President¹s own reactions then, as well as those of others,
seems
to
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
confirm that fact.
But, for those who accept this argument, there remains a mystery.
How
did
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
a shooter, firing presumably from close range, manage to miss the
entire
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
limousine and strike the pavement?
Buck fever?
That is the simplest explanation that fits the facts.
ted
Ted;
The simplest explanation does fit the known facts, however, it is not
"buck" fever!
1. A "line-of-site" through the rifle scope is close to two-inches
higher
than the exit point of the bullet at the end of the rifle barrel.
Therefore,
How do you know Oswald used the scope?
Ken
The same way you "know" it was Oswald!
Tom P
Okay, How do you know if the person who may have used the rifle found on the
sixth floor of the TSBD used the scope?
Ken
1. The first shot/CE# 399 went through a tree limb of the live oak
tree
that is located directly in front of the TSDB.
2. It is highly unlikely that WHOEVER it was that was shooting, would
have attempted to fire through the limbs when in a mini-second there
would be a fully clear shot.
3. A sight-picture through the scope would have indicated a clear
line-of
sight at a point where JFK initially "cleared" the limbs. However,
the
bullet trajectory would not be clear.
4. A sight-picture utilizing the fixed rifle sights would have been
marginal as to clearing the tree limbs. Why would anyone take the
"marginal" shot when in less than one-third second, a clear shot would
be available even with the iron sight.

Logic and the evidence supports that the scope was utilized for this
shot, resulting in the above stated aiming error. Just as logic and
the
evidence supports that Lee Harvey Oswald was in fact the assassin.

The same type occurrence with the Walker shot, compliments the
evidence
of the first shot. Two misses at close range. The Walker shot hit
part of the window frame. The assassination shot hit the limb.

Obviously, this is not proof either way. It is however fully
supported by the facts.

Tom P
K Wind
2003-09-04 15:05:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
One of the few things Gerald Posner and I agree on, is that an
early
shot
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
was fired that missed President Kennedy, and struck the Elm St.
pavement.
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
The President¹s own reactions then, as well as those of others,
seems
to
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
confirm that fact.
But, for those who accept this argument, there remains a mystery.
How
did
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
a shooter, firing presumably from close range, manage to miss the
entire
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
limousine and strike the pavement?
Buck fever?
That is the simplest explanation that fits the facts.
ted
Ted;
The simplest explanation does fit the known facts, however, it is not
"buck" fever!
1. A "line-of-site" through the rifle scope is close to two-inches
higher
than the exit point of the bullet at the end of the rifle barrel.
Therefore,
How do you know Oswald used the scope?
Ken
The same way you "know" it was Oswald!
Tom P
Okay, How do you know if the person who may have used the rifle found on the
sixth floor of the TSBD used the scope?
Ken
1. The first shot/CE# 399 went through a tree limb of the live oak
tree
that is located directly in front of the TSDB.
2. It is highly unlikely that WHOEVER it was that was shooting, would
have attempted to fire through the limbs when in a mini-second there
would be a fully clear shot.
3. A sight-picture through the scope would have indicated a clear
line-of
sight at a point where JFK initially "cleared" the limbs. However,
the
bullet trajectory would not be clear.
4. A sight-picture utilizing the fixed rifle sights would have been
marginal as to clearing the tree limbs. Why would anyone take the
"marginal" shot when in less than one-third second, a clear shot would
be available even with the iron sight.
Logic and the evidence supports that the scope was utilized for this
shot, resulting in the above stated aiming error. Just as logic and
the
evidence supports that Lee Harvey Oswald was in fact the assassin.
The same type occurrence with the Walker shot, compliments the
evidence
of the first shot. Two misses at close range. The Walker shot hit
part of the window frame. The assassination shot hit the limb.
Obviously, this is not proof either way. It is however fully
supported by the facts.
Your answer makes sense. I do wonder how you know CE# 399 went through a
tree limb though. That seems like something we could never know for sure.
When you say "mini-second", do you mean milisecond? The reason I ask is
because I have never heard of that expression before.

Ken
Post by Tom Purvis
Tom P
Tom Purvis
2003-09-05 18:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
One of the few things Gerald Posner and I agree on, is that an
early
shot
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
was fired that missed President Kennedy, and struck the Elm
St.
pavement.
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
The President¹s own reactions then, as well as those of
others,
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
seems
to
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
confirm that fact.
But, for those who accept this argument, there remains a
mystery.
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
How
did
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
a shooter, firing presumably from close range, manage to miss
the
entire
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
limousine and strike the pavement?
Buck fever?
That is the simplest explanation that fits the facts.
ted
Ted;
The simplest explanation does fit the known facts, however, it is
not
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
"buck" fever!
1. A "line-of-site" through the rifle scope is close to
two-inches
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
higher
than the exit point of the bullet at the end of the rifle barrel.
Therefore,
How do you know Oswald used the scope?
Ken
The same way you "know" it was Oswald!
Tom P
Okay, How do you know if the person who may have used the rifle found on
the
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
sixth floor of the TSBD used the scope?
Ken
1. The first shot/CE# 399 went through a tree limb of the live oak
tree
that is located directly in front of the TSDB.
2. It is highly unlikely that WHOEVER it was that was shooting, would
have attempted to fire through the limbs when in a mini-second there
would be a fully clear shot.
3. A sight-picture through the scope would have indicated a clear
line-of
sight at a point where JFK initially "cleared" the limbs. However,
the
bullet trajectory would not be clear.
4. A sight-picture utilizing the fixed rifle sights would have been
marginal as to clearing the tree limbs. Why would anyone take the
"marginal" shot when in less than one-third second, a clear shot would
be available even with the iron sight.
Logic and the evidence supports that the scope was utilized for this
shot, resulting in the above stated aiming error. Just as logic and
the
evidence supports that Lee Harvey Oswald was in fact the assassin.
The same type occurrence with the Walker shot, compliments the
evidence
of the first shot. Two misses at close range. The Walker shot hit
part of the window frame. The assassination shot hit the limb.
Obviously, this is not proof either way. It is however fully
supported by the facts.
Your answer makes sense. I do wonder how you know CE# 399 went through a
tree limb though. That seems like something we could never know for sure.
When you say "mini-second", do you mean milisecond? The reason I ask is
because I have never heard of that expression before.
CE# 399 told me how it came to exist! NO! Not in words, but in it's
anomalies which could have been achieved ONLY from having gone through
a dense subject/
material such as a tree limb. On another forum is posted the full
realm of anomalies this bullet has and how it achieved them.
Alongside this is posted
the anomalies to PE# 399 which is a 6.5mm WCC Carcano bullet that was
fired
through a one-inch thick live oak limb.

Among it's many other defined anomalies, CE# 399 is literally
"twisted".
Imagine holding a copper or lead rod in your hands and attempting to
twist the metal until it gives. Imagine the torque required to
accomplish
this. There is nothing within the human body that can create such
torque.

The spinning velocity/torque created by the bullet in flight as the
"grab"
effect of the density of the wood against this torque, literaly
TWISTED this
bullet.

This alone is a "dead give-away" to this bullet. Then when all the
other
anomalies, such as the "polished" effect of the bullet nose and
rifling markings, then the subsequent "stain" of the copper on the
nose due to the
sap of the tree/bark, and so on, all "TOLD" me how this bullet came to
exist.

That the comparative anomalies are virtually identical is no
coincidence.

And, a "mini-second" is one of our old southern slang terms for an
immeasureable
portion of a second.

Tom P
Ken
Post by Tom Purvis
Tom P
K Wind
2003-09-05 21:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
One of the few things Gerald Posner and I agree on, is that an
early
shot
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
was fired that missed President Kennedy, and struck the Elm
St.
pavement.
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
The President¹s own reactions then, as well as those of
others,
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
seems
to
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
confirm that fact.
But, for those who accept this argument, there remains a
mystery.
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
How
did
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
a shooter, firing presumably from close range, manage to miss
the
entire
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
limousine and strike the pavement?
Buck fever?
That is the simplest explanation that fits the facts.
ted
Ted;
The simplest explanation does fit the known facts, however, it is
not
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
"buck" fever!
1. A "line-of-site" through the rifle scope is close to
two-inches
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
higher
than the exit point of the bullet at the end of the rifle barrel.
Therefore,
How do you know Oswald used the scope?
Ken
The same way you "know" it was Oswald!
Tom P
Okay, How do you know if the person who may have used the rifle found on
the
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
sixth floor of the TSBD used the scope?
Ken
1. The first shot/CE# 399 went through a tree limb of the live oak
tree
that is located directly in front of the TSDB.
2. It is highly unlikely that WHOEVER it was that was shooting, would
have attempted to fire through the limbs when in a mini-second there
would be a fully clear shot.
3. A sight-picture through the scope would have indicated a clear
line-of
sight at a point where JFK initially "cleared" the limbs. However,
the
bullet trajectory would not be clear.
4. A sight-picture utilizing the fixed rifle sights would have been
marginal as to clearing the tree limbs. Why would anyone take the
"marginal" shot when in less than one-third second, a clear shot would
be available even with the iron sight.
Logic and the evidence supports that the scope was utilized for this
shot, resulting in the above stated aiming error. Just as logic and
the
evidence supports that Lee Harvey Oswald was in fact the assassin.
The same type occurrence with the Walker shot, compliments the
evidence
of the first shot. Two misses at close range. The Walker shot hit
part of the window frame. The assassination shot hit the limb.
Obviously, this is not proof either way. It is however fully
supported by the facts.
Your answer makes sense. I do wonder how you know CE# 399 went through a
tree limb though. That seems like something we could never know for sure.
When you say "mini-second", do you mean milisecond? The reason I ask is
because I have never heard of that expression before.
CE# 399 told me how it came to exist! NO! Not in words, but in it's
anomalies which could have been achieved ONLY from having gone through
a dense subject/
material such as a tree limb. On another forum is posted the full
realm of anomalies this bullet has and how it achieved them.
Alongside this is posted
the anomalies to PE# 399 which is a 6.5mm WCC Carcano bullet that was
fired
through a one-inch thick live oak limb.
Among it's many other defined anomalies, CE# 399 is literally
"twisted".
Imagine holding a copper or lead rod in your hands and attempting to
twist the metal until it gives. Imagine the torque required to
accomplish
this. There is nothing within the human body that can create such
torque.
The spinning velocity/torque created by the bullet in flight as the
"grab"
effect of the density of the wood against this torque, literaly
TWISTED this
bullet.
This alone is a "dead give-away" to this bullet. Then when all the
other
anomalies, such as the "polished" effect of the bullet nose and
rifling markings, then the subsequent "stain" of the copper on the
nose due to the
sap of the tree/bark, and so on, all "TOLD" me how this bullet came to
exist.
That the comparative anomalies are virtually identical is no
coincidence.
And, a "mini-second" is one of our old southern slang terms for an
immeasureable
portion of a second.
Thanks.

Ken
Post by Tom Purvis
Tom P
Ken
Post by Tom Purvis
Tom P
Tom Purvis
2003-09-06 14:21:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
One of the few things Gerald Posner and I agree on, is
that an
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
early
shot
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
was fired that missed President Kennedy, and struck the
Elm
Post by Tom Purvis
St.
pavement.
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
The President¹s own reactions then, as well as those of
others,
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
seems
to
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
confirm that fact.
But, for those who accept this argument, there remains a
mystery.
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
How
did
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
a shooter, firing presumably from close range, manage to
miss
Post by Tom Purvis
the
entire
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
limousine and strike the pavement?
Buck fever?
That is the simplest explanation that fits the facts.
ted
Ted;
The simplest explanation does fit the known facts, however, it
is
not
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
"buck" fever!
1. A "line-of-site" through the rifle scope is close to
two-inches
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
higher
than the exit point of the bullet at the end of the rifle
barrel.
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
Post by Tom Purvis
Therefore,
How do you know Oswald used the scope?
Ken
The same way you "know" it was Oswald!
Tom P
Okay, How do you know if the person who may have used the rifle
found on
the
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by K Wind
sixth floor of the TSBD used the scope?
Ken
1. The first shot/CE# 399 went through a tree limb of the live oak
tree
that is located directly in front of the TSDB.
2. It is highly unlikely that WHOEVER it was that was shooting, would
have attempted to fire through the limbs when in a mini-second there
would be a fully clear shot.
3. A sight-picture through the scope would have indicated a clear
line-of
sight at a point where JFK initially "cleared" the limbs. However,
the
bullet trajectory would not be clear.
4. A sight-picture utilizing the fixed rifle sights would have been
marginal as to clearing the tree limbs. Why would anyone take the
"marginal" shot when in less than one-third second, a clear shot would
be available even with the iron sight.
Logic and the evidence supports that the scope was utilized for this
shot, resulting in the above stated aiming error. Just as logic and
the
evidence supports that Lee Harvey Oswald was in fact the assassin.
The same type occurrence with the Walker shot, compliments the
evidence
of the first shot. Two misses at close range. The Walker shot hit
part of the window frame. The assassination shot hit the limb.
Obviously, this is not proof either way. It is however fully
supported by the facts.
Your answer makes sense. I do wonder how you know CE# 399 went through a
tree limb though. That seems like something we could never know for
sure.
Post by Tom Purvis
When you say "mini-second", do you mean milisecond? The reason I ask is
because I have never heard of that expression before.
CE# 399 told me how it came to exist! NO! Not in words, but in it's
anomalies which could have been achieved ONLY from having gone through
a dense subject/
material such as a tree limb. On another forum is posted the full
realm of anomalies this bullet has and how it achieved them.
Alongside this is posted
the anomalies to PE# 399 which is a 6.5mm WCC Carcano bullet that was
fired
through a one-inch thick live oak limb.
Among it's many other defined anomalies, CE# 399 is literally
"twisted".
Imagine holding a copper or lead rod in your hands and attempting to
twist the metal until it gives. Imagine the torque required to
accomplish
this. There is nothing within the human body that can create such
torque.
The spinning velocity/torque created by the bullet in flight as the
"grab"
effect of the density of the wood against this torque, literaly
TWISTED this
bullet.
This alone is a "dead give-away" to this bullet. Then when all the
other
anomalies, such as the "polished" effect of the bullet nose and
rifling markings, then the subsequent "stain" of the copper on the
nose due to the
sap of the tree/bark, and so on, all "TOLD" me how this bullet came to
exist.
That the comparative anomalies are virtually identical is no
coincidence.
And, a "mini-second" is one of our old southern slang terms for an
immeasureable
portion of a second.
Thanks.
No Problem.

The entire aspects of the study of CE# 399, how it came to exist, and
the wounds it created are on Lancer. Assuming that you can still gain
access to it.
The comparative data related to WCC 6.5 Carcano bullets fired through
a one-inch thick live oak limb are also presented, along with a few
other little
items.

Such as: Most are not aware of the fact that the copper jacket to the
bullet which partially covers the bullet base has been intentionally
removed by someone at some point in time, for some as yet unknown
reason.

The "data" jumps for a reason! In event one can not piece this
together, he will never understand the WC.

Tom LP
Ken
Post by Tom Purvis
Tom P
Ken
Post by Tom Purvis
Tom P
Bulldog
2003-09-08 02:53:40 UTC
Permalink
Posner is a butthead . He works for himself and his book proved nothing.
It was proven that thye piece of garbage that Oswald use could not have
done what he did with it. He was only an average shooter and barely passed
the test to get certification on firearms in the military.The rifle used
was I repeat a piece of garbage.
Post by Tom Purvis
Post by Ted Gittinger
One of the few things Gerald Posner and I agree on, is that an early shot
was fired that missed President Kennedy, and struck the Elm St. pavement.
The President¹s own reactions then, as well as those of others, seems to
confirm that fact.
But, for those who accept this argument, there remains a mystery. How did
a shooter, firing presumably from close range, manage to miss the entire
limousine and strike the pavement?
Buck fever?
That is the simplest explanation that fits the facts.
ted
Ted;
The simplest explanation does fit the known facts, however, it is not
"buck" fever!
1. A "line-of-site" through the rifle scope is close to two-inches
higher
than the exit point of the bullet at the end of the rifle barrel.
Therefore,
said line-of-site from the sixth floor window of the TSDB to the head
of
JFK as he immediately cleared the limbs/foliage of the Live Oak tree
in front
of the TSDB, IS NOT the bullet flight path between these points.
The bullet must "climb" along it's path/arc/trajectory, in order to
coincide
with the "Zero" point for bullet trajectory and line-of-sight through
the
scope. Even the same is true for the fixed sights on most military
rifles which
are normally factory set for a "zero" of 100-yards.
Therefore, I could easily have had a clear shot at JFK as seen through
the
Scope, and yet had limbs obstructing the bullet flight path, as these
limbs
were only approximately 75-80 feet past the
window/rifle/sniper/assassin's
position.
Easy shot! Easy miss! Been there, done that too!
Now, let us apply the same philosophy to the Walker shooting. Easy
shot!
Line-of-site through the window utilizing the scope. Bullet exits and
travels below the line-of-sight and while travelling on it's UPWARD
arc/trajectory to intercept the LINE-OF-SITE, it strikes a small
portion
of the metal window frame.
COINCIDENCE? Possibly! However, I seem to recall some saying that
"for those who fail to learn from it, history will (or is doomed)to
repeat itself"
This is absolutely true when firing a rifle at targets of close range
with
a scope that is "zeroed" at longer ranges.
The head shot at Z-312/313 is not indicative of anyone who possessed
"buck fever". Waiting approximately 5.7 to 5.8 seconds(for whatever
reason) to
acquire the target and expend a second shot, is not indicative of
anyone
who had buck fever syndorme. Actually, it is indicative of someone
who knew
exactly what he was doing and exactly where and how he was going to do
it.
The one fallacy appearing to be a lack of close range targeting
experience utilizing a scope.
Tom P
Jaykhill
2003-09-08 11:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bulldog
It was proven that thye piece of garbage that Oswald use could not have
done what he did with it.
******
I quote, herewith, Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington: "If you believe
that, Sir, you will believe anything."

John in VA
Jaykhill
2003-09-02 14:23:38 UTC
Permalink
You can visit a compiled listing of the anomalies to this bullet on
Lancer,
as well as the comparison to PE# 399 which was fired through a
one-inch
thick Live Oak limb into a drum of water and retrieved.
****** Tom Please don't make me go to the Lancer site. I have complete
contempt for those people after what they did in refusing to publish a rebuttal
to a piece of junque they published some years back. The rebuttal came from a
devoted, long-time researcher whom I respect greatly. He/she may wish to
identify onesself to you.
Without going to the site, I can only ASS u ME that there is evidence
that the bullet hit a single twig or branch only, rather than multiple twigs or
branches? Or that at least there is no evidence of more than one hit on a
twig, shrub, or branch. Pulleze don't make me go there.

John in VA.
Jaykhill
2003-09-03 03:31:41 UTC
Permalink
t is most probably from my experience in which we "zeroed" our
weapons to the
100 yard target.
***

Target shooting, yes. For hunting (which I no longer do) I always zeroed
an inch high at 100 yards. Means anything about to about 200 yards with
most rifles was just a plain, dead hold on.

The Italian military did a mid-1930s which led them to consider the
''assault'' rifle principle. Found most killing was done at much shorter
ranges than the rifles were sighted for. Experiemented with shortened
cartrdiges ala German 8mm Kurz and Soviet 7.62x39, but gave up on the
concept as too radical (I suppose).
They did, however, adopt the 1938s sighted to hit dead on at 200
meters. Thus, a dead on hold at any range out to that with the iron
sights means death dealing damage.
Compared to other European armyies's sights, the iron sights on the
91/38s are very clear, very readable, even for middle aged folks like
mesself. How any German ever killed anyone with those abominal barleycorn
and vee sights, I know not.>
Yep, but it was only approximately 18-degrees downward.
****

Yes, but that means the apparent angular motion is the greater compared to
less angular shots, target translation is quicker. I cannot think of any
knowledgeable shootist who would claim that the angularly greater shot,
even though closer, is the easier. The legal beagles of the Warren
Commission were way off beam in ASS u ME ing the nearer the shot the
easier the shot.

John in VA
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...