The President's back wound.

[Gordon Gray]

IMHO, I think there were two shooters in the Dal Tex bldg and one on the County Building. One of the Dal Tex shooters hit JFK in the back at the same time as a shot entered his throat. As for the "second back wound", that could have come from the shooter on the County Bldg. I think the County Bldg shooter fired three shots at the limo. He hit JFK in the back (45), he hit Connally in the back and then he hit Connally in the wrist as Connally began to lay in his wife's lap.

I am open to the idea that the "shooters" from the Dal Tex building could have hit JFK twice in the back. One may have been deflected causing a fragment to enter his back in such a shallow manner. Perhaps the Dal Tex shooters were on the third or fourth floor of the building which may have caused the 45 degree angle?


I do not know if anyone has looked at JFK's back brace which may have been high enough on his back to slow the bullet into his back at such a superficial rate. I have always believed that the autopsy photo of his back showed two wounds that were later "drawn" out of the sketches done later.


Additionally, the angle into JFK's back at 45 may have been the bullet fired from the County Building as he lurched over towards Jackie Kennedy after Z225.


Just thinking....TD

Here is a view from the Daltex window. There appears to be nothing to obstruct a shot at the time the president seems to be hit initially on the Z film, unless the shooter was even more incompetent a shot than LHO. [ATTACH=CONFIG]4690[/ATTACH]A 45 degree angle would be too steep for the top of any of the buildings around the turn at Elm St. Keep in mind the angle from the 6th floor window at the point was less than half that steep. So the question remains, what would cause the shallow wound at a 45 degree angle, other than a deflection from the tree in front of the 6th floor window, and how could it have been deflected at the time the president is first hit? I have always thought that the wound in the throat was the result of a shot from the front. Pat Speer's theory that the shot that hit the president in the lower occiput exited from the throat, makes some sense to me, but it would have had to have happened much later than the first shot.

I really think that attaining a 45 degree angle is possible from the County Records Building at Z224/225...that hits Connally. The shot that hit the President was at a 16 degree angle and all signs point to the Dal Tex Windows.

Again the angle of incidence at Z224 is less than 22 degrees from the 60 ' high window in the TSBD. That would mean the Records building would have to be at least 120 ' high. It doesn't appear much higher than the TSBD in the pictures I have seen.

[David Josephs]

There is a big difference between ANGLE OF ENTRY and the ANGLE OF THE WOUND....

Since this bullet was traveling so slowly by comparison, it is very possible that the nose turned downward upon impact and it entered and coursed downward at 45+ degrees...

Does not mean the SHOT was taken from that angle at all.... Especially if we are saying the bullet did not transit, which it did not.

The expectation of STRAIGHT LINES when applied to bullet wounds thru and thru is a bit of a large jump. If real FMJ bullets were used with a hi velocity rifle - another story.

But they were not.

Remember the premise... "WE will be incharge of ALL the evidence.. What WE SAY is evidence will be evidence" do you think there was much concern over where the shots came from or the caliber of the bullets?

DJ

[Gordon Gray]

There is a big difference between ANGLE OF ENTRY and the ANGLE OF THE WOUND....

Since this bullet was traveling so slowly by comparison, it is very possible that the nose turned downward upon impact and it entered and coursed downward at 45+ degrees...

Does not mean the SHOT was taken from that angle at all.... Especially if we are saying the bullet did not transit, which it did not.

The expectation of STRAIGHT LINES when applied to bullet wounds thru and thru is a bit of a large jump. If real FMJ bullets were used with a hi velocity rifle - another story.

But they were not.

Remember the premise... "WE will be incharge of ALL the evidence.. What WE SAY is evidence will be evidence" do you think there was much concern over where the shots came from or the caliber of the bullets?

DJ

If the bullet is traveling up ward when it strikes, it is more likely to turn downward as it strikes. The opposite in true when traveling downward. I make these assumptions: The bullet did not transit the body, the bullet was fired from at least a medium velocity weapon,(personaly I don't believe the Manlicher Carcano was fired at all that day) and was a FMJ bullet. This type of bullet would transit under normal conditions. So an angle of 45 degrees is most likely due to a misfire or a ricochet. This would cause the bullet to react like it had been fired from a low velocity weapon. But I find it impossible to accept your suggestion that some one would be firing for accuracy at a distance of over 50 yards, using a low velocity weapon. That would essentially be a pistol shot.

[Albert Rossi]

f the bullet is traveling up ward when it strikes, it is more likely to turn downward as it strikes. The opposite in true when traveling downward. I make these assumptions: The bullet did not transit the body, the bullet was fired from at least a medium velocity weapon,(personaly I don't believe the Manlicher Carcano was fired at all that day) and was a FMJ bullet. This type of bullet would transit under normal conditions. So an angle of 45 degrees is most likely due to a misfire or a ricochet. This would cause the bullet to react like it had been fired from a low velocity weapon. But I find it impossible to accept your suggestion that some one would be firing for accuracy at a distance of over 50 yards, using a low velocity weapon. That would essentially be a pistol shot.

Among all the various suggestions on this thread, I've yet to see mentioned one explanation that used to be offered on occasion: the sabot. I believe one was actually found in the 70s on the roof of the Records Building (but I may be mistaken about the location here).

Has this possibility been discredited? It was my understanding that this technique was used to fire a bullet from a smaller caliber weapon at a lower velocity, precisely to leave evidence of a false ballistic fingerprint, and not necessarily to be fatal.

Just curious about this.

[Magda Hassan]

Sabot is to fire a smaller calibre from a larger bore.

[David Guyatt]

I can't imagine sabot rounds can be as accurate as normal ammunition which is designed to fit tight to the barrel size and spin down the barrel groves to generate greater accuracy - as opposed, for example, smooth bore barrels like shotguns.

However, I note from the linked wiki piece that a sabot increases muzzle velocity not decreases it, so countering - to a small degree anyway - terminal velocity. But a sabot would leave traces of its use, I'm sure.

[Albert Rossi]

Sabot is to fire a smaller calibre from a larger bore.

Yes, that's what I meant. I stated it poorly (it sounded like I meant a larger round in a smaller caliber weapon, which would be I would imagine rather difficult to do ...)

[Albert Rossi]

I can't imagine sabot rounds can be as accurate as normal ammunition which is designed to fit tight to the barrel size and spin down the barrel groves to generate greater accuracy - as opposed, for example, smooth bore barrels like shotguns.

However, I note from the linked wiki piece that a sabot increases muzzle velocity not decreases it, so countering - to a small degree anyway - terminal velocity. But a sabot would leave traces of its use, I'm sure.

I am not a weapons person, so I was simply remembering a suggestion I had read in several books in the literature. Accuracy was not the issue here, from how I understood the argument (perhaps I should go track this down). It was the idea of taking a 6.5 mm copper-jacketed bullet fired from the supposed murder weapon and firing it from a larger bore (7.6?) rifle, so that it would look like the victim was hit by the weapon from which the bullet was originally fired. Of course, if they had the MC and fired this bullet from it, the question becomes, why not just use that weapon in the attack? Perhaps because it was so defective or could have actually backfired (as I have read MCs sometimes did, at least the older ones).

I was unaware that muzzle velocity increases (I was under the impression the opposite was the case) -- thanks for pointing that out (I suppose that makes sense, now that I think of it, since the bullet is less in touch with the host rifle's bore, giving it less spin on the one hand but dissipating less of the imparted kinetic energy in friction/heat on the other). I was thinking that the lack of spin might make the bullet pitch more as it struck, hence the steeper angle. But I would not be surprised if that deduction is incorrect, as I am no forensics expert.

I do remember distinctly reading in several books about the sabot found in the 70s on the roof of the Records Building which was stuck under air conditioning tubing and weathered completely only on one side.

[David Guyatt]

I can't imagine sabot rounds can be as accurate as normal ammunition which is designed to fit tight to the barrel size and spin down the barrel groves to generate greater accuracy - as opposed, for example, smooth bore barrels like shotguns.

However, I note from the linked wiki piece that a sabot increases muzzle velocity not decreases it, so countering - to a small degree anyway - terminal velocity. But a sabot would leave traces of its use, I'm sure.

I am not a weapons person, so I was simply remembering a suggestion I had read in several books in the literature. Accuracy was not the issue here, from how I understood the argument (perhaps I should go track this down). It was the idea of taking a 6.5 mm copper-jacketed bullet fired from the supposed murder weapon and firing it from a larger bore (7.6?) rifle, so that it would look like the victim was hit by the weapon from which the bullet was originally fired. Of course, if they had the MC and fired this bullet from it, the question becomes, why not just use that weapon in the attack? Perhaps because it was so defective or could have actually backfired (as I have read MCs sometimes did, at least the older ones).

I was unaware that muzzle velocity increases (I was under the impression the opposite was the case) -- thanks for pointing that out (I suppose that makes sense, now that I think of it, since the bullet is less in touch with the host rifle's bore, giving it less spin on the one hand but dissipating less of the imparted kinetic energy in friction/heat on the other). I was thinking that the lack of spin might make the bullet pitch more as it struck, hence the steeper angle. But I would not be surprised if that deduction is incorrect, as I am no forensics expert.

I do remember distinctly reading in several books about the sabot found in the 70s on the roof of the Records Building which was stuck under air conditioning tubing and weathered completely only on one side.

Thanks for the clarification Al. I'm neither a weapons expert (although I have owned firearms) nor a JFK researcher, but I was just curious why a sabot round would be used. You have provided a perfectly reasonable explanation why that might be the case.

One last though thought: would a round wrapped in a sabot actually pick up traces off the barrel, as presumably it is not in direct contact? I have no idea.

[Gordon Gray]

f the bullet is traveling up ward when it strikes, it is more likely to turn downward as it strikes. The opposite in true when traveling downward. I make these assumptions: The bullet did not transit the body, the bullet was fired from at least a medium velocity weapon,(personaly I don't believe the Manlicher Carcano was fired at all that day) and was a FMJ bullet. This type of bullet would transit under normal conditions. So an angle of 45 degrees is most likely due to a misfire or a ricochet. This would cause the bullet to react like it had been fired from a low velocity weapon. But I find it impossible to accept your suggestion that some one would be firing for accuracy at a distance of over 50 yards, using a low velocity weapon. That would essentially be a pistol shot.

Among all the various suggestions on this thread, I've yet to see mentioned one explanation that used to be offered on occasion: the sabot. I believe one was actually found in the 70s on the roof of the Records Building (but I may be mistaken about the location here).

Has this possibility been discredited? It was my understanding that this technique was used to fire a bullet from a smaller caliber weapon at a lower velocity, precisely to leave evidence of a false ballistic fingerprint, and not necessarily to be fatal.

Just curious about this.

I don't believe it has been is discredited. The two purposes wuld be to allow a smaller caliber bullet to be fired from a larger caliber barrel, and also to maintain the rifling, if that bullet had been fired previously from a different weapon. My question would be would the use of a sabot make a misfire more likely?