Anthony DeFiore Wrote:Please respect the fact that I spoke to a professional marksman and I have researched the accounts of professional snipers. A bullet can go thru a windshield and hit its mark. I would not have put the information in my research compilation.
When you spoke to your marksman did he tell you how confident he would be in taking a shot though a car windshield? Piece of cake, or no? Today they have tables that will help them predict the degree of deflection. In the 60's they didn't. A shot through a windshield would have been very unpredictable for them. As with most snipers, taking a shot can reveal you position, or at least alert the security team and lead to counter measures. So it would have been inadvisable to take an unpredictable shot. Also a bullet striking glass would lose it's jacket, fragment, and tumble as well as being deflected. Such a bullet is not likely to have left such a small wound. I believe those firing from the front were using soft nosed or frangible bullets, because as a back up option, they would have been concerned with a kill at all costs. FMJ bullets would not have provided that assurance. I don't believe you have bothered to read the study I have sourced here. It is full a very useful information.
Anthony DeFiore Wrote:Please respect the fact that I spoke to a professional marksman and I have researched the accounts of professional snipers. A bullet can go thru a windshield and hit its mark. I would not have put the information in my research compilation.
When you spoke to your marksman did he tell you how confident he would be in taking a shot though a car windshield? Piece of cake, or no? Today they have tables that will help them predict the degree of deflection. In the 60's they didn't. A shot through a windshield would have been very unpredictable for them. As with most snipers, taking a shot can reveal you position, or at least alert the security team and lead to counter measures. So it would have been inadvisable to take an unpredictable shot. Also a bullet striking glass would lose it's jacket, fragment, and tumble as well as being deflected. Such a bullet is not likely to have left such a small wound. I believe those firing from the front were using soft nosed or frangible bullets, because as a back up option, they would have been concerned with a kill at all costs. FMJ bullets would not have provided that assurance. I don't believe you have bothered to read the study I have sourced here. It is full a very useful information.
I found your article interesting. I too am looking for the truth. As for my marksman, he said that an expert sniper firing within 200 yards, through a windshield, with a higher than 22 caliber projectile could be 100% certain to hit his target within 3 to 4 inches of where he was aiming. So, if the expert sniper were aiming at JFK's chin or nose, he would have possibly hit him just above his collar in the throat or right in his nose or higher. If the limo was declining at 3 degrees as it travelled, the shot could have very well hit JFK in his throat AFTER, any possible deflection from the windshield glass ~ although my marksman believed that the windshield deflection would have been negligible. I am also bringing up the fact that Tom Robinson of Gawler's Funeral Home noticed three small holes in JFK's right cheek. Were they made by glass or bullet fragments? Of course, if we asked ballisitcs expert Henry Lee why glass fragments would travel to the right of the President's face after coing through the limo windshield, he might say that the "lateral inclination / cant would because by a shot from the left hand side ~i.e The South Knoll. For edification, please read my research concerning Kellerman touching his cheek from "glass or bullet fragments" before Z313 and Connally flinching to his left and then to his right as the bullet passed right over his left shoulder (Gil Jesus).
Anthony DeFiore Wrote:Please respect the fact that I spoke to a professional marksman and I have researched the accounts of professional snipers. A bullet can go thru a windshield and hit its mark. I would not have put the information in my research compilation.
When you spoke to your marksman did he tell you how confident he would be in taking a shot though a car windshield? Piece of cake, or no? Today they have tables that will help them predict the degree of deflection. In the 60's they didn't. A shot through a windshield would have been very unpredictable for them. As with most snipers, taking a shot can reveal you position, or at least alert the security team and lead to counter measures. So it would have been inadvisable to take an unpredictable shot. Also a bullet striking glass would lose it's jacket, fragment, and tumble as well as being deflected. Such a bullet is not likely to have left such a small wound. I believe those firing from the front were using soft nosed or frangible bullets, because as a back up option, they would have been concerned with a kill at all costs. FMJ bullets would not have provided that assurance. I don't believe you have bothered to read the study I have sourced here. It is full a very useful information.
For neither being a spy or a marksman you sure do have a lot of opinions as to how they go about thier work...
Conclusive opinions that we are supposed to accept and incorporate into our thinking because... ???
I do not question the logic of your deduction, only the assumptions from which you start. "Would a sniper take that shot" versus... "the shot was taken, there's a hole in the windshield.. from where did the shot come and did it cause the throat wound"
By your logic it would make sense that the glass would slow the bullet enough that it would not penetrate the body....
yet at the same time, since none of the neck, throat, etc... was even dissected, how do we know that frontal shot didn't just exit the rear.. Lipsey's hole in the back of the upper neck...
I've seen elaborate proofs that BASED ON THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE a bullet did not, could not have passed from thru the body without leaving more traces... these traces were ignored
(Clark panel found metal traces on the c3/c4 xray... the backwound bullet entered at t3 and was removed from intercostal muscles under the right arm (O'Connor))
Did YOU speak to a marksmen or sniper Gordon - from which you get your eduated opinions?
If so, please illuminate... if not.... how do you debate Tony's work?
Quote:I believe those firing from the front were using soft nosed or frangible bullets, because as a back up option, they would have been concerned with a kill at all costs. FMJ bullets would not have provided that assurance. I don't believe you have bothered to read the study I have sourced here. It is full a very useful information.
So Gordon... while I agree that the shot to the right temple was a softpoint that left a trail of particles... the throat wound was small and clean... and we have no evidence of where it laid to rest...
as we do not have evidence of the back wound bullet that was removed... but we have witnesses.
The report seems to say that a windshield at about 60 degrees would have very little effect on a FMJ 7.62mm bullet.... at the relevent distances
Am I reading it wrong? Could you please copy/paste the relevent data supporting why you referred to this Thesis Paper to begin with?
Thanks
DJ
I[B]t is important to note that allbullet [/B]types were soft point or hollow point.
The study revealed that all of the bullets tumbled following passage through theglass and all fragmented. The tempered glass produced deflections of up to1.8 inches at 90 degrees and 5 inches for the best performing bullet (NosierPartitioned Soft Point) at 45 degrees. A further test with gelatin at 90 degrees showed thatthe partitioned soft point had 55 percent deformation following passage throughthe tempered glass. This study is relevant to the present because it establishesthat bullets with greater jacketing not only fragment less, they produce lessdeflection through glass. It provides a basis for the assumption that a full-metaljacketed round would provide the best performance through glass.
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Anthony DeFiore Wrote:Please respect the fact that I spoke to a professional marksman and I have researched the accounts of professional snipers. A bullet can go thru a windshield and hit its mark. I would not have put the information in my research compilation.
When you spoke to your marksman did he tell you how confident he would be in taking a shot though a car windshield? Piece of cake, or no? Today they have tables that will help them predict the degree of deflection. In the 60's they didn't. A shot through a windshield would have been very unpredictable for them. As with most snipers, taking a shot can reveal you position, or at least alert the security team and lead to counter measures. So it would have been inadvisable to take an unpredictable shot. Also a bullet striking glass would lose it's jacket, fragment, and tumble as well as being deflected. Such a bullet is not likely to have left such a small wound. I believe those firing from the front were using soft nosed or frangible bullets, because as a back up option, they would have been concerned with a kill at all costs. FMJ bullets would not have provided that assurance. I don't believe you have bothered to read the study I have sourced here. It is full a very useful information.
I found your article interesting. I too am looking for the truth. As for my marksman, he said that an expert sniper firing within 200 yards, through a windshield, with a higher than 22 caliber projectile could be 100% certain to hit his target within 3 to 4 inches of where he was aiming. So, if the expert sniper were aiming at JFK's chin or nose, he would have possibly hit him just above his collar in the throat or right in his nose or higher. If the limo was declining at 3 degrees as it travelled, the shot could have very well hit JFK in his throat AFTER, any possible deflection from the windshield glass ~ although my marksman believed that the windshield deflection would have been negligible. I am also bringing up the fact that Tom Robinson of Gawler's Funeral Home noticed three small holes in JFK's right cheek. Were they made by glass or bullet fragments? Of course, if we asked ballisitcs expert Henry Lee why glass fragments would travel to the right of the President's face after coing through the limo windshield, he might say that the "lateral inclination / cant would because by a shot from the left hand side ~i.e The South Knoll. For edification, please read my research concerning Kellerman touching his cheek from "glass or bullet fragments" before Z313 and Connally flinching to his left and then to his right as the bullet passed right over his left shoulder (Gil Jesus).
Was your sniper friend also taking into account that the vehicle was moving from his upper right to his lower left as he took the shot? What ammunition was he using? Is he firing straight on or at a 45 degree angle?
Anthony DeFiore Wrote:Please respect the fact that I spoke to a professional marksman and I have researched the accounts of professional snipers. A bullet can go thru a windshield and hit its mark. I would not have put the information in my research compilation.
When you spoke to your marksman did he tell you how confident he would be in taking a shot though a car windshield? Piece of cake, or no? Today they have tables that will help them predict the degree of deflection. In the 60's they didn't. A shot through a windshield would have been very unpredictable for them. As with most snipers, taking a shot can reveal you position, or at least alert the security team and lead to counter measures. So it would have been inadvisable to take an unpredictable shot. Also a bullet striking glass would lose it's jacket, fragment, and tumble as well as being deflected. Such a bullet is not likely to have left such a small wound. I believe those firing from the front were using soft nosed or frangible bullets, because as a back up option, they would have been concerned with a kill at all costs. FMJ bullets would not have provided that assurance. I don't believe you have bothered to read the study I have sourced here. It is full a very useful information.
For neither being a spy or a marksman you sure do have a lot of opinions as to how they go about thier work...
Conclusive opinions that we are supposed to accept and incorporate into our thinking because... ???
I do not question the logic of your deduction, only the assumptions from which you start. "Would a sniper take that shot" versus... "the shot was taken, there's a hole in the windshield.. from where did the shot come and did it cause the throat wound"
By your logic it would make sense that the glass would slow the bullet enough that it would not penetrate the body....
yet at the same time, since none of the neck, throat, etc... was even dissected, how do we know that frontal shot didn't just exit the rear.. Lipsey's hole in the back of the upper neck...
I've seen elaborate proofs that BASED ON THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE a bullet did not, could not have passed from thru the body without leaving more traces... these traces were ignored
(Clark panel found metal traces on the c3/c4 xray... the backwound bullet entered at t3 and was removed from intercostal muscles under the right arm (O'Connor))
Did YOU speak to a marksmen or sniper Gordon - from which you get your eduated opinions?
If so, please illuminate... if not.... how do you debate Tony's work?
Quote:I believe those firing from the front were using soft nosed or frangible bullets, because as a back up option, they would have been concerned with a kill at all costs. FMJ bullets would not have provided that assurance. I don't believe you have bothered to read the study I have sourced here. It is full a very useful information.
So Gordon... while I agree that the shot to the right temple was a softpoint that left a trail of particles... the throat wound was small and clean... and we have no evidence of where it laid to rest...
as we do not have evidence of the back wound bullet that was removed... but we have witnesses.
The report seems to say that a windshield at about 60 degrees would have very little effect on a FMJ 7.62mm bullet.... at the relevent distances
Am I reading it wrong? Could you please copy/paste the relevent data supporting why you referred to this Thesis Paper to begin with?
Thanks
DJ
I[B]t is important to note that allbullet [/B]types were soft point or hollow point.
The study revealed that all of the bullets tumbled following passage through theglass and all fragmented. The tempered glass produced deflections of up to1.8 inches at 90 degrees and 5 inches for the best performing bullet (NosierPartitioned Soft Point) at 45 degrees. A further test with gelatin at 90 degrees showed thatthe partitioned soft point had 55 percent deformation following passage throughthe tempered glass. This study is relevant to the present because it establishesthat bullets with greater jacketing not only fragment less, they produce lessdeflection through glass. It provides a basis for the assumption that a full-metaljacketed round would provide the best performance through glass.
A FMJ bullet would separate from the jacket and fragment striking the glass. The bullet core would be deflected down and to the presidents left, 1 1/2 to 3 inches. A frangible bullet would be more unpredictable. It's possible he was struck in the neck by a small bullet fragment, but I have seen no evidence that proves that the hole in the windshield was the result of a through and through shot from the S. Knoll, as opposed to a fragment coming from a bullet fired from the rear. The photos aren't clear enough and the eye witness testimony is not conclusive of direction or penetration. Given much stronger evidence of shooters with better, less obstructed lines of sight to the president, it doesn't seem likely that a shot from the S.Knoll would be taken over these others. The only evidence we have for a shooter in the S.Knoll area is Tosh Plumlee, and conjecture. That's not enough for me.
As for my marksman, he said that an expert sniper firing within 200 yards, through a windshield, with a higher than 22 caliber projectile could be 100% certain to hit his target within 3 to 4 inches of where he was aiming. So, if the expert sniper were aiming at JFK's chin or nose, he would have possibly hit him just above his collar in the throat or right in his nose or higher. If the limo was declining at 3 degrees as it travelled, the shot could have very well hit JFK in his throat AFTER, any possible deflection from the windshield glass ~ although my marksman believed that the windshield deflection would have been negligible. I am also bringing up the fact that Tom Robinson of Gawler's Funeral Home noticed three small holes in JFK's right cheek. Were they made by glass or bullet fragments? Of course, if we asked ballistics expert Henry Lee why glass fragments would travel to the right of the President's face after coing through the limo windshield, he might say that the "lateral inclination / cant would because by a shot from the left hand side ~i.e The South Knoll. For edification, please read my research concerning Kellerman touching his cheek from "glass or bullet fragments" before Z313 and Connally flinching to his left and then to his right as the bullet passed right over his left shoulder (Gil Jesus).
Add that the 2004 assassination attempt on the president and vice president of Taiwan involved firecracker sounds caused by bullets penetrating the vehicle's windshield--hey, why didn't the would-be assassin(s) read the memo on windshields? (Buy the kids books, send 'em to school--and they still shoot through windshields!)
Gordon
I think I agree with David--you are speculating in the subjective voice: e.g. "would a sniper take that shot"--are we California Psychics here?
We have Weldon and Whitaker and the Waltz of the Windshields.
We have Perry et al describing a wound of entry.
We have DeFiore providing about three hundred pages I posit you haven't looked at--while insisting Tony look at your tables of deflection.
We've got Tom Robinson patching holes in JFK's cheek as the agent is touching his cheek.
It isn't helpful to have the Princess and the Pea pasting long copies of previous posts only to comment "We remain unconvinced."
I stipulate you shall remain unconvinced, thus freeing ever so much bandwidth, with all due respect.
Tony
Your sniper has a 3-4-inch grouping through a windshield at 200 yards without recourse to a table.
Hey, that's where the rubber meets the road.
David
I am fascinated by your pursuit of the throat wound evidence, particularly:
I've seen elaborate proofs that BASED ON THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE a bullet did not, could not have passed from thru the body without leaving more traces... these traces were ignored
(Clark panel found metal traces on the c3/c4 xray.
That's the location of an x-ray Custer told Gunn was missing because it showed metal fragments--so, if the windshield slowed the throat bullet, that shot did not transit, thus answering the tiresome perennial question, "Where's the bullet?"
There is a very tidy coalescing of the evidence here.
The lone gunman single bullet nonsense cannot account for what we know.
And, lalalalala I can't hear you to the contrary notwithstanding, we know a great deal.
28-06-2013, 01:17 AM (This post was last modified: 28-06-2013, 01:34 AM by David Josephs.)
Thanks to a DPE article, Vol 8 No 3 11/04 by Kim Reinholt...
(throat wound 2"x1" and only incision made was the Y incision)
"Following formulin fixation, the brain weighs 1500gms" - Humes/Boswell/Finck
"A good handful of brain tissue was all that was left" - O'Connor
O'Connor has nothing to say about where the bullet from the throat wound was recovered...
Speaking of the small holes patched up in his cheek... is there an image of Kellerman that might show a cut on his left cheek - the reason he raised his hand???
(edit: the hand to the face happens at exactly the same time Greer does his impossible head spin at 303/304/305 which suggests his hand is there longer but I don't know if that was the time he spoke into the mike... it appears so yet due to the excising of frames it is obvious there is little or no time to actually say anything at that point... I believe Kellerman says he said, "We're hit, get out of here" and was amazed when Greer instead looked back yet again... "Didn't he believe me?" is what I believe he said....
If O'Connor is correct... this is yet another bullet of which there is no record.
FBI memo - Belmont to Tolson - from the night of 11/22 states .... "I (Belmont) told SAC Shanklin the SS had one bullet and the other bullet is lodged behind the president's ear and we are arranging to get both of these"
HOW IN THE WORLD DOES BELMONT OR THE SECRET SERVICE KNOW ABOUT A BULLET BEHIND THE EAR? HOW DOES BELMONT GET THIS INFO FROM THE SS AND HOW DOES THE SS EVEN KNOW?
Since the autopsy doctors did not open anything except for his chest via the Y... anything and everything about the throat is designed to support the cover-up.
DJ
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4925[/ATTACH]
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
