Letter from Dr. Lattimer, re. the Near-EOP vs. cowlick entry controversy
John Canal
Some of you know, from an earlier post of mine, that Dr. Lattimer invited
me to send him some material related to the controversy as stated in the
subject. I did so, and, by the way, besides my own graphics, that material
included articles by Grossman and Sturdivan, as well as graphics composed
by Paul Seaton (thanks again, Paul).
I knew all along he [Lattimer] was suspect of the Clark/HSCA trajectory
because of his rough, but telling, trajectory diagram in his book,
"Kennedy & Lincoln". I was right. In his letter he wrote that he had
decided the "whole matter should be investigated further". He went on to
say that when he performed the "Jet-effect" tests, some of the skulls were
hit about an inch above the EOP...and he noted that the bullet in these
instances "curved upwards", similar to the way Sturdivan shows the
near-EOP entering bullet curving up in his diagram that I posted (for
Jerry's benefit) some time ago. The primary reason the bullet went/curved
up [or deflected up] is that the skull thickens dramatically from the EOP
down...and the bullet would tend to track towards the path of least
resistance (as it penetrated), which would be upwards into the thinner
skull.
He aslo wrote, "It does seem to me that you and your colleagues have made
great progress in investigating these points, and certainly the curved
track in the brain is not only reasonable but is probably demonstrable, if
one wants to go to the effort of reproducing it".
He even offered to help demonstrate this curved track, as he still has
some of the original ammunition left. Sturdivan and I have decided,
however, that we feel no further testing is necessary...and I'll tell
Lattimer that in my reply. In any case, I'll also tell him that, if he
wants to do the tests on his own, that'd be great and we'd be interested
in the results.
He closes out the letter by saying, keep up the good work with emphasis on
replication, when it is possible.
Well, there you have it. He is a gracious and courageous person for
supporting our efforts, even though, he wrote in his book that the bullet
entered in the cowlick. But I knew he was special kind of person from my
previous communications with him, as far back as the late 90's, when he
permitted me to use some of his graphics in my book.
Cheers,
John Canal
Herbert Blenner
>controversy
>From: John Canal John_...@newsguy.com
>Date: 3/26/04 11:33 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <c42as...@drn.newsguy.com>
>
>Hi all,
>
>Some of you know, from an earlier post of mine, that Dr. Lattimer invited
>me to send him some material related to the controversy as stated in the
>subject. I did so, and, by the way, besides my own graphics, that material
>included articles by Grossman and Sturdivan, as well as graphics composed
>by Paul Seaton (thanks again, Paul).
>
>I knew all along he [Lattimer] was suspect of the Clark/HSCA trajectory
>because of his rough, but telling, trajectory diagram in his book,
>"Kennedy & Lincoln". I was right. In his letter he wrote that he had
>decided the "whole matter should be investigated further". He went on to
>say that when he performed the "Jet-effect" tests, some of the skulls were
>hit about an inch above the EOP...and he noted that the bullet in these
>instances "curved upwards", similar to the way Sturdivan shows the
>near-EOP entering bullet curving up in his diagram that I posted (for
>Jerry's benefit) some time ago. The primary reason the bullet went/curved
>up [or deflected up] is that the skull thickens dramatically from the EOP
>down...and the bullet would tend to track towards the path of least
>resistance (as it penetrated), which would be upwards into the thinner
>skull.
When a bullet impinges upon any obstacle, the direction of the opposing force
upon the bullet makes a right angle with the tangent surface of the obstacle at
the point of contact.
Billiard players are aware of this effect. They align their shots to control or
suppress deflection. Namely when the direction of the incoming Que ball lies
along an imaginary line passing through the center of their target, both balls
rebound without deflection. By moving the point of contact off a diameter of
the target ball, they cause deflection. With careful placement of the point of
contact, skilled players control the direction and magnitude of the
deflections.
In the case of a bullet striking a head the force on the bullet would always be
at a right angle to the skull at the point of impact. Deflection of the bullet
occurs when this normal direction differs from the direction of the incoming
bullet. The net result being the bullet changes direction during penetration of
the skull.
>
>He aslo wrote, "It does seem to me that you and your colleagues have made
>great progress in investigating these points, and certainly the curved
>track in the brain is not only reasonable but is probably demonstrable, if
>one wants to go to the effort of reproducing it".
Once the bullet is moving through a homogenous substance the opposing force is
opposite its movement. This situation causes no deflection and merely slows the
bullet. As a result the trajectory is a straight line.
>
>He even offered to help demonstrate this curved track, as he still has
>some of the original ammunition left. Sturdivan and I have decided,
>however, that we feel no further testing is necessary...and I'll tell
>Lattimer that in my reply. In any case, I'll also tell him that, if he
>wants to do the tests on his own, that'd be great and we'd be interested
>in the results.
I suggest you post Lattimer's comments at alt.sci.physics or sci.physics. I am
certain they would explain a curved path requires a deflecting force to be
acting upon the bullet.
Herbert
AnthonyMarsh
Depending on several factors the trajectory through a head CAN be a
straight line, but there is no rule that it MUST be a straight line. And a
bullet can break up when it enters the head. Tests with ballistic gel have
demonstrated that sometimes the bullet continues on a straight line and
sometimes has a curved path.
>
> >
> >He even offered to help demonstrate this curved track, as he still has
> >some of the original ammunition left. Sturdivan and I have decided,
> >however, that we feel no further testing is necessary...and I'll tell
> >Lattimer that in my reply. In any case, I'll also tell him that, if he
> >wants to do the tests on his own, that'd be great and we'd be interested
> >in the results.
>
> I suggest you post Lattimer's comments at alt.sci.physics or sci.physics. I am
> certain they would explain a curved path requires a deflecting force to be
> acting upon the bullet.
>
> Herbert
>
> >
> >He closes out the letter by saying, keep up the good work with emphasis on
> >replication, when it is possible.
> >
> >Well, there you have it. He is a gracious and courageous person for
> >supporting our efforts, even though, he wrote in his book that the bullet
> >entered in the cowlick. But I knew he was special kind of person from my
> >previous communications with him, as far back as the late 90's, when he
> >permitted me to use some of his graphics in my book.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >John Canal
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
AnthonyMarsh
>
> Hi all,
>
> Some of you know, from an earlier post of mine, that Dr. Lattimer invited
> me to send him some material related to the controversy as stated in the
> subject. I did so, and, by the way, besides my own graphics, that material
> included articles by Grossman and Sturdivan, as well as graphics composed
> by Paul Seaton (thanks again, Paul).
>
> I knew all along he [Lattimer] was suspect of the Clark/HSCA trajectory
> because of his rough, but telling, trajectory diagram in his book,
> "Kennedy & Lincoln". I was right. In his letter he wrote that he had
> decided the "whole matter should be investigated further". He went on to
> say that when he performed the "Jet-effect" tests, some of the skulls were
> hit about an inch above the EOP...and he noted that the bullet in these
Thank you for confirming things I have been saying for many years.
Lattimer's entrance wounds were much closer to the HBF/WC location than
the HSCA. Another thing that he did not tell you is that his skulls were
place horizontally on the rest, not tilted down as JFK's head was.
> instances "curved upwards", similar to the way Sturdivan shows the
> near-EOP entering bullet curving up in his diagram that I posted (for
> Jerry's benefit) some time ago. The primary reason the bullet went/curved
> up [or deflected up] is that the skull thickens dramatically from the EOP
> down...and the bullet would tend to track towards the path of least
> resistance (as it penetrated), which would be upwards into the thinner
> skull.
>
> He aslo wrote, "It does seem to me that you and your colleagues have made
> great progress in investigating these points, and certainly the curved
> track in the brain is not only reasonable but is probably demonstrable, if
> one wants to go to the effort of reproducing it".
>
Sure, but that does not explain the trajectory if the HSCA entrance is
used. Does Lattimer still believe the entrance was where the WC said it
was? I think not.
> He even offered to help demonstrate this curved track, as he still has
> some of the original ammunition left. Sturdivan and I have decided,
Not much room for a curved trajectory if the bullet hit at the top of
the head as the HSCA said.
If Lattimer would like to help, he could send me one of his fired WCC
bullets. Is he even aware of the NAA controversy?
> however, that we feel no further testing is necessary...and I'll tell
> Lattimer that in my reply. In any case, I'll also tell him that, if he
> wants to do the tests on his own, that'd be great and we'd be interested
> in the results.
>
> He closes out the letter by saying, keep up the good work with emphasis on
> replication, when it is possible.
>
> Well, there you have it. He is a gracious and courageous person for
> supporting our efforts, even though, he wrote in his book that the bullet
> entered in the cowlick. But I knew he was special kind of person from my
> previous communications with him, as far back as the late 90's, when he
> permitted me to use some of his graphics in my book.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John Canal
walter.jeffries
Since you are in contact with Dr. Lattimer, I wonder if it might be
possible for you to ask him a question on a different topic? In his book,
there's a sentence stating that he owned an M-C rifle like Oswald's with
exactly the same serial number. Is that true, or a misprint of some kind?
I know he owns the same model, but the same serial number, too? This
comes up ever so often on the newsgroups, and it'd be nice to finally
clear this up.
Jean Davison
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:c42as...@drn.newsguy.com...
Herbert Blenner
>From: AnthonyMarsh ama...@quik.com
>Date: 3/27/04 10:49 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <4065E2F0...@quik.com>
The structure of tissues, being a repetition of the same cellular patten,
ensures the direction of the opposing force coincides with the direction of the
bullet.
> And a
>bullet can break up when it enters the head.
Fragmentation of a bullet does not produce curved paths. Instead the fragments
deflect from the original direction of the bullet and continue along straight
paths.
> Tests with ballistic gel have
>demonstrated that sometimes the bullet continues on a straight line and
>sometimes has a curved path.
A gelatine is not a homogenous substance such a tissue. It is comprised of
molecular chains that vary in atomic weight from a few hundred to a few hundred
thousand! Furthermore these chains are arranged in an ordered patten and serve
as channels to direct a bullet in a particular direction. As a result of these
extraordinary properties they have designed gelatins to untangle stands of DNA.
Herbert
Chad Zimmerman
Where in the human head does one find a homogenous substance?
Chad
"Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040327005140...@mb-m06.aol.com...
John Canal
says...
>
>John,
>
> Since you are in contact with Dr. Lattimer, I wonder if it might be
>possible for you to ask him a question on a different topic? In his book,
>there's a sentence stating that he owned an M-C rifle like Oswald's with
>exactly the same serial number. Is that true, or a misprint of some kind?
>I know he owns the same model, but the same serial number, too? This
>comes up ever so often on the newsgroups, and it'd be nice to finally
>clear this up.
Jean,
Save me a bit of time...what page is that on? When I ask him, I want to
cite the page....I'd like to know too. I know he's bought some original
"memoribila" from the case at auctions in New York....but I'd have thought
the rifle itself would have to stay in the archives.
John C.
John Canal
>
>John Canal wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Some of you know, from an earlier post of mine, that Dr. Lattimer invited
>> me to send him some material related to the controversy as stated in the
>> subject. I did so, and, by the way, besides my own graphics, that material
>> included articles by Grossman and Sturdivan, as well as graphics composed
>> by Paul Seaton (thanks again, Paul).
>>
>> I knew all along he [Lattimer] was suspect of the Clark/HSCA trajectory
>> because of his rough, but telling, trajectory diagram in his book,
>> "Kennedy & Lincoln". I was right. In his letter he wrote that he had
>> decided the "whole matter should be investigated further". He went on to
>> say that when he performed the "Jet-effect" tests, some of the skulls were
>> hit about an inch above the EOP...and he noted that the bullet in these
>
>Thank you for confirming things I have been saying for many years.
>Lattimer's entrance wounds were much closer to the HBF/WC location than
>the HSCA. Another thing that he did not tell you is that his skulls were
>place horizontally on the rest, not tilted down as JFK's head was.
Yes, that would make a difference. If he does try to demonstrate the
"curving up", I'd ask him to lean the skulls forward consistent with JFK's
lean in Z-312. But, I really mispoke, and I want to clear it up now. He
said, he wasn't sure "***IF*** he could help...because he's low on the
oiginal ammunition". But I sense that he wantsto and would probably do so
if we asked...but, neither Sturdivan or myself think it's worth the
trouble to do so.
>> instances "curved upwards", similar to the way Sturdivan shows the
>> near-EOP entering bullet curving up in his diagram that I posted (for
>> Jerry's benefit) some time ago. The primary reason the bullet went/curved
>> up [or deflected up] is that the skull thickens dramatically from the EOP
>> down...and the bullet would tend to track towards the path of least
>> resistance (as it penetrated), which would be upwards into the thinner
>> skull.
>>
>> He aslo wrote, "It does seem to me that you and your colleagues have made
>> great progress in investigating these points, and certainly the curved
>> track in the brain is not only reasonable but is probably demonstrable, if
>> one wants to go to the effort of reproducing it".
>>
>
>Sure, but that does not explain the trajectory if the HSCA entrance is
>used. Does Lattimer still believe the entrance was where the WC said it
>was? I think not.
I don't think he's 100% positive but I believe he now leans towards the
near-EOP entry....thta's the way I read his letter. Sturdivan and he will
be talking soon...probably after that exchange, Lattimer's position will
be more clear.
>> He even offered to help demonstrate this curved track, as he still has
>> some of the original ammunition left. Sturdivan and I have decided,
>
>Not much room for a curved trajectory if the bullet hit at the top of
>the head as the HSCA said.
FWIW, I'm more inclined to agree with Herbert...that the entire bullet
"deflected" up BEFORE it broke apart...but Sturdivan insisted it curved,
and who am I to disagree with an expert (so I do it behind his back). :-)
IOW, if one looks at CE-567 (the nose), that severe deformation occurred
as the bullet penetrated the skull, ergo, it would have been virtualy
impossible for it to continue along a straight trajectory much longer than
50 or usec after its contact with the skull. Then, according to Fackler,
about 100 usec after it had deflected up and fractured from hitting the
skull, the bullet broke into at least two major pieces...which coned out
ever so slightly. And to me, that makes the best sense...the "immediate"
deflection up caused it to skirt along the top of the tentorium and the
very slight coning out reconciles well with the damage to the windshield
glass and molding....and with Herbert's experience/explanation.
>If Lattimer would like to help, he could send me one of his fired WCC
>bullets. Is he even aware of the NAA controversy?
He certainly keeps up with the case. I'll bet Sturdvan will get around to
asking him about the NAA.
John C.
Herbert Blenner
>controversy
>From: "Chad Zimmerman" Doc...@cableone.net
>Date: 3/28/04 6:31 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <4067...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
>
>Herbert,
>
>Where in the human head does one find a homogenous substance?
>
>Chad
Are you suggesting random collisions between the bullet and inhomogenous
molecules just happen to deflect the bullet along a curve? If not then
tell us what contents of the head have the necessary physical properties
to curve a transiting missile. On second thought, if you know the answer
then perhaps you should patent the idea before telling us which substance
enables a gun to shoot around a corner.
Herbert
AnthonyMarsh
This is nonsense. Ballistic gel has the same homogeneity you are
proposing and yet bullets curve in it.
> > And a
> >bullet can break up when it enters the head.
>
> Fragmentation of a bullet does not produce curved paths. Instead the fragments
> deflect from the original direction of the bullet and continue along straight
> paths.
>
I did not say curve paths. But the fragments do not all follow along the
same straight path. They diverge.
> > Tests with ballistic gel have
> >demonstrated that sometimes the bullet continues on a straight line and
> >sometimes has a curved path.
>
> A gelatine is not a homogenous substance such a tissue. It is comprised of
> molecular chains that vary in atomic weight from a few hundred to a few hundred
> thousand! Furthermore these chains are arranged in an ordered patten and serve
> as channels to direct a bullet in a particular direction. As a result of these
> extraordinary properties they have designed gelatins to untangle stands of DNA.
>
Ballistic gel is just as homogenous and even more than the human brain.
walter.jeffries
John,
I don't have the book in front of me, but according to an earlier
discussion, it's on page 250, which says:
>>>In 1974 and 1975, my sons and I had conducted a series of experiments
using a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano carbine, model 91-38, serial number
C2766, equipped with an Ordinance Optics Company four-power telescope
exactly like Oswald's. <<<
Since it says "exactly like Oswald's" rather than "Oswald's rifle,"
he appears to be saying that he somehow acquired the same model with the
same serial number. I'd like to know if this is true, or not.
Jean
AnthonyMarsh
>
> John,
>
> Since you are in contact with Dr. Lattimer, I wonder if it might be
> possible for you to ask him a question on a different topic? In his book,
> there's a sentence stating that he owned an M-C rifle like Oswald's with
> exactly the same serial number. Is that true, or a misprint of some kind?
> I know he owns the same model, but the same serial number, too? This
> comes up ever so often on the newsgroups, and it'd be nice to finally
> clear this up.
> Jean Davison
>
The answer is that the Mannlicher-Carcano comes in different lengths.
Oswald ordered the carbine, but Klein's ran out of those and shipped him
the short rifle. Lattimer bought the carbine with the same serial number.
John Canal
says...
Jean,
Yes, that ref. (page 250) checks out. I'll include that question in my
reply...hopefully I'll get it out today.
John C.
>Jean
AnthonyMarsh
> into an unnecessary commentary like the above. This leads me to my
> next question:
>
> Have you done any ballistics studies with like ammunition? Or, is
> everything you need merely contained within a textbook and an
> imagination?
>
> On another note, please refer to my initial post and show me where I
> mentioned anything regarding the curvature of flight after impact to a
> skull. I can't seem to find it, hence I can't see where you needed to
> vent with the dialogue above.
>
> Lastly, here is a photograph of a new shotgun slug. The slugs are
> designed to break apart at impact into 3 segments. The following image
> is of a gelatin block 12 inches in length. I would think that it is
> possible for a 160 grain bullet, fragmented at impact, to produce
> curved pathes either upward, downward or to the side. But, you are the
> physics expert, so I'll let you make the determination. But, do you
> see a curved upward path to the uppermost projectile?
>
>
Very misleading, but typical. Apples and Oranges.
Your shotgun shell is designed to break up. The WCC M-C bullet is not,
and will refuse to break up under almost all cases, including going
through 47 inches of Ponderosa Pine.
Plus, when one actually looks at your example, one can see straight
lines diverging when the slug broke up. Not a curved path as someone is
theorizing. And if you look at many pictures of bullets going through
ballistic gel you can see some which have curved paths. Can you show ANY
at all showing a curved path for the WCC M-C bullet? Otherwise you have
nothing.
You also ignore the fact that the trail of fragments in the top of JFK's
head follow a straight line, not a curved path.
>
>
> BTW, I really did enjoy the genesis you incorporated from my prior
> post. However, as you likely know, in order to shoot the enemy from
> around the corner, you apparently need another medium between yourself
> and the enemy, because air doesn't simply deflect, or alter if you
> will, the path of a bullet. Or, you need a gun that can shoot from
> around a corner at the target...which, btw, has already been invented.
>
>
> Chad
>
>
>
> >
> > Herbert
AnthonyMarsh
English please. The last phrase applies only to the preceding noun. His
scope is exactly like Oswald's. Also his model is exactly the same. The
only difference is the barrel length. There is also most like a slight
difference in markings and date of manufacture.
BTW, remember that a carbine will have a slightly lower muzzle velocity
than the equivalent rifle. That would not make much difference for the
tests he performed though.
Chad Zimmerman
"AnthonyMarsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:40686D61...@quik.com...
No shit, Tony. I already mentioned that. I must be horrible at misleading
because I admit that it is designed that way. Try reading the post before
you make unnecessary accusations.
The WCC M-C bullet is not,
No kidding.
> and will refuse to break up under almost all cases, including going
> through 47 inches of Ponderosa Pine.
The pine keeps it together, Tony. The pine surrounding the channel helps
to prevent deformation.
> Plus, when one actually looks at your example, one can see straight
> lines diverging when the slug broke up. Not a curved path as someone is
> theorizing.
Actually, tony, it curves upward and levels into a straight line. Your
postulating in instantaneous change in direction resulting in two straight
lines. I'd like to see you do that sometime.
And if you look at many pictures of bullets going through
> ballistic gel you can see some which have curved paths. Can you show ANY
> at all showing a curved path for the WCC M-C bullet?
Not yet, but I plan on conducting such studies. Nevertheless, Tony, do you
honestly think that the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head actually
remained intact? If not, then why should I go and shoot through gelatin
blocks in an effort to study the headwound?
Otherwise you have
> nothing.
>
> You also ignore the fact that the trail of fragments in the top of JFK's
> head follow a straight line, not a curved path.
Since I haven't seen the original x-rays, nor have I fully experimented
with it, I won't hazard a guess on that. However, this post was about
bullet's curving in homogenous media, right? Why are you taking this to a
completely different level? I wasn't. Nor did I post anything in that
regard. Try to take note of that sometime, Tony.
Chad
John Canal
You also ignore the fact that the trail of fragments in the top of JFK's
head follow a straight line, not a curved path.
Your so-called "trail" of fragments virtually disappears on the AP
view...doesn't it Anthony?
That's undoubtedly because those fragments, (which came off the bullet
when it fragmented, near the beginning of its path from near the EOP to
along the coronal suture), were carried up to the top of his head along
with the brain matter and other cranial tissue that exploded upwards.
Anyway, that kind of fragment trail wouldn't be left in soft tissue,
like a brain.
John Canal
Herbert Blenner
>Date: 3/29/04 2:31 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <40686D61...@quik.com>
>
>> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:20040328195339...@mb-m27.aol.com...
>> > >Subject: Re: Letter from Dr. Lattimer, re. the Near-EOP vs. cowlick
>> entry
>> > >controversy
>> > >From: "Chad Zimmerman" Doc...@cableone.net
>> > >Date: 3/28/04 6:31 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> > >Message-id: <4067...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
>> > >
>> > >Herbert,
>> > >
>> > >Where in the human head does one find a homogenous substance?
>> > >
>> > >Chad
>> >
>> > Are you suggesting random collisions between the bullet and
>> inhomogenous
>> > molecules just happen to deflect the bullet along a curve? If not
>> then
>> > tell us what contents of the head have the necessary physical
>> properties
>> > to curve a transiting missile. On second thought, if you know the
>> answer
>> > then perhaps you should patent the idea before telling us which
>> substance
>> > enables a gun to shoot around a corner.
>>
Anthony, I cannot read Chad's message on my AOL, so forgive my piggyback
on your response.
>> Oh, Herbert. Thanks for that. Only you can turn a very simple question
>> into an unnecessary commentary like the above. This leads me to my
>> next question:
>>
>> Have you done any ballistics studies with like ammunition? Or, is
>> everything you need merely contained within a textbook and an
>> imagination?
I have thirty years of professional experience with measuring the
properties of targets from the motions of transiting projectiles. What you
have done in this field, Chad?
>>
>> On another note, please refer to my initial post and show me where I
>> mentioned anything regarding the curvature of flight after impact to a
>> skull. I can't seem to find it, hence I can't see where you needed to
>> vent with the dialogue above.
Perhaps you should read the thread before responding. Anthony and I were
discussing obstacles that curve bullets.
>>
>> Lastly, here is a photograph of a new shotgun slug. The slugs are
>> designed to break apart at impact into 3 segments. The following image
>> is of a gelatin block 12 inches in length. I would think that it is
>> possible for a 160 grain bullet, fragmented at impact, to produce
>> curved pathes either upward, downward or to the side. But, you are the
>> physics expert, so I'll let you make the determination. But, do you
>> see a curved upward path to the uppermost projectile?
Fragmentation does not produced curved or straight paths. In general the
obstacle determines whether paths are straight or curved. The only
exception to this rule occurs when a fragment experiences a centrifugal
acceleration from an inherited angular momentum. Under these conditions,
the fragment spirals around a straight path.
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
>From: AnthonyMarsh ama...@quik.com
>Message-id: <406785CB...@quik.com>
Ballistic gel is junk, chock full of inhomogenties that nearly guarantee
any anticipated outcome. Just fired enough rounds into the blocks and
eventually a bullet would encounter the right properties to produce the
desired effect.
>
>> > And a
>> >bullet can break up when it enters the head.
>>
>> Fragmentation of a bullet does not produce curved paths. Instead the
>fragments
>> deflect from the original direction of the bullet and continue along
>straight
>> paths.
>>
>
>I did not say curve paths. But the fragments do not all follow along the
>same straight path. They diverge.
If you mean fragments do not move along parallel paths then I agree. In
this sense they diverge and the obstacle determines whether the paths are
straight or curved.
>
>> > Tests with ballistic gel have
>> >demonstrated that sometimes the bullet continues on a straight line and
>> >sometimes has a curved path.
>>
>> A gelatine is not a homogenous substance such a tissue. It is comprised of
>> molecular chains that vary in atomic weight from a few hundred to a few
>hundred
>> thousand! Furthermore these chains are arranged in an ordered patten and
>serve
>> as channels to direct a bullet in a particular direction. As a result of
>these
>> extraordinary properties they have designed gelatins to untangle stands of
>DNA.
>>
>
>Ballistic gel is just as homogenous and even more than the human brain.
Apart from occasional vessels, brain tissue is otherwise uniform in all
directions. As for ballistic gelatin, it has extraordinary properties. In
most liquids movement of one part exerts a minute force on surrounding
parts. Solids on the other hand efficiently transfer forces from one part
to the entire object. In this respect gels behave as neither liquid nor
solid. They effectively transfer a force acting in a particular direction
from one part of the substance to its entirety while being far less
effective in transferring a force acting in another direction. This
direction-dependent viscosity accounts for the curvature of a transiting
bullet.
Herbert
Chad Zimmerman
Translation?
So, you've shot MC rifles, right? It's just a damn question, Herbert. Why
the attitude every time someone asks you a question?
To answer yours, you may find out some day. Not everything I do is offered
up the NG.
> >>
> >> On another note, please refer to my initial post and show me where I
> >> mentioned anything regarding the curvature of flight after impact to a
> >> skull. I can't seem to find it, hence I can't see where you needed to
> >> vent with the dialogue above.
>
> Perhaps you should read the thread before responding. Anthony and I were
> discussing obstacles that curve bullets.
And, if you read, I was addressing the same subject, wasn't I?
>
> >>
> >> Lastly, here is a photograph of a new shotgun slug. The slugs are
> >> designed to break apart at impact into 3 segments. The following image
> >> is of a gelatin block 12 inches in length. I would think that it is
> >> possible for a 160 grain bullet, fragmented at impact, to produce
> >> curved pathes either upward, downward or to the side. But, you are the
> >> physics expert, so I'll let you make the determination. But, do you
> >> see a curved upward path to the uppermost projectile?
>
> Fragmentation does not produced curved or straight paths. In general the
> obstacle determines whether paths are straight or curved. The only
> exception to this rule occurs when a fragment experiences a centrifugal
> acceleration from an inherited angular momentum. Under these conditions,
> the fragment spirals around a straight path.
Thanks, was that so hard?
Chad (Still trying to figure out where you and I got into each others
skin)
AnthonyMarsh
No. Ballistic gel is used because it is a good simulation of the human
body. You can see many bullets where there is no curved path and other
bullets where there is almost always a curved path. You could fire
thousands of WCC bullets into ballistic gel without ever having a curved
path.
Which is why ballistic gel is a good simulation of the human body.
> Herbert
AnthonyMarsh
Then why did you even bother uploading that photo if you knew it was
misleading?
> The WCC M-C bullet is not,
>
> No kidding.
>
> > and will refuse to break up under almost all cases, including going
> > through 47 inches of Ponderosa Pine.
>
> The pine keeps it together, Tony. The pine surrounding the channel helps
> to prevent deformation.
>
Sure. So no bullet which is fired into wood ever splits up? Can you
prove that?
> > Plus, when one actually looks at your example, one can see straight
> > lines diverging when the slug broke up. Not a curved path as someone is
> > theorizing.
>
> Actually, tony, it curves upward and levels into a straight line. Your
> postulating in instantaneous change in direction resulting in two straight
> lines. I'd like to see you do that sometime.
I am not postulating anything. I am saying that someone else proposed
that a bullet curved. I am arguing against that notion.
But indeed a bullet can split up and the fragments can go in two
straight lines.
>
> And if you look at many pictures of bullets going through
> > ballistic gel you can see some which have curved paths. Can you show ANY
> > at all showing a curved path for the WCC M-C bullet?
>
> Not yet, but I plan on conducting such studies. Nevertheless, Tony, do you
As I said, you can look at many pictures of bullets going through
ballistic gel, many different types of bullets.
> honestly think that the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head actually
> remained intact? If not, then why should I go and shoot through gelatin
> blocks in an effort to study the headwound?
And again you can't answer my question. Have you ever seen an example of
a WCC M-C bullet going through ballistic gel with a curved path?
>
> Otherwise you have
> > nothing.
> >
> > You also ignore the fact that the trail of fragments in the top of JFK's
> > head follow a straight line, not a curved path.
>
> Since I haven't seen the original x-rays, nor have I fully experimented
> with it, I won't hazard a guess on that. However, this post was about
> bullet's curving in homogenous media, right? Why are you taking this to a
> completely different level? I wasn't. Nor did I post anything in that
> regard. Try to take note of that sometime, Tony.
>
Have you forgotten that I composed a diagram showing the trail of the
fragments in the top of the head much too high to have come from either
the WC entrance OR the HSCA entrance?
http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh/rgbskull.gif
> Chad
AnthonyMarsh
Then why did you even bother uploading that photo if you knew it was
misleading?
> The WCC M-C bullet is not,
>
> No kidding.
>
> > and will refuse to break up under almost all cases, including going
> > through 47 inches of Ponderosa Pine.
>
> The pine keeps it together, Tony. The pine surrounding the channel helps
> to prevent deformation.
>
Sure. So no bullet which is fired into wood ever splits up? Can you
prove that?
> > Plus, when one actually looks at your example, one can see straight
> > lines diverging when the slug broke up. Not a curved path as someone is
> > theorizing.
>
> Actually, tony, it curves upward and levels into a straight line. Your
> postulating in instantaneous change in direction resulting in two straight
> lines. I'd like to see you do that sometime.
I am not postulating anything. I am saying that someone else proposed
that a bullet curved. I am arguing against that notion.
But indeed a bullet can split up and the fragments can go in two
straight lines.
>
> And if you look at many pictures of bullets going through
> > ballistic gel you can see some which have curved paths. Can you show ANY
> > at all showing a curved path for the WCC M-C bullet?
>
> Not yet, but I plan on conducting such studies. Nevertheless, Tony, do you
As I said, you can look at many pictures of bullets going through
ballistic gel, many different types of bullets.
> honestly think that the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head actually
> remained intact? If not, then why should I go and shoot through gelatin
> blocks in an effort to study the headwound?
And again you can't answer my question. Have you ever seen an example of
a WCC M-C bullet going through ballistic gel with a curved path?
>
> Otherwise you have
> > nothing.
> >
> > You also ignore the fact that the trail of fragments in the top of JFK's
> > head follow a straight line, not a curved path.
>
> Since I haven't seen the original x-rays, nor have I fully experimented
> with it, I won't hazard a guess on that. However, this post was about
> bullet's curving in homogenous media, right? Why are you taking this to a
> completely different level? I wasn't. Nor did I post anything in that
> regard. Try to take note of that sometime, Tony.
>
Have you forgotten that I composed a diagram showing the trail of the
fragments in the top of the head much too high to have come from either
the WC entrance OR the HSCA entrance?
http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh/rgbskull.gif
> Chad
Chad Zimmerman
It wasn't, Tony. How many times do I have to explain that. Try reading the
entire post before you comment on the first point. More information may
follow that eradicates your ridiculous claim. This post of mine was solely
on the curving of a bullet's path in homogenous media. The picture shows a
bullet designed to break apart (the headshot, if you hadn't noticed, broke
apart) and it's resultant path in a homogenous medium. The initial change
in direction is recorded as a curved path.
>
> > The WCC M-C bullet is not,
> >
> > No kidding.
> >
> > > and will refuse to break up under almost all cases, including going
> > > through 47 inches of Ponderosa Pine.
> >
> > The pine keeps it together, Tony. The pine surrounding the channel helps
> > to prevent deformation.
> >
>
> Sure. So no bullet which is fired into wood ever splits up? Can you
> prove that?
Did I say that? You might want to consider the fact that I have shot 6.5mm
160grain FMJ Carcano round through wood. Plenty of them deform. However, I
have not had one break up...yet. Please note before you read too much into
this as you usually do, I said "Yet".
>
> > > Plus, when one actually looks at your example, one can see straight
> > > lines diverging when the slug broke up. Not a curved path as someone is
> > > theorizing.
> >
> > Actually, tony, it curves upward and levels into a straight line. Your
> > postulating in instantaneous change in direction resulting in two straight
> > lines. I'd like to see you do that sometime.
>
> I am not postulating anything. I am saying that someone else proposed
> that a bullet curved. I am arguing against that notion.
> But indeed a bullet can split up and the fragments can go in two
> straight lines.
Look at the picture, Mr. Marsh. The initial path during the change in
direction of a moving object IS CURVED. Otherwise, it is a spontaneous
change. It HAS to curve.
>
> >
> > And if you look at many pictures of bullets going through
> > > ballistic gel you can see some which have curved paths. Can you show ANY
> > > at all showing a curved path for the WCC M-C bullet?
> >
> > Not yet, but I plan on conducting such studies. Nevertheless, Tony, do you
>
> As I said, you can look at many pictures of bullets going through
> ballistic gel, many different types of bullets.
Yep. I know. That's probably how I found this picture, don't you think?
You are a stickler for the obvious, when it suits you.
>
> > honestly think that the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head actually
> > remained intact? If not, then why should I go and shoot through gelatin
> > blocks in an effort to study the headwound?
>
> And again you can't answer my question. Have you ever seen an example of
> a WCC M-C bullet going through ballistic gel with a curved path?
I already answered this. Minus 2 points for redundancy.
>
> >
> > Otherwise you have
> > > nothing.
> > >
> > > You also ignore the fact that the trail of fragments in the top of JFK's
> > > head follow a straight line, not a curved path.
> >
> > Since I haven't seen the original x-rays, nor have I fully experimented
> > with it, I won't hazard a guess on that. However, this post was about
> > bullet's curving in homogenous media, right? Why are you taking this to a
> > completely different level? I wasn't. Nor did I post anything in that
> > regard. Try to take note of that sometime, Tony.
> >
>
> Have you forgotten that I composed a diagram showing the trail of the
> fragments in the top of the head much too high to have come from either
> the WC entrance OR the HSCA entrance?
Nope. When did you first post me the link? Just now? Your faith in the
superhuman ability to forsee link posting is impressive. However, that
picture of yours doesn't illustrate the fragments very well, does it?
Chad
AnthonyMarsh
But that is not the same as a WCC M-C bullet following a curved path, is
it? So, you are comparing apples and oranges, and you admit it, and
admit that it was done to deceive.
>
> >
> > > The WCC M-C bullet is not,
> > >
> > > No kidding.
> > >
> > > > and will refuse to break up under almost all cases, including going
> > > > through 47 inches of Ponderosa Pine.
> > >
> > > The pine keeps it together, Tony. The pine surrounding the channel helps
> > > to prevent deformation.
> > >
> >
> > Sure. So no bullet which is fired into wood ever splits up? Can you
> > prove that?
>
> Did I say that? You might want to consider the fact that I have shot 6.5mm
> 160grain FMJ Carcano round through wood. Plenty of them deform. However, I
> have not had one break up...yet. Please note before you read too much into
> this as you usually do, I said "Yet".
I didn't say that the WCC M-C bullet broke up. (of course it wasn't
actually the WCC bullets you were firing). My point is that the WCC
firmly resists breaking up under almost all conditions. But try to focus
and address my specific point. Do you or do you not know that SOME
bullets will break up in wood? So it is not the wood which is the only
reason why the WCC M-C bullets do not break up. A major reason is its
unusually thick jacket.
>
> >
> > > > Plus, when one actually looks at your example, one can see straight
> > > > lines diverging when the slug broke up. Not a curved path as someone is
> > > > theorizing.
> > >
> > > Actually, tony, it curves upward and levels into a straight line. Your
> > > postulating in instantaneous change in direction resulting in two straight
> > > lines. I'd like to see you do that sometime.
> >
> > I am not postulating anything. I am saying that someone else proposed
> > that a bullet curved. I am arguing against that notion.
> > But indeed a bullet can split up and the fragments can go in two
> > straight lines.
>
> Look at the picture, Mr. Marsh. The initial path during the change in
> direction of a moving object IS CURVED. Otherwise, it is a spontaneous
> change. It HAS to curve.
>
That minute curvature is not what is under discussion. Try to stick to
the issue at hand. Someone is proposing the entire path of the WCC M-C
bullet is curved. Not just one micron.
> >
> > >
> > > And if you look at many pictures of bullets going through
> > > > ballistic gel you can see some which have curved paths. Can you show ANY
> > > > at all showing a curved path for the WCC M-C bullet?
> > >
> > > Not yet, but I plan on conducting such studies. Nevertheless, Tony, do you
> >
> > As I said, you can look at many pictures of bullets going through
> > ballistic gel, many different types of bullets.
>
> Yep. I know. That's probably how I found this picture, don't you think?
> You are a stickler for the obvious, when it suits you.
And you could find many more if you wanted to learn something. See the
Fackler examples. Also the documentary on the Lincoln assassination.
>
> >
> > > honestly think that the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head actually
> > > remained intact? If not, then why should I go and shoot through gelatin
> > > blocks in an effort to study the headwound?
> >
> > And again you can't answer my question. Have you ever seen an example of
> > a WCC M-C bullet going through ballistic gel with a curved path?
>
> I already answered this. Minus 2 points for redundancy.
Not exactly. Does that mean that you have never bothered to look for
one, or that out of thousands of examples, you have never seen that?
>
> >
> > >
> > > Otherwise you have
> > > > nothing.
> > > >
> > > > You also ignore the fact that the trail of fragments in the top of JFK's
> > > > head follow a straight line, not a curved path.
> > >
> > > Since I haven't seen the original x-rays, nor have I fully experimented
> > > with it, I won't hazard a guess on that. However, this post was about
> > > bullet's curving in homogenous media, right? Why are you taking this to a
> > > completely different level? I wasn't. Nor did I post anything in that
> > > regard. Try to take note of that sometime, Tony.
> > >
> >
> > Have you forgotten that I composed a diagram showing the trail of the
> > fragments in the top of the head much too high to have come from either
> > the WC entrance OR the HSCA entrance?
>
> Nope. When did you first post me the link? Just now? Your faith in the
It seems that you have trouble reading the messages and tend to miss
some. Maybe you should speak to the moderators about your problem.
> superhuman ability to forsee link posting is impressive. However, that
> picture of yours doesn't illustrate the fragments very well, does it?
>
Well, you might have missed the dozens of times that I posted it before.
Or maybe you don't know how to use Google Groups to find old messages.
There even used to be a Web site that would archive just the images from
the newsgroups called Usenet-Replayer.
Chad Zimmerman
Did I say that it was? Any reason that you have the innate tendency to
adapt
conclusions from non-existent text?
So, you are comparing apples and oranges, and you admit it, and
> admit that it was done to deceive.
Bullshit. Why do you spend your time twisting the facts into such rubbish?
I, at no time, ever meant to deceive anyone. IF I had, I wouldn't have
included the information that it was a SLUG designed to break apart. How
can I possibly deceive anyone by including the damned information you are
citing as deceiving?
I am having reflections of Varnell here, Christ! Talk about putting words
into someone else's mouth.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > The WCC M-C bullet is not,
> > > >
> > > > No kidding.
> > > >
> > > > > and will refuse to break up under almost all cases, including
going
> > > > > through 47 inches of Ponderosa Pine.
> > > >
> > > > The pine keeps it together, Tony. The pine surrounding the channel
helps
> > > > to prevent deformation.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sure. So no bullet which is fired into wood ever splits up? Can you
> > > prove that?
> >
> > Did I say that? You might want to consider the fact that I have shot
6.5mm
> > 160grain FMJ Carcano round through wood. Plenty of them deform. However,
I
> > have not had one break up...yet. Please note before you read too much
into
> > this as you usually do, I said "Yet".
>
> I didn't say that the WCC M-C bullet broke up.
No shit. You asked me if I were making a contention, which I just
addressed. Somehow, you think I was making an assumption of you, which I
wasn't.
(of course it wasn't
> actually the WCC bullets you were firing). My point is that the WCC
> firmly resists breaking up under almost all conditions. But try to focus
> and address my specific point. Do you or do you not know that SOME
> bullets will break up in wood?
Yes, some do. What is your point?
So it is not the wood which is the only
> reason why the WCC M-C bullets do not break up. A major reason is its
> unusually thick jacket.
Define *unusually thick*. Is it *thicker* than most jacketed rounds? If
so, which ones?
And, no. Stop insinuating things. Reread what I said. The answer is there.
BTW, just how thick is it and at what part of the jacket, using what type
of measuring device?
>
> >
> > >
> > > > > Plus, when one actually looks at your example, one can see
straight
> > > > > lines diverging when the slug broke up. Not a curved path as
someone is
> > > > > theorizing.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, tony, it curves upward and levels into a straight line.
Your
> > > > postulating in instantaneous change in direction resulting in two
straight
> > > > lines. I'd like to see you do that sometime.
> > >
> > > I am not postulating anything. I am saying that someone else proposed
> > > that a bullet curved. I am arguing against that notion.
> > > But indeed a bullet can split up and the fragments can go in two
> > > straight lines.
> >
> > Look at the picture, Mr. Marsh. The initial path during the change in
> > direction of a moving object IS CURVED. Otherwise, it is a spontaneous
> > change. It HAS to curve.
> >
>
> That minute curvature is not what is under discussion. Try to stick to
> the issue at hand. Someone is proposing the entire path of the WCC M-C
> bullet is curved. Not just one micron.
That's my bad for not reading the entire thread then. However, we both
have a point of validity.
You are one of the last people that should be telling others to stick to
the issue at hand, Tony. For a refresher, try one of the threads that we
are involved in regarding the LFP. Count how many times you change the
subject.
Get a calculator.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And if you look at many pictures of bullets going through
> > > > > ballistic gel you can see some which have curved paths. Can you
show ANY
> > > > > at all showing a curved path for the WCC M-C bullet?
> > > >
> > > > Not yet, but I plan on conducting such studies. Nevertheless, Tony,
do you
> > >
> > > As I said, you can look at many pictures of bullets going through
> > > ballistic gel, many different types of bullets.
> >
> > Yep. I know. That's probably how I found this picture, don't you think?
> > You are a stickler for the obvious, when it suits you.
>
> And you could find many more if you wanted to learn something. See the
> Fackler examples. Also the documentary on the Lincoln assassination.
Tony, I have several examples. However, I particularly found that one
interesting as each slug portion weighs 160 grains. It's application?
Nada. Just an interesting coincidence. And, since I composed the email at
work, I couldn't exactly upload still caps from videos, Tony. Try to think
applicably once in a while.
You should see the ones in the video on the Kennedy assassination...;-)
>
> >
> > >
> > > > honestly think that the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head actually
> > > > remained intact? If not, then why should I go and shoot through
gelatin
> > > > blocks in an effort to study the headwound?
> > >
> > > And again you can't answer my question. Have you ever seen an example
of
> > > a WCC M-C bullet going through ballistic gel with a curved path?
> >
> > I already answered this. Minus 2 points for redundancy.
>
> Not exactly. Does that mean that you have never bothered to look for
> one, or that out of thousands of examples, you have never seen that?
Is this one of those 'you're an idiot if you haven't walked the same path
as I' type of ridiculous arguments that you are presenting?
Have you ever shot a M91/38 Carcano with 160 grain FMJ ammunition loaded
to 2200fps?
Same concept applies.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Otherwise you have
> > > > > nothing.
> > > > >
> > > > > You also ignore the fact that the trail of fragments in the top of
JFK's
> > > > > head follow a straight line, not a curved path.
> > > >
> > > > Since I haven't seen the original x-rays, nor have I fully
experimented
> > > > with it, I won't hazard a guess on that. However, this post was
about
> > > > bullet's curving in homogenous media, right? Why are you taking this
to a
> > > > completely different level? I wasn't. Nor did I post anything in
that
> > > > regard. Try to take note of that sometime, Tony.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Have you forgotten that I composed a diagram showing the trail of the
> > > fragments in the top of the head much too high to have come from
either
> > > the WC entrance OR the HSCA entrance?
> >
> > Nope. When did you first post me the link? Just now? Your faith in the
>
> It seems that you have trouble reading the messages and tend to miss
> some. Maybe you should speak to the moderators about your problem.
Thanks for answering the question, Tony. Now, would you kindly point me to
the many posts of your with that link in it; specifically the post
intended for me?
The only post archived in Google with that particular web address is from
a post on April 22, 2002. That's why I ask. Just point me to it and I will
read it.
>
> > superhuman ability to forsee link posting is impressive. However, that
> > picture of yours doesn't illustrate the fragments very well, does it?
> >
>
> Well, you might have missed the dozens of times that I posted it before.
> Or maybe you don't know how to use Google Groups to find old messages.
> There even used to be a Web site that would archive just the images from
> the newsgroups called Usenet-Replayer.
Oh, in other words, 'No'. You didn't post that in any reply to me save for
the post in this thread. You tenacity for this is both repetitive and
appaulling. To actually think that someone should require the fortitude to
track down and read every word you've ever written before commenting
requires a level of intoxication not worth risking.
Chad
Herbert Blenner
>From: AnthonyMarsh ama...@quik.com
>Message-id: <406A13AA...@quik.com>
The speed of sound in gels varies from about 800 to 1200 ft/sec. This
means a MC bullet is supersonic in a ballistic gel. By contrast the speed
of sound in tissues exceeds the speed of a MC bullet. In some tissues,
such as organs, a MC bullet travels at a small fraction of the speed of
sound.
> You can see many bullets where there is no curved path and other
>bullets where there is almost always a curved path.
The gel being the obstacle determines whether the bullet's path is
straight or curved. Apparently you are describing a careless experiment or
a rigged demonstration. By any chance, would I recognize the name of the
experimenter?
> You could fire
>thousands of WCC bullets into ballistic gel without ever having a curved
>path.
Because they call it ballistic gel does not mean all gels are the same.
Gelatin does not specify a particular substance, instead it names a class
of substances whose properties are weird according to the solid, liquid,
gas system of classification. As for the sonic properties of gels they
behave like a gas.
Herbert
AnthonyMarsh
Then why did you upload the misleading information?
> So, you are comparing apples and oranges, and you admit it, and
> > admit that it was done to deceive.
>
> Bullshit. Why do you spend your time twisting the facts into such rubbish?
> I, at no time, ever meant to deceive anyone. IF I had, I wouldn't have
> included the information that it was a SLUG designed to break apart. How
> can I possibly deceive anyone by including the damned information you are
> citing as deceiving?
>
Then what was the purpose of uploading it. One doesn't just upload
irrelevant information without trying to make a point.
> I am having reflections of Varnell here, Christ! Talk about putting words
> into someone else's mouth.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > The WCC M-C bullet is not,
> > > > >
> > > > > No kidding.
> > > > >
> > > > > > and will refuse to break up under almost all cases, including
> going
> > > > > > through 47 inches of Ponderosa Pine.
> > > > >
> > > > > The pine keeps it together, Tony. The pine surrounding the channel
> helps
> > > > > to prevent deformation.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sure. So no bullet which is fired into wood ever splits up? Can you
> > > > prove that?
> > >
> > > Did I say that? You might want to consider the fact that I have shot
> 6.5mm
> > > 160grain FMJ Carcano round through wood. Plenty of them deform. However,
> I
> > > have not had one break up...yet. Please note before you read too much
> into
> > > this as you usually do, I said "Yet".
> >
> > I didn't say that the WCC M-C bullet broke up.
>
> No shit. You asked me if I were making a contention, which I just
> addressed. Somehow, you think I was making an assumption of you, which I
> wasn't.
>
The point is that others have made the claim that the WCC M-C bullet
broke up, not I.
> (of course it wasn't
> > actually the WCC bullets you were firing). My point is that the WCC
> > firmly resists breaking up under almost all conditions. But try to focus
> > and address my specific point. Do you or do you not know that SOME
> > bullets will break up in wood?
>
> Yes, some do. What is your point?
The point is that you erroneously stated that the reason why bullets do
not break up is because of the wood.
>
> So it is not the wood which is the only
> > reason why the WCC M-C bullets do not break up. A major reason is its
> > unusually thick jacket.
>
> Define *unusually thick*. Is it *thicker* than most jacketed rounds? If
> so, which ones?
Yes, unusually thick. Almost 1 mm. Most bullets have jackets which are
thinner.
Not I. I did not upload a trick photo.
> Get a calculator.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And if you look at many pictures of bullets going through
> > > > > > ballistic gel you can see some which have curved paths. Can you
> show ANY
> > > > > > at all showing a curved path for the WCC M-C bullet?
> > > > >
> > > > > Not yet, but I plan on conducting such studies. Nevertheless, Tony,
> do you
> > > >
> > > > As I said, you can look at many pictures of bullets going through
> > > > ballistic gel, many different types of bullets.
> > >
> > > Yep. I know. That's probably how I found this picture, don't you think?
> > > You are a stickler for the obvious, when it suits you.
> >
> > And you could find many more if you wanted to learn something. See the
> > Fackler examples. Also the documentary on the Lincoln assassination.
>
> Tony, I have several examples. However, I particularly found that one
> interesting as each slug portion weighs 160 grains. It's application?
> Nada. Just an interesting coincidence. And, since I composed the email at
> work, I couldn't exactly upload still caps from videos, Tony. Try to think
> applicably once in a while.
>
I did not ask you to upload anything. I suggested that you do some more
studying.
> You should see the ones in the video on the Kennedy assassination...;-)
Ballistic gel?
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > honestly think that the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head actually
> > > > > remained intact? If not, then why should I go and shoot through
> gelatin
> > > > > blocks in an effort to study the headwound?
> > > >
> > > > And again you can't answer my question. Have you ever seen an example
> of
> > > > a WCC M-C bullet going through ballistic gel with a curved path?
> > >
> > > I already answered this. Minus 2 points for redundancy.
> >
> > Not exactly. Does that mean that you have never bothered to look for
> > one, or that out of thousands of examples, you have never seen that?
>
> Is this one of those 'you're an idiot if you haven't walked the same path
> as I' type of ridiculous arguments that you are presenting?
>
> Have you ever shot a M91/38 Carcano with 160 grain FMJ ammunition loaded
> to 2200fps?
>
Not yet. The weather is not cooperating here.
No, learn to use Google Groups.
> The only post archived in Google with that particular web address is from
> a post on April 22, 2002. That's why I ask. Just point me to it and I will
> read it.
>
You are unable to click on a link?
Maybe I should post messages with these links every day so that you
won't miss them.
http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh/rgbskull.gif
http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh/limo2004.gif
> >
> > > superhuman ability to forsee link posting is impressive. However, that
> > > picture of yours doesn't illustrate the fragments very well, does it?
> > >
> >
> > Well, you might have missed the dozens of times that I posted it before.
> > Or maybe you don't know how to use Google Groups to find old messages.
> > There even used to be a Web site that would archive just the images from
> > the newsgroups called Usenet-Replayer.
>
> Oh, in other words, 'No'. You didn't post that in any reply to me save for
> the post in this thread. You tenacity for this is both repetitive and
> appaulling. To actually think that someone should require the fortitude to
> track down and read every word you've ever written before commenting
> requires a level of intoxication not worth risking.
>
Did I say that I had specifically uploaded that diagram for you? I have
uploaded it dozens of times.
http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh/rgbskull.gif
AnthonyMarsh
You might start with Martin Fackler. Also Edgewood Arsenal. Also see the
studies cited by the HSCA.
> > You could fire
> >thousands of WCC bullets into ballistic gel without ever having a curved
> >path.
>
> Because they call it ballistic gel does not mean all gels are the same.
> Gelatin does not specify a particular substance, instead it names a class
> of substances whose properties are weird according to the solid, liquid,
> gas system of classification. As for the sonic properties of gels they
> behave like a gas.
>
Yeah, and because this particular gel is used for ballistics tests.
Chad Zimmerman
I didn't. Please state how it was misleading. Thus far, all you have
mentioned
is that I misled you by putting a picture of a bullet designed to fragment.
I had
ALREADY stated that in the post. Perhaps you missed that.
>
> > So, you are comparing apples and oranges, and you admit it, and
> > > admit that it was done to deceive.
> >
> > Bullshit. Why do you spend your time twisting the facts into such
rubbish?
> > I, at no time, ever meant to deceive anyone. IF I had, I wouldn't have
> > included the information that it was a SLUG designed to break apart. How
> > can I possibly deceive anyone by including the damned information you
are
> > citing as deceiving?
> >
>
> Then what was the purpose of uploading it. One doesn't just upload
> irrelevant information without trying to make a point.
Tony, perhaps in your superficial examination of the picture, you have
failed to
note the pertinent information contained within the image. Perhaps you
forgot
to specify WCC ammunition in the post I replied to. Perhaps all of this is a
misunderstanding. Perhaps?
Which shot? Head or neck? The neck did not. The head shot did. Do
we agree there?
>
> > (of course it wasn't
> > > actually the WCC bullets you were firing). My point is that the WCC
> > > firmly resists breaking up under almost all conditions. But try to
focus
> > > and address my specific point. Do you or do you not know that SOME
> > > bullets will break up in wood?
> >
> > Yes, some do. What is your point?
>
> The point is that you erroneously stated that the reason why bullets do
> not break up is because of the wood.
Well, in all honesty, the wood (in the 47 inches of pine reference) does
help prevent
distortion by surrounding the entire bullet. Of course, a lead bullet
would've distorted
greatly and, yes, the jacket does prevent the bullet from deformation.
However, I have
shot the SMI loads (granted the jacket thickness is yet in debate) thru 2"
tree branches and
they have deformed significantly. Do they break up? I haven't had one, no.
Of course, the
density of the wood helps determine that. I wasn't using oak, so I am not
sure (I know that
different specie of oak has different densities...in case you wanted to
point that out).
>
> >
> > So it is not the wood which is the only
> > > reason why the WCC M-C bullets do not break up. A major reason is its
> > > unusually thick jacket.
> >
> > Define *unusually thick*. Is it *thicker* than most jacketed rounds? If
> > so, which ones?
>
> Yes, unusually thick. Almost 1 mm. Most bullets have jackets which are
> thinner.
Where have you obtained the data concerning the jacket thickness of the
WCC rounds?
If it helps, I will cut one of mine apart and measure with a point
micrometer. Since I
now have a few more WCC rounds, I have been planning to do that.
Tony, please tell me something. If I included the fact that the photo was of
a SLUG
and that SLUG was DESIGNED TO FRAGMENT in the first post, how is it a
trick? You seem to declare *trick* quite a lot, and especially in cases
where all the
pertinent information is presented for you.
I have often wondered if *tricks* are solely things that are not well
comprehended.
I would suggest the same. Start by actually reading AND comprehending the
posts rather than typing the T-R-I-C-K word at a glance.
>
> > You should see the ones in the video on the Kennedy assassination...;-)
>
> Ballistic gel?
??
That's exactly what I thought. You didn't, yet you like to post as though
you had.
Nice *trick*, Tony.
>
> > The only post archived in Google with that particular web address is
from
> > a post on April 22, 2002. That's why I ask. Just point me to it and I
will
> > read it.
> >
>
> You are unable to click on a link?
> Maybe I should post messages with these links every day so that you
> won't miss them.
>
> http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh/rgbskull.gif
> http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh/limo2004.gif
No, but when you include them with a message insinuating that you have
already
done so and I just haven't seen it.....but you really haven't.....
You know. It actually defines you a bit. It's sad, really.
>
> > >
> > > > superhuman ability to forsee link posting is impressive. However,
that
> > > > picture of yours doesn't illustrate the fragments very well, does
it?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, you might have missed the dozens of times that I posted it
before.
> > > Or maybe you don't know how to use Google Groups to find old messages.
> > > There even used to be a Web site that would archive just the images
from
> > > the newsgroups called Usenet-Replayer.
> >
> > Oh, in other words, 'No'. You didn't post that in any reply to me save
for
> > the post in this thread. You tenacity for this is both repetitive and
> > appaulling. To actually think that someone should require the fortitude
to
> > track down and read every word you've ever written before commenting
> > requires a level of intoxication not worth risking.
> >
>
> Did I say that I had specifically uploaded that diagram for you? I have
> uploaded it dozens of times.
"Have you forgotten that I composed a diagram..." indicates that I must have
seen it and have forgotten it. I have never seen it. You have never, until
very recently,
ever mentioned it to me or shown me the link, Tony. You must think that I am
familiar with all of your work. I am not. Sorry, I know that is not
flattering. But, in reality,
I wouldn't expect you to know everything I ever posted. However, I will note
your
courteousness in that regard and will supply you with similar responses to
avoid
direct conversation.
Chad
AnthonyMarsh
It was misleading to even post the picture. It had nothing to do with the
discussion of a WCC M-C bullet curving inside the head. The only purpose
for doing so was to offer a comparison, which was misleading.
Do we agree on anything? Hard to imagine. You are on one side of the fence
and I am on the other.
I said that OTHERS had made the claim that the WCC M-C bullet broke up.
The WC, WC defenders and even a few conspiracy types. I do not. I do not
think that JFK was hit in the back of the head by a WCC M-C bullet which
broke up. Can a WCC bullet break up? Of course. We have the fragments
found in the limousine.
>
> >
> > > (of course it wasn't
> > > > actually the WCC bullets you were firing). My point is that the WCC
> > > > firmly resists breaking up under almost all conditions. But try to
> focus
> > > > and address my specific point. Do you or do you not know that SOME
> > > > bullets will break up in wood?
> > >
> > > Yes, some do. What is your point?
> >
> > The point is that you erroneously stated that the reason why bullets do
> > not break up is because of the wood.
>
> Well, in all honesty, the wood (in the 47 inches of pine reference) does
> help prevent
> distortion by surrounding the entire bullet. Of course, a lead bullet
> would've distorted
> greatly and, yes, the jacket does prevent the bullet from deformation.
You are being silly again. Use a hunting bullet and see what it does in
the Ponderosa Pine.
The wood is not the critical factor.
> However, I have
> shot the SMI loads (granted the jacket thickness is yet in debate) thru 2"
> tree branches and
> they have deformed significantly. Do they break up? I haven't had one, no.
Shoot it with a different type of bullet. A bullet entirely.
Do you suppose if you shot it with a Dum-Dum bullet that it would not
break up?
> Of course, the
> density of the wood helps determine that. I wasn't using oak, so I am not
> sure (I know that
> different specie of oak has different densities...in case you wanted to
> point that out).
It does not have to be Ponderosa pine. Any pine will do.
Don't shoot live trees.
>
> >
> > >
> > > So it is not the wood which is the only
> > > > reason why the WCC M-C bullets do not break up. A major reason is its
> > > > unusually thick jacket.
> > >
> > > Define *unusually thick*. Is it *thicker* than most jacketed rounds? If
> > > so, which ones?
> >
> > Yes, unusually thick. Almost 1 mm. Most bullets have jackets which are
> > thinner.
>
> Where have you obtained the data concerning the jacket thickness of the
> WCC rounds?
>
> If it helps, I will cut one of mine apart and measure with a point
> micrometer. Since I
> now have a few more WCC rounds, I have been planning to do that.
Seems to me that this is exactly what I have asked you to do and you
refused.
Then why didn't you upload a picture of a bird flying or a balloon
exploding or a Broadway musical? All of those have nothing to do with
the topic being discussed. Yet you were trying to make a comparison and
it was misleading.
You have already admitted that you failed to read some of my previous
messages.
John Fiorentino
> Hi all,
>
> Some of you know, from an earlier post of mine, that Dr. Lattimer invited
> me to send him some material related to the controversy as stated in the
> subject. I did so, and, by the way, besides my own graphics, that material
> included articles by Grossman and Sturdivan, as well as graphics composed
> by Paul Seaton (thanks again, Paul).
>
> I knew all along he [Lattimer] was suspect of the Clark/HSCA trajectory
> because of his rough, but telling, trajectory diagram in his book,
> "Kennedy & Lincoln". I was right. In his letter he wrote that he had
> decided the "whole matter should be investigated further". He went on to
> say that when he performed the "Jet-effect" tests, some of the skulls were
> hit about an inch above the EOP...and he noted that the bullet in these
> instances "curved upwards", similar to the way Sturdivan shows the
> near-EOP entering bullet curving up in his diagram that I posted (for
> Jerry's benefit) some time ago. The primary reason the bullet went/curved
> up [or deflected up] is that the skull thickens dramatically from the EOP
> down...and the bullet would tend to track towards the path of least
> resistance (as it penetrated), which would be upwards into the thinner
> skull.
>
> great progress in investigating these points, and certainly the curved
> track in the brain is not only reasonable but is probably demonstrable, if
> one wants to go to the effort of reproducing it".
>
> some of the original ammunition left. Sturdivan and I have decided,
> however, that we feel no further testing is necessary...and I'll tell
> Lattimer that in my reply. In any case, I'll also tell him that, if he
> wants to do the tests on his own, that'd be great and we'd be interested
> in the results.
>
> He closes out the letter by saying, keep up the good work with emphasis on
> replication, when it is possible.
>
> Well, there you have it. He is a gracious and courageous person for
> supporting our efforts, even though, he wrote in his book that the bullet
> entered in the cowlick. But I knew he was special kind of person from my
> previous communications with him, as far back as the late 90's, when he
> permitted me to use some of his graphics in my book.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John Canal
>
>
John:
I've been sort of out of the loop for a while. I didn't see where Lattimer
commented on your head "model.".......Did he?
John F.