As far as I am able to track down at this moment, the origin of a claim similar to this seems to be from a document submitted to the HSCA by Francis O'Neill, which was later designated by the ARRB as MD 47. On page 6 this is said:
**********
Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general feeling existed during the autopsy that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic type" or an "Ice" bullet, one which dissolves after contact. There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were caused by the same kind of bullet.
I do not see O'Neill here attributing the speculation of an ice bullet specifically to Humes. In fact, he does not seem to attribute it even to the autopsists alone, as there were clearly others present besides the three autopsists. Instead, he described a "general feeling," as if this meant the majority of all persons present, and "discussion" that was not necessarily initiated by any one particular person. Is there some other original source that attributes the speculation of an ice bullet specifically to Humes? The reason I ask is that I am coming across claims here and elsewhere that it was Humes specifically who speculated this.
But I am unable to come across any direct quotation of the man himself in his own words saying that he speculated about this at all during the autopsy, nor have I yet seen any witness to the autopsy attribute this speculation to Humes specifically by name.
> As far as I am able to track down at this moment, the origin of a claim
> similar to this seems to be from a document submitted to the HSCA by
> Francis O'Neill, which was later designated by the ARRB as MD 47. On page
> 6 this is said:
> **********
> Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A
> general feeling existed during the autopsy that a soft-nosed bullet struck
> JFK. There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could
> have been a "plastic type" or an "Ice" bullet, one which dissolves after
> contact. There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were
> caused by the same kind of bullet.
> I do not see O'Neill here attributing the speculation of an ice bullet
> specifically to Humes. In fact, he does not seem to attribute it even to
> the autopsists alone, as there were clearly others present besides the
> three autopsists. Instead, he described a "general feeling," as if this
> meant the majority of all persons present, and "discussion" that was not
> necessarily initiated by any one particular person. Is there some other
> original source that attributes the speculation of an ice bullet
> specifically to Humes? The reason I ask is that I am coming across claims
> here and elsewhere that it was Humes specifically who speculated this.
> But I am unable to come across any direct quotation of the man himself in
> his own words saying that he speculated about this at all during the
> autopsy, nor have I yet seen any witness to the autopsy attribute this
> speculation to Humes specifically by name.
> Thanks.
You are so naive that you expect to find a signed confession from Humes?
O'Neill's only job there was to write down what he HEARD Humes say, not to make up his own speculation.
> As far as I am able to track down at this moment, the origin of a claim
> similar to this seems to be from a document submitted to the HSCA by
> Francis O'Neill, which was later designated by the ARRB as MD 47. On page
> 6 this is said:
> **********
> Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A
> general feeling existed during the autopsy that a soft-nosed bullet struck
> JFK. There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could
> have been a "plastic type" or an "Ice" bullet, one which dissolves after
> contact. There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were
> caused by the same kind of bullet.
> I do not see O'Neill here attributing the speculation of an ice bullet
> specifically to Humes. In fact, he does not seem to attribute it even to
> the autopsists alone, as there were clearly others present besides the
> three autopsists. Instead, he described a "general feeling," as if this
> meant the majority of all persons present, and "discussion" that was not
> necessarily initiated by any one particular person. Is there some other
> original source that attributes the speculation of an ice bullet
> specifically to Humes? The reason I ask is that I am coming across claims
> here and elsewhere that it was Humes specifically who speculated this.
> But I am unable to come across any direct quotation of the man himself in
> his own words saying that he speculated about this at all during the
> autopsy, nor have I yet seen any witness to the autopsy attribute this
> speculation to Humes specifically by name.
> Thanks.
Ask Marsh, he has often attributed the claim of an ice bullet to
Humes.
> > As far as I am able to track down at this moment, the origin of a claim
> > similar to this seems to be from a document submitted to the HSCA by
> > Francis O'Neill, which was later designated by the ARRB as MD 47. On page
> > 6 this is said:
> > **********
> > Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A
> > general feeling existed during the autopsy that a soft-nosed bullet struck
> > JFK. There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could
> > have been a "plastic type" or an "Ice" bullet, one which dissolves after
> > contact. There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were
> > caused by the same kind of bullet.
> > I do not see O'Neill here attributing the speculation of an ice bullet
> > specifically to Humes. In fact, he does not seem to attribute it even to
> > the autopsists alone, as there were clearly others present besides the
> > three autopsists. Instead, he described a "general feeling," as if this
> > meant the majority of all persons present, and "discussion" that was not
> > necessarily initiated by any one particular person. Is there some other
> > original source that attributes the speculation of an ice bullet
> > specifically to Humes? The reason I ask is that I am coming across claims
> > here and elsewhere that it was Humes specifically who speculated this.
> > But I am unable to come across any direct quotation of the man himself in
> > his own words saying that he speculated about this at all during the
> > autopsy, nor have I yet seen any witness to the autopsy attribute this
> > speculation to Humes specifically by name.
> > Thanks.
> You are so naive that you expect to find a signed confession from Humes?
> O'Neill's only job there was to write down what he HEARD Humes say, not
> to make up his own speculation.
> On Sep 2, 9:43 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 9/1/2012 7:14 PM, John King wrote:
>>> As far as I am able to track down at this moment, the origin of a claim
>>> similar to this seems to be from a document submitted to the HSCA by
>>> Francis O'Neill, which was later designated by the ARRB as MD 47. On page
>>> 6 this is said:
>>> **********
>>> Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A
>>> general feeling existed during the autopsy that a soft-nosed bullet struck
>>> JFK. There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could
>>> have been a "plastic type" or an "Ice" bullet, one which dissolves after
>>> contact. There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were
>>> caused by the same kind of bullet.
>>> I do not see O'Neill here attributing the speculation of an ice bullet
>>> specifically to Humes. In fact, he does not seem to attribute it even to
>>> the autopsists alone, as there were clearly others present besides the
>>> three autopsists. Instead, he described a "general feeling," as if this
>>> meant the majority of all persons present, and "discussion" that was not
>>> necessarily initiated by any one particular person. Is there some other
>>> original source that attributes the speculation of an ice bullet
>>> specifically to Humes? The reason I ask is that I am coming across claims
>>> here and elsewhere that it was Humes specifically who speculated this.
>>> But I am unable to come across any direct quotation of the man himself in
>>> his own words saying that he speculated about this at all during the
>>> autopsy, nor have I yet seen any witness to the autopsy attribute this
>>> speculation to Humes specifically by name.
>>> Thanks.
>> You are so naive that you expect to find a signed confession from Humes?
>> O'Neill's only job there was to write down what he HEARD Humes say, not
>> to make up his own speculation.
> O`Neill didn`t say he HEARD Humes say this.
O'Neill only wrote down what Humes said. That was his job there.
> > On Sep 2, 9:43 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 9/1/2012 7:14 PM, John King wrote:
> >>> As far as I am able to track down at this moment, the origin of a claim
> >>> similar to this seems to be from a document submitted to the HSCA by
> >>> Francis O'Neill, which was later designated by the ARRB as MD 47. On page
> >>> 6 this is said:
> >>> **********
> >>> Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A
> >>> general feeling existed during the autopsy that a soft-nosed bullet struck
> >>> JFK. There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could
> >>> have been a "plastic type" or an "Ice" bullet, one which dissolves after
> >>> contact. There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were
> >>> caused by the same kind of bullet.
> >>> I do not see O'Neill here attributing the speculation of an ice bullet
> >>> specifically to Humes. In fact, he does not seem to attribute it even to
> >>> the autopsists alone, as there were clearly others present besides the
> >>> three autopsists. Instead, he described a "general feeling," as if this
> >>> meant the majority of all persons present, and "discussion" that was not
> >>> necessarily initiated by any one particular person. Is there some other
> >>> original source that attributes the speculation of an ice bullet
> >>> specifically to Humes? The reason I ask is that I am coming across claims
> >>> here and elsewhere that it was Humes specifically who speculated this.
> >>> But I am unable to come across any direct quotation of the man himself in
> >>> his own words saying that he speculated about this at all during the
> >>> autopsy, nor have I yet seen any witness to the autopsy attribute this
> >>> speculation to Humes specifically by name.
> >>> Thanks.
> >> You are so naive that you expect to find a signed confession from Humes?
> >> O'Neill's only job there was to write down what he HEARD Humes say, not
> >> to make up his own speculation.
> > O`Neill didn`t say he HEARD Humes say this.
> O'Neill only wrote down what Humes said. That was his job there.
Were you they Marsh when O’Neill wrote down what Humes told him?
> > On Sep 2, 9:43 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 9/1/2012 7:14 PM, John King wrote:
> >>> As far as I am able to track down at this moment, the origin of a claim
> >>> similar to this seems to be from a document submitted to the HSCA by
> >>> Francis O'Neill, which was later designated by the ARRB as MD 47. On page
> >>> 6 this is said:
> >>> **********
> >>> Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A
> >>> general feeling existed during the autopsy that a soft-nosed bullet struck
> >>> JFK. There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could
> >>> have been a "plastic type" or an "Ice" bullet, one which dissolves after
> >>> contact. There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were
> >>> caused by the same kind of bullet.
> >>> I do not see O'Neill here attributing the speculation of an ice bullet
> >>> specifically to Humes. In fact, he does not seem to attribute it even to
> >>> the autopsists alone, as there were clearly others present besides the
> >>> three autopsists. Instead, he described a "general feeling," as if this
> >>> meant the majority of all persons present, and "discussion" that was not
> >>> necessarily initiated by any one particular person. Is there some other
> >>> original source that attributes the speculation of an ice bullet
> >>> specifically to Humes? The reason I ask is that I am coming across claims
> >>> here and elsewhere that it was Humes specifically who speculated this.
> >>> But I am unable to come across any direct quotation of the man himself in
> >>> his own words saying that he speculated about this at all during the
> >>> autopsy, nor have I yet seen any witness to the autopsy attribute this
> >>> speculation to Humes specifically by name.
> >>> Thanks.
> >> You are so naive that you expect to find a signed confession from Humes?
> >> O'Neill's only job there was to write down what he HEARD Humes say, not
> >> to make up his own speculation.
> > O`Neill didn`t say he HEARD Humes say this.
> O'Neill only wrote down what Humes said.
Proven wrong by the fact that he made note of a general discussion.
>That was his job there.
Support that. Show that O`Neill`s was sent there for the sole purpose
of recording Humes` words.
> On Sep 3, 6:03 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 9/3/2012 9:03 AM, Bud wrote:
>>> On Sep 2, 9:43 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 9/1/2012 7:14 PM, John King wrote:
>>>>> As far as I am able to track down at this moment, the origin of a claim
>>>>> similar to this seems to be from a document submitted to the HSCA by
>>>>> Francis O'Neill, which was later designated by the ARRB as MD 47. On page
>>>>> 6 this is said:
>>>>> **********
>>>>> Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A
>>>>> general feeling existed during the autopsy that a soft-nosed bullet struck
>>>>> JFK. There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could
>>>>> have been a "plastic type" or an "Ice" bullet, one which dissolves after
>>>>> contact. There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were
>>>>> caused by the same kind of bullet.
>>>>> I do not see O'Neill here attributing the speculation of an ice bullet
>>>>> specifically to Humes. In fact, he does not seem to attribute it even to
>>>>> the autopsists alone, as there were clearly others present besides the
>>>>> three autopsists. Instead, he described a "general feeling," as if this
>>>>> meant the majority of all persons present, and "discussion" that was not
>>>>> necessarily initiated by any one particular person. Is there some other
>>>>> original source that attributes the speculation of an ice bullet
>>>>> specifically to Humes? The reason I ask is that I am coming across claims
>>>>> here and elsewhere that it was Humes specifically who speculated this.
>>>>> But I am unable to come across any direct quotation of the man himself in
>>>>> his own words saying that he speculated about this at all during the
>>>>> autopsy, nor have I yet seen any witness to the autopsy attribute this
>>>>> speculation to Humes specifically by name.
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>> You are so naive that you expect to find a signed confession from Humes?
>>>> O'Neill's only job there was to write down what he HEARD Humes say, not
>>>> to make up his own speculation.
>>> O`Neill didn`t say he HEARD Humes say this.
>> O'Neill only wrote down what Humes said. That was his job there.
> Were you they Marsh when O�Neill wrote down what Humes told him?
Was I who?
I did not say that O'Neill wrote down what Humes told him. You have a history of twisting my words. I said that O'Neill wrote down what he heard Humes say.
>On Sep 1, 7:14=A0pm, John King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> As far as I am able to track down at this moment, the origin of a claim
>> similar to this seems to be from a document submitted to the HSCA by
>> Francis O'Neill, which was later designated by the ARRB as MD 47. =A0On p=
>age
>> 6 this is said:
>> **********
>> Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. =
>=A0A
>> general feeling existed during the autopsy that a soft-nosed bullet struc=
>k
>> JFK. =A0There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet co=
>uld
>> have been a "plastic type" or an "Ice" bullet, one which dissolves after
>> contact. =A0There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were
>> caused by the same kind of bullet.
>> I do not see O'Neill here attributing the speculation of an ice bullet
>> specifically to Humes. =A0In fact, he does not seem to attribute it even =
>to
>> the autopsists alone, as there were clearly others present besides the
>> three autopsists. =A0Instead, he described a "general feeling," as if thi=
>s
>> meant the majority of all persons present, and "discussion" that was not
>> necessarily initiated by any one particular person. =A0Is there some othe=
>r
>> original source that attributes the speculation of an ice bullet
>> specifically to Humes? =A0The reason I ask is that I am coming across cla=
>ims
>> here and elsewhere that it was Humes specifically who speculated this.
>> But I am unable to come across any direct quotation of the man himself in
>> his own words saying that he speculated about this at all during the
>> autopsy, nor have I yet seen any witness to the autopsy attribute this
>> speculation to Humes specifically by name.
>> Thanks.
> Ask Marsh, he has often attributed the claim of an ice bullet to
>Humes.
I wouldn't ask Marsh for anything. He is very often wrong. Now I don't know anything about ice bullets but looks to me they would get pretty hot going down the barrel and hot ice melts. I wouldn't think they had much penetration ability either.
Do ice bullets really exist or is this just more crap?
> In article <dab45f00-73e5-4eef-89b7-d432641f3...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> Bud says...
>> On Sep 1, 7:14=A0pm, John King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> As far as I am able to track down at this moment, the origin of a claim
>>> similar to this seems to be from a document submitted to the HSCA by
>>> Francis O'Neill, which was later designated by the ARRB as MD 47. =A0On p=
>> age
>>> 6 this is said:
>>> **********
>>> Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. =
>> =A0A
>>> general feeling existed during the autopsy that a soft-nosed bullet struc=
>> k
>>> JFK. =A0There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet co=
>> uld
>>> have been a "plastic type" or an "Ice" bullet, one which dissolves after
>>> contact. =A0There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were
>>> caused by the same kind of bullet.
>>> I do not see O'Neill here attributing the speculation of an ice bullet
>>> specifically to Humes. =A0In fact, he does not seem to attribute it even =
>> to
>>> the autopsists alone, as there were clearly others present besides the
>>> three autopsists. =A0Instead, he described a "general feeling," as if thi=
>> s
>>> meant the majority of all persons present, and "discussion" that was not
>>> necessarily initiated by any one particular person. =A0Is there some othe=
>> r
>>> original source that attributes the speculation of an ice bullet
>>> specifically to Humes? =A0The reason I ask is that I am coming across cla=
>> ims
>>> here and elsewhere that it was Humes specifically who speculated this.
>>> But I am unable to come across any direct quotation of the man himself in
>>> his own words saying that he speculated about this at all during the
>>> autopsy, nor have I yet seen any witness to the autopsy attribute this
>>> speculation to Humes specifically by name.
>>> Thanks.
>> Ask Marsh, he has often attributed the claim of an ice bullet to
>> Humes.
> I wouldn't ask Marsh for anything. He is very often wrong. Now I don't
> know anything about ice bullets but looks to me they would get pretty hot
> going down the barrel and hot ice melts. I wouldn't think they had much
> penetration ability either.
> Do ice bullets really exist or is this just more crap?
> Bill Clarke
Fun to guess, isn't it?
Why do you refuse to watch the Mythbusters episode where they actually made them and fired them into targets?
This is not about whether ice bullets exist or if anyone had ever used them. This is only about how stupid Humes was to propose the idea that an ice bullet accounted the the shallow back wound.
If you think the idea is impossible I suggest that you offer your neck as the target and tell me how it felt after I fire an ice bullet into your neck. Assuming you can still speak.
Instead of ricin I'll use liquid Ibuprofen.
> In article <dab45f00-73e5-4eef-89b7-d432641f3...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> Bud says...
> >On Sep 1, 7:14=A0pm, John King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> As far as I am able to track down at this moment, the origin of a claim
> >> similar to this seems to be from a document submitted to the HSCA by
> >> Francis O'Neill, which was later designated by the ARRB as MD 47. =A0On p=
> >age
> >> 6 this is said:
> >> **********
> >> Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. =
> >=A0A
> >> general feeling existed during the autopsy that a soft-nosed bullet struc=
> >k
> >> JFK. =A0There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet co=
> >uld
> >> have been a "plastic type" or an "Ice" bullet, one which dissolves after
> >> contact. =A0There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were
> >> caused by the same kind of bullet.
> >> I do not see O'Neill here attributing the speculation of an ice bullet
> >> specifically to Humes. =A0In fact, he does not seem to attribute it even =
> >to
> >> the autopsists alone, as there were clearly others present besides the
> >> three autopsists. =A0Instead, he described a "general feeling," as if thi=
> >s
> >> meant the majority of all persons present, and "discussion" that was not
> >> necessarily initiated by any one particular person. =A0Is there some othe=
> >r
> >> original source that attributes the speculation of an ice bullet
> >> specifically to Humes? =A0The reason I ask is that I am coming across cla=
> >ims
> >> here and elsewhere that it was Humes specifically who speculated this.
> >> But I am unable to come across any direct quotation of the man himself in
> >> his own words saying that he speculated about this at all during the
> >> autopsy, nor have I yet seen any witness to the autopsy attribute this
> >> speculation to Humes specifically by name.
> >> Thanks.
> > Ask Marsh, he has often attributed the claim of an ice bullet to
> >Humes.
> I wouldn't ask Marsh for anything. He is very often wrong. Now I don't
> know anything about ice bullets but looks to me they would get pretty hot
> going down the barrel and hot ice melts. I wouldn't think they had much
> penetration ability either.
> Do ice bullets really exist or is this just more crap?
> Bill Clarke
As I understand it the people conducting the autopsy were unaware
that the tracheotomy incision in Kennedy`s throat was a bullet wound.
So they had a wound they thought was a shallow bullet wound in the
back with no bullet. This led to someone speculating that an ice
bullet was used. Might have been a joke that O`Neill took as serious.
In any case Marsh has taken it upon himself to attribute the idea of
an ice bullet to Humes, but like a lot of his ideas he can`t support
it. But it`s hard to imagine that there is anyone here that gives any
weight to anything Marsh says by now anyway.
In article <k23kvp01...@drn.newsguy.com>,
Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> I wouldn't ask Marsh for anything. He is very often wrong. Now I don't > know anything about ice bullets but looks to me they would get pretty hot > going down the barrel and hot ice melts.
More of a problem would be the ice fragmenting under the sudden pressure of discharge from the barrel or muzzle of the gun. Also, in 1963, how would the ice be kept frozen long enough, most especially when no one could know exactly what time the motorcade would pass? ;-)
> I wouldn't think they had much > penetration ability either.
> Do ice bullets really exist or is this just more crap?
Heh. When another poster here a few weeks ago claimed that Kennedy's throat wound had been caused by an ice bullet, I decided to look on the Internet, doing a simple search on the phrase "ice bullet." In the first ten pages of matches I did not find even one credible, documented account of any person in any country in any year in any decade being shot and wounded with such a projectile. There were many references, however, to an episode of Mythbusters in which an ice bullet was fired from a sort of a "gun," with underwhelming results. I think the problem was that it fragmented immediately upon being discharged, and hardly penetrated the target. Nearly all other matches were either of references to a movie with "ice bullet" somewhere in the title, or "ice bullets," simply pieces of ice shaped rather like bullets, being used in cocktails.
> In article <dab45f00-73e5-4eef-89b7-d432641f3...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> Bud says...
> >On Sep 1, 7:14=A0pm, John King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> As far as I am able to track down at this moment, the origin of a claim
> >> similar to this seems to be from a document submitted to the HSCA by
> >> Francis O'Neill, which was later designated by the ARRB as MD 47. =A0On p=
> >age
> >> 6 this is said:
> >> **********
> >> Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. =
> >=A0A
> >> general feeling existed during the autopsy that a soft-nosed bullet struc=
> >k
> >> JFK. =A0There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet co=
> >uld
> >> have been a "plastic type" or an "Ice" bullet, one which dissolves after
> >> contact. =A0There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were
> >> caused by the same kind of bullet.
> >> I do not see O'Neill here attributing the speculation of an ice bullet
> >> specifically to Humes. =A0In fact, he does not seem to attribute it even =
> >to
> >> the autopsists alone, as there were clearly others present besides the
> >> three autopsists. =A0Instead, he described a "general feeling," as if thi=
> >s
> >> meant the majority of all persons present, and "discussion" that was not
> >> necessarily initiated by any one particular person. =A0Is there some othe=
> >r
> >> original source that attributes the speculation of an ice bullet
> >> specifically to Humes? =A0The reason I ask is that I am coming across cla=
> >ims
> >> here and elsewhere that it was Humes specifically who speculated this.
> >> But I am unable to come across any direct quotation of the man himself in
> >> his own words saying that he speculated about this at all during the
> >> autopsy, nor have I yet seen any witness to the autopsy attribute this
> >> speculation to Humes specifically by name.
> >> Thanks.
> > Ask Marsh, he has often attributed the claim of an ice bullet to
> >Humes.
> I wouldn't ask Marsh for anything. He is very often wrong. Now I don't
> know anything about ice bullets but looks to me they would get pretty hot
> going down the barrel and hot ice melts. I wouldn't think they had much
> penetration ability either.
An ice bullet would have 1/11 of the kinetic energy of a equivalent MC bullet. Ever worse the deceleration of the ice bullet would be 11 times the deceleration of the equivalent MC bullet. This means that if air friction slowed a MC bullet by 1 fps per foot then the ice bullet would slow by 11 fps per foot. Under these conditions the ice bullet would be subsonic at a 35-yard range.
> Do ice bullets really exist or is this just more crap?
>>> On Sep 1, 7:14=A0pm, John King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> As far as I am able to track down at this moment, the origin of a claim
>>>> similar to this seems to be from a document submitted to the HSCA by
>>>> Francis O'Neill, which was later designated by the ARRB as MD 47. =A0On p=
>>> age
>>>> 6 this is said:
>>>> **********
>>>> Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. =
>>> =A0A
>>>> general feeling existed during the autopsy that a soft-nosed bullet struc=
>>> k
>>>> JFK. =A0There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet co=
>>> uld
>>>> have been a "plastic type" or an "Ice" bullet, one which dissolves after
>>>> contact. =A0There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were
>>>> caused by the same kind of bullet.
>>>> I do not see O'Neill here attributing the speculation of an ice bullet
>>>> specifically to Humes. =A0In fact, he does not seem to attribute it even =
>>> to
>>>> the autopsists alone, as there were clearly others present besides the
>>>> three autopsists. =A0Instead, he described a "general feeling," as if thi=
>>> s
>>>> meant the majority of all persons present, and "discussion" that was not
>>>> necessarily initiated by any one particular person. =A0Is there some othe=
>>> r
>>>> original source that attributes the speculation of an ice bullet
>>>> specifically to Humes? =A0The reason I ask is that I am coming across cla=
>>> ims
>>>> here and elsewhere that it was Humes specifically who speculated this.
>>>> But I am unable to come across any direct quotation of the man himself in
>>>> his own words saying that he speculated about this at all during the
>>>> autopsy, nor have I yet seen any witness to the autopsy attribute this
>>>> speculation to Humes specifically by name.
>>>> Thanks.
>>> Ask Marsh, he has often attributed the claim of an ice bullet to
>>> Humes.
>> I wouldn't ask Marsh for anything. He is very often wrong. Now I don't
>> know anything about ice bullets but looks to me they would get pretty hot
>> going down the barrel and hot ice melts. I wouldn't think they had much
>> penetration ability either.
>> Do ice bullets really exist or is this just more crap?
>> Bill Clarke
>Fun to guess, isn't it?
>Why do you refuse to watch the Mythbusters episode where they actually >made them and fired them into targets?
>This is not about whether ice bullets exist or if anyone had ever used >them. This is only about how stupid Humes was to propose the idea that >an ice bullet accounted the the shallow back wound.
>If you think the idea is impossible I suggest that you offer your neck >as the target and tell me how it felt after I fire an ice bullet into >your neck. Assuming you can still speak.
>Instead of ricin I'll use liquid Ibuprofen.
With your lack of knowledge of ballistics and marksmanship I doubt you could hit my neck.
> > In article <dab45f00-73e5-4eef-89b7-d432641f3...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> > Bud says...
> >> On Sep 1, 7:14=A0pm, John King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> As far as I am able to track down at this moment, the origin of a claim
> >>> similar to this seems to be from a document submitted to the HSCA by
> >>> Francis O'Neill, which was later designated by the ARRB as MD 47. =A0On p=
> >> age
> >>> 6 this is said:
> >>> **********
> >>> Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. =
> >> =A0A
> >>> general feeling existed during the autopsy that a soft-nosed bullet struc=
> >> k
> >>> JFK. =A0There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet co=
> >> uld
> >>> have been a "plastic type" or an "Ice" bullet, one which dissolves after
> >>> contact. =A0There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were
> >>> caused by the same kind of bullet.
> >>> I do not see O'Neill here attributing the speculation of an ice bullet
> >>> specifically to Humes. =A0In fact, he does not seem to attribute it even =
> >> to
> >>> the autopsists alone, as there were clearly others present besides the
> >>> three autopsists. =A0Instead, he described a "general feeling," as if thi=
> >> s
> >>> meant the majority of all persons present, and "discussion" that was not
> >>> necessarily initiated by any one particular person. =A0Is there some othe=
> >> r
> >>> original source that attributes the speculation of an ice bullet
> >>> specifically to Humes? =A0The reason I ask is that I am coming across cla=
> >> ims
> >>> here and elsewhere that it was Humes specifically who speculated this.
> >>> But I am unable to come across any direct quotation of the man himself in
> >>> his own words saying that he speculated about this at all during the
> >>> autopsy, nor have I yet seen any witness to the autopsy attribute this
> >>> speculation to Humes specifically by name.
> >>> Thanks.
> >> Ask Marsh, he has often attributed the claim of an ice bullet to
> >> Humes.
> > I wouldn't ask Marsh for anything. He is very often wrong. Now I don't
> > know anything about ice bullets but looks to me they would get pretty hot
> > going down the barrel and hot ice melts. I wouldn't think they had much
> > penetration ability either.
> > Do ice bullets really exist or is this just more crap?
> > Bill Clarke
> Fun to guess, isn't it?
> Why do you refuse to watch the Mythbusters episode where they actually
> made them and fired them into targets?
> This is not about whether ice bullets exist or if anyone had ever used
> them. This is only about how stupid Humes was to propose the idea that
> an ice bullet accounted the the shallow back wound.
> If you think the idea is impossible I suggest that you offer your neck
> as the target and tell me how it felt after I fire an ice bullet into
> your neck. Assuming you can still speak.
> Instead of ricin I'll use liquid Ibuprofen.
> On Sep 3, 10:58 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <dab45f00-73e5-4eef-89b7-d432641f3...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
>> Bud says...
>>> On Sep 1, 7:14=A0pm, John King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> As far as I am able to track down at this moment, the origin of a claim
>>>> similar to this seems to be from a document submitted to the HSCA by
>>>> Francis O'Neill, which was later designated by the ARRB as MD 47. =A0On p=
>>> age
>>>> 6 this is said:
>>>> **********
>>>> Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. =
>>> =A0A
>>>> general feeling existed during the autopsy that a soft-nosed bullet struc=
>>> k
>>>> JFK. =A0There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet co=
>>> uld
>>>> have been a "plastic type" or an "Ice" bullet, one which dissolves after
>>>> contact. =A0There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were
>>>> caused by the same kind of bullet.
>>>> I do not see O'Neill here attributing the speculation of an ice bullet
>>>> specifically to Humes. =A0In fact, he does not seem to attribute it even =
>>> to
>>>> the autopsists alone, as there were clearly others present besides the
>>>> three autopsists. =A0Instead, he described a "general feeling," as if thi=
>>> s
>>>> meant the majority of all persons present, and "discussion" that was not
>>>> necessarily initiated by any one particular person. =A0Is there some othe=
>>> r
>>>> original source that attributes the speculation of an ice bullet
>>>> specifically to Humes? =A0The reason I ask is that I am coming across cla=
>>> ims
>>>> here and elsewhere that it was Humes specifically who speculated this.
>>>> But I am unable to come across any direct quotation of the man himself in
>>>> his own words saying that he speculated about this at all during the
>>>> autopsy, nor have I yet seen any witness to the autopsy attribute this
>>>> speculation to Humes specifically by name.
>>>> Thanks.
>>> Ask Marsh, he has often attributed the claim of an ice bullet to
>>> Humes.
>> I wouldn't ask Marsh for anything. He is very often wrong. Now I don't
>> know anything about ice bullets but looks to me they would get pretty hot
>> going down the barrel and hot ice melts. I wouldn't think they had much
>> penetration ability either.
> An ice bullet would have 1/11 of the kinetic energy of a equivalent MC
> bullet. Ever worse the deceleration of the ice bullet would be 11 times
> the deceleration of the equivalent MC bullet. This means that if air
> friction slowed a MC bullet by 1 fps per foot then the ice bullet would
> slow by 11 fps per foot. Under these conditions the ice bullet would be
> subsonic at a 35-yard range.
No one offered an ice bullet as an equivalent to a MC bullet.
You don't even understand the concept of an ice bullet and you refused to watch the Mythbusters episode.
> In article <k23kvp01...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> I wouldn't ask Marsh for anything. He is very often wrong. Now I don't
>> know anything about ice bullets but looks to me they would get pretty hot
>> going down the barrel and hot ice melts.
> More of a problem would be the ice fragmenting under the sudden pressure
> of discharge from the barrel or muzzle of the gun. Also, in 1963, how
> would the ice be kept frozen long enough, most especially when no one
> could know exactly what time the motorcade would pass? ;-)
>> I wouldn't think they had much
>> penetration ability either.
>> Do ice bullets really exist or is this just more crap?
> Heh. When another poster here a few weeks ago claimed that Kennedy's
> throat wound had been caused by an ice bullet, I decided to look on the
> Internet, doing a simple search on the phrase "ice bullet." In the
> first ten pages of matches I did not find even one credible, documented
> account of any person in any country in any year in any decade being
> shot and wounded with such a projectile. There were many references,
Silly you. No one claimed that an ice bullet was actually used.
And the throat wound is not what started it. Humes made it up to explain the shallow back wound.
> however, to an episode of Mythbusters in which an ice bullet was fired
> from a sort of a "gun," with underwhelming results. I think the problem
> was that it fragmented immediately upon being discharged, and hardly
> penetrated the target. Nearly all other matches were either of
Then you really didn't watch the episode. They produced two weapons, both of which fired ice bullets which penetrated into ballistics gel a couple of inches.
> references to a movie with "ice bullet" somewhere in the title, or "ice
> bullets," simply pieces of ice shaped rather like bullets, being used in
> cocktails.
Yes, if you search with Google there is no longer any easy way to remove the extraneous matches. Not even using "-movie" will do it.
In the old days there used to be a search engine which would allow you to use Boolean terms like AND OR NOT NEAR.
> On Sep 3, 10:58 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <dab45f00-73e5-4eef-89b7-d432641f3...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
>> Bud says...
>>> On Sep 1, 7:14=A0pm, John King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> As far as I am able to track down at this moment, the origin of a claim
>>>> similar to this seems to be from a document submitted to the HSCA by
>>>> Francis O'Neill, which was later designated by the ARRB as MD 47. =A0On p=
>>> age
>>>> 6 this is said:
>>>> **********
>>>> Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. =
>>> =A0A
>>>> general feeling existed during the autopsy that a soft-nosed bullet struc=
>>> k
>>>> JFK. =A0There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet co=
>>> uld
>>>> have been a "plastic type" or an "Ice" bullet, one which dissolves after
>>>> contact. =A0There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were
>>>> caused by the same kind of bullet.
>>>> I do not see O'Neill here attributing the speculation of an ice bullet
>>>> specifically to Humes. =A0In fact, he does not seem to attribute it even =
>>> to
>>>> the autopsists alone, as there were clearly others present besides the
>>>> three autopsists. =A0Instead, he described a "general feeling," as if thi=
>>> s
>>>> meant the majority of all persons present, and "discussion" that was not
>>>> necessarily initiated by any one particular person. =A0Is there some othe=
>>> r
>>>> original source that attributes the speculation of an ice bullet
>>>> specifically to Humes? =A0The reason I ask is that I am coming across cla=
>>> ims
>>>> here and elsewhere that it was Humes specifically who speculated this.
>>>> But I am unable to come across any direct quotation of the man himself in
>>>> his own words saying that he speculated about this at all during the
>>>> autopsy, nor have I yet seen any witness to the autopsy attribute this
>>>> speculation to Humes specifically by name.
>>>> Thanks.
>>> Ask Marsh, he has often attributed the claim of an ice bullet to
>>> Humes.
>> I wouldn't ask Marsh for anything. He is very often wrong. Now I don't
>> know anything about ice bullets but looks to me they would get pretty hot
>> going down the barrel and hot ice melts. I wouldn't think they had much
>> penetration ability either.
>> Do ice bullets really exist or is this just more crap?
>> Bill Clarke
> As I understand it the people conducting the autopsy were unaware
> that the tracheotomy incision in Kennedy`s throat was a bullet wound.
> So they had a wound they thought was a shallow bullet wound in the
> back with no bullet. This led to someone speculating that an ice
Yes, you are on the right track. Humes did not say it was an ice bullet. He speculated and wondered if such a thing was even possible. So he asked the FBI agent and about and the FBI agent called the FBI lab to ask them if such a thing was possible.
> bullet was used. Might have been a joke that O`Neill took as serious.
It was no joke. It was pure speculation to try to explain the the shallow back wound.
> In any case Marsh has taken it upon himself to attribute the idea of
> an ice bullet to Humes, but like a lot of his ideas he can`t support
> it. But it`s hard to imagine that there is anyone here that gives any
> weight to anything Marsh says by now anyway.
> > In article <dab45f00-73e5-4eef-89b7-d432641f3...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> > Bud says...
> >> On Sep 1, 7:14=A0pm, John King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> As far as I am able to track down at this moment, the origin of a claim
> >>> similar to this seems to be from a document submitted to the HSCA by
> >>> Francis O'Neill, which was later designated by the ARRB as MD 47. =A0On p=
> >> age
> >>> 6 this is said:
> >>> **********
> >>> Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. =
> >> =A0A
> >>> general feeling existed during the autopsy that a soft-nosed bullet struc=
> >> k
> >>> JFK. =A0There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet co=
> >> uld
> >>> have been a "plastic type" or an "Ice" bullet, one which dissolves after
> >>> contact. =A0There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were
> >>> caused by the same kind of bullet.
> >>> I do not see O'Neill here attributing the speculation of an ice bullet
> >>> specifically to Humes. =A0In fact, he does not seem to attribute it even =
> >> to
> >>> the autopsists alone, as there were clearly others present besides the
> >>> three autopsists. =A0Instead, he described a "general feeling," as if thi=
> >> s
> >>> meant the majority of all persons present, and "discussion" that was not
> >>> necessarily initiated by any one particular person. =A0Is there some othe=
> >> r
> >>> original source that attributes the speculation of an ice bullet
> >>> specifically to Humes? =A0The reason I ask is that I am coming across cla=
> >> ims
> >>> here and elsewhere that it was Humes specifically who speculated this.
> >>> But I am unable to come across any direct quotation of the man himself in
> >>> his own words saying that he speculated about this at all during the
> >>> autopsy, nor have I yet seen any witness to the autopsy attribute this
> >>> speculation to Humes specifically by name.
> >>> Thanks.
> >> Ask Marsh, he has often attributed the claim of an ice bullet to
> >> Humes.
> > I wouldn't ask Marsh for anything. He is very often wrong. Now I don't
> > know anything about ice bullets but looks to me they would get pretty hot
> > going down the barrel and hot ice melts. I wouldn't think they had much
> > penetration ability either.
> > Do ice bullets really exist or is this just more crap?
> > Bill Clarke
> Fun to guess, isn't it?
> Why do you refuse to watch the Mythbusters episode where they actually
> made them and fired them into targets?
The myth of ice bullets was busted by Mythbusters. Twice.
> This is not about whether ice bullets exist or if anyone had ever used
> them. This is only about how stupid Humes was to propose the idea that
> an ice bullet accounted the the shallow back wound.
> If you think the idea is impossible I suggest that you offer your neck
> as the target and tell me how it felt after I fire an ice bullet into
> your neck. Assuming you can still speak.
> Instead of ricin I'll use liquid Ibuprofen.
> > On Sep 3, 10:58 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> In article <dab45f00-73e5-4eef-89b7-d432641f3...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Bud says...
> >>> On Sep 1, 7:14=A0pm, John King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> As far as I am able to track down at this moment, the origin of a claim
> >>>> similar to this seems to be from a document submitted to the HSCA by
> >>>> Francis O'Neill, which was later designated by the ARRB as MD 47. =A0On p=
> >>> age
> >>>> 6 this is said:
> >>>> **********
> >>>> Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. =
> >>> =A0A
> >>>> general feeling existed during the autopsy that a soft-nosed bullet struc=
> >>> k
> >>>> JFK. =A0There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet co=
> >>> uld
> >>>> have been a "plastic type" or an "Ice" bullet, one which dissolves after
> >>>> contact. =A0There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were
> >>>> caused by the same kind of bullet.
> >>>> I do not see O'Neill here attributing the speculation of an ice bullet
> >>>> specifically to Humes. =A0In fact, he does not seem to attribute it even =
> >>> to
> >>>> the autopsists alone, as there were clearly others present besides the
> >>>> three autopsists. =A0Instead, he described a "general feeling," as if thi=
> >>> s
> >>>> meant the majority of all persons present, and "discussion" that was not
> >>>> necessarily initiated by any one particular person. =A0Is there some othe=
> >>> r
> >>>> original source that attributes the speculation of an ice bullet
> >>>> specifically to Humes? =A0The reason I ask is that I am coming across cla=
> >>> ims
> >>>> here and elsewhere that it was Humes specifically who speculated this.
> >>>> But I am unable to come across any direct quotation of the man himself in
> >>>> his own words saying that he speculated about this at all during the
> >>>> autopsy, nor have I yet seen any witness to the autopsy attribute this
> >>>> speculation to Humes specifically by name.
> >>>> Thanks.
> >>> Ask Marsh, he has often attributed the claim of an ice bullet to
> >>> Humes.
> >> I wouldn't ask Marsh for anything. He is very often wrong. Now I don't
> >> know anything about ice bullets but looks to me they would get pretty hot
> >> going down the barrel and hot ice melts. I wouldn't think they had much
> >> penetration ability either.
> > An ice bullet would have 1/11 of the kinetic energy of a equivalent MC
> > bullet. Ever worse the deceleration of the ice bullet would be 11 times
> > the deceleration of the equivalent MC bullet. This means that if air
> > friction slowed a MC bullet by 1 fps per foot then the ice bullet would
> > slow by 11 fps per foot. Under these conditions the ice bullet would be
> > subsonic at a 35-yard range.
> No one offered an ice bullet as an equivalent to a MC bullet.
> You don't even understand the concept of an ice bullet and you refused
> to watch the Mythbusters episode.
The statement, “An ice bullet would have 1/11 of the kinetic energy of a equivalent MC bullet.” refers to an ice bullet with the same shape, size and speed of a MC bullet and differs only by the explicitly stated characteristic of composition, which implies a difference in mass.
> On Sep 4, 7:35 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 9/4/2012 4:40 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>>> On Sep 3, 10:58 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <dab45f00-73e5-4eef-89b7-d432641f3...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Bud says...
>>>>> On Sep 1, 7:14=A0pm, John King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> As far as I am able to track down at this moment, the origin of a claim
>>>>>> similar to this seems to be from a document submitted to the HSCA by
>>>>>> Francis O'Neill, which was later designated by the ARRB as MD 47. =A0On p=
>>>>> age
>>>>>> 6 this is said:
>>>>>> **********
>>>>>> Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. =
>>>>> =A0A
>>>>>> general feeling existed during the autopsy that a soft-nosed bullet struc=
>>>>> k
>>>>>> JFK. =A0There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet co=
>>>>> uld
>>>>>> have been a "plastic type" or an "Ice" bullet, one which dissolves after
>>>>>> contact. =A0There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were
>>>>>> caused by the same kind of bullet.
>>>>>> I do not see O'Neill here attributing the speculation of an ice bullet
>>>>>> specifically to Humes. =A0In fact, he does not seem to attribute it even =
>>>>> to
>>>>>> the autopsists alone, as there were clearly others present besides the
>>>>>> three autopsists. =A0Instead, he described a "general feeling," as if thi=
>>>>> s
>>>>>> meant the majority of all persons present, and "discussion" that was not
>>>>>> necessarily initiated by any one particular person. =A0Is there some othe=
>>>>> r
>>>>>> original source that attributes the speculation of an ice bullet
>>>>>> specifically to Humes? =A0The reason I ask is that I am coming across cla=
>>>>> ims
>>>>>> here and elsewhere that it was Humes specifically who speculated this.
>>>>>> But I am unable to come across any direct quotation of the man himself in
>>>>>> his own words saying that he speculated about this at all during the
>>>>>> autopsy, nor have I yet seen any witness to the autopsy attribute this
>>>>>> speculation to Humes specifically by name.
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> Ask Marsh, he has often attributed the claim of an ice bullet to
>>>>> Humes.
>>>> I wouldn't ask Marsh for anything. He is very often wrong. Now I don't
>>>> know anything about ice bullets but looks to me they would get pretty hot
>>>> going down the barrel and hot ice melts. I wouldn't think they had much
>>>> penetration ability either.
>>> An ice bullet would have 1/11 of the kinetic energy of a equivalent MC
>>> bullet. Ever worse the deceleration of the ice bullet would be 11 times
>>> the deceleration of the equivalent MC bullet. This means that if air
>>> friction slowed a MC bullet by 1 fps per foot then the ice bullet would
>>> slow by 11 fps per foot. Under these conditions the ice bullet would be
>>> subsonic at a 35-yard range.
>> No one offered an ice bullet as an equivalent to a MC bullet.
>> You don't even understand the concept of an ice bullet and you refused
>> to watch the Mythbusters episode.
> The statement, �An ice bullet would have 1/11 of the kinetic energy of a
> equivalent MC bullet.� refers to an ice bullet with the same shape, size
> and speed of a MC bullet and differs only by the explicitly stated
> characteristic of composition, which implies a difference in mass.
> Herbert
Which is ridiculous on its face because no one proposed that. It is what is known in the trade as a Straw Man Argument. If you can't beat the argument as it stands change it to something which you can easily beat.
Why do you keep refusing to watch the Mythbusters epsisode? What are you so afraid of?
> On Sep 4, 12:34 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 9/3/2012 10:58 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <dab45f00-73e5-4eef-89b7-d432641f3...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Bud says...
>>>> On Sep 1, 7:14=A0pm, John King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> As far as I am able to track down at this moment, the origin of a claim
>>>>> similar to this seems to be from a document submitted to the HSCA by
>>>>> Francis O'Neill, which was later designated by the ARRB as MD 47. =A0On p=
>>>> age
>>>>> 6 this is said:
>>>>> **********
>>>>> Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. =
>>>> =A0A
>>>>> general feeling existed during the autopsy that a soft-nosed bullet struc=
>>>> k
>>>>> JFK. =A0There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet co=
>>>> uld
>>>>> have been a "plastic type" or an "Ice" bullet, one which dissolves after
>>>>> contact. =A0There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were
>>>>> caused by the same kind of bullet.
>>>>> I do not see O'Neill here attributing the speculation of an ice bullet
>>>>> specifically to Humes. =A0In fact, he does not seem to attribute it even =
>>>> to
>>>>> the autopsists alone, as there were clearly others present besides the
>>>>> three autopsists. =A0Instead, he described a "general feeling," as if thi=
>>>> s
>>>>> meant the majority of all persons present, and "discussion" that was not
>>>>> necessarily initiated by any one particular person. =A0Is there some othe=
>>>> r
>>>>> original source that attributes the speculation of an ice bullet
>>>>> specifically to Humes? =A0The reason I ask is that I am coming across cla=
>>>> ims
>>>>> here and elsewhere that it was Humes specifically who speculated this.
>>>>> But I am unable to come across any direct quotation of the man himself in
>>>>> his own words saying that he speculated about this at all during the
>>>>> autopsy, nor have I yet seen any witness to the autopsy attribute this
>>>>> speculation to Humes specifically by name.
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>> Ask Marsh, he has often attributed the claim of an ice bullet to
>>>> Humes.
>>> I wouldn't ask Marsh for anything. He is very often wrong. Now I don't
>>> know anything about ice bullets but looks to me they would get pretty hot
>>> going down the barrel and hot ice melts. I wouldn't think they had much
>>> penetration ability either.
>>> Do ice bullets really exist or is this just more crap?
>>> Bill Clarke
>> Fun to guess, isn't it?
>> Why do you refuse to watch the Mythbusters episode where they actually
>> made them and fired them into targets?
> The myth of ice bullets was busted by Mythbusters. Twice.
>> This is not about whether ice bullets exist or if anyone had ever used
>> them. This is only about how stupid Humes was to propose the idea that
>> an ice bullet accounted the the shallow back wound.
>> If you think the idea is impossible I suggest that you offer your neck
>> as the target and tell me how it felt after I fire an ice bullet into
>> your neck. Assuming you can still speak.
>> Instead of ricin I'll use liquid Ibuprofen.
In article <fe609daf-e791-4d19-bbbb-bc263fe96...@z4g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
> An ice bullet would have 1/11 of the kinetic energy of a equivalent MC > bullet. Ever worse the deceleration of the ice bullet would be 11 times > the deceleration of the equivalent MC bullet. This means that if air > friction slowed a MC bullet by 1 fps per foot then the ice bullet would > slow by 11 fps per foot. Under these conditions the ice bullet would be > subsonic at a 35-yard range.
Ah yes, physics, I love it. Mr. Blenner, you are da bomb in this area, as I've long thought. I am presuming that what you say above has something to do with the specific gravity of the water molecule when frozen?
> > Do ice bullets really exist or is this just more crap?
> Yes, hail driven by a tornado make ice bullets.
I would instead describe that as tornado-driven hail, period. YMMV.
On Sep 2, 8:43 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 9/1/2012 7:14 PM, John King wrote:
> You are so naive that you expect to find a signed confession from Humes?
> O'Neill's only job there was to write down what he HEARD Humes say, not
> to make up his own speculation.
I will break my long-standing practice to ignore you, Mr. Marsh, only
this once, and only because I am able to see your articles on Google
through which I am (ugh) currently posting, but thank goodness not on
my newsreader. You have just confirmed, yet again, that my 2005
decision to never again take you seriously was the correct one.
Are you so naive as to possibly believe that it is necessary to have
any such silly thing as a "signed confession" from Humes to have some
sort of confirmation of what he said? As you ought to have known
years (plural) before you posted that utterly ridiculous question, it
would obviously have been at least somewhat satisfactory for O'Neill
to have produced what he claimed to be a verbatim quote of Humes, or
even to attribute a paraphrased version to Humes by name. But O'Neill
did not do that in that document. Nothing about the ice bullet is
attributed by O'Neill to Humes specifically in that document. Since
O'Neill was quite obviously writing down what was said by more people
than just Humes, it was rather obviously not his "only" job, as you
have so erroneously claimed, to write down what he heard Humes say,
but rather to write down what he heard *anybody* at the autopsy say.
I will remind you, yet again, Mr. Marsh, why I put you on permanent
killfile on my newsreaders (by now on three different computers) in
2005, after first putting you on killfile for 30 days, then 60 days,
then 90 days. It never had anything at all to do with anything I have
ever seen you say about the JFK assassination itself. It had solely
to do with you claiming, over and over and over, that I had said
things I never said, and then ABSOLUTELY REFUSING, over and over and
over, to admit, even once, that you had made a single mistake even
AFTER I had quoted myself VERBATIM from my previous articles, proving
beyond all possible doubt that I had not said what you erroneously
claimed I said.
Now, everybody, watch this:
Mr. Marsh, I now challenge you to a REAL-LIFE debate, you and me, face
to face, in front of live witnesses, about the JFK assassination. It
is my suspicion that you will never, ever, ever agree to such a
debate, even though I *will* agree to such a debate, if I have the
money to travel to wherever the debate is held. Oh yes, I am once
again, after the posting of this article, going to start ignoring your
articles in this newsgroup or any other newsgroup again. But I guess
you know how to send an email. My email address, caeru...@yahoo.com,
displayed on the From line of all my articles, still continues to be
valid, just as it was valid in my first article to this newsgroup in
October, 2002, despite the unsuccessful attempt of another poster here
(not you) to have the address terminated by means of a false
complaint. Thus you know how to email me to arrange this debate.
Do be certain, Mr. Marsh, that in this live debate, if you agree to
it, I will bring up numerous examples of you claiming I said things I
never said, and numerous examples of you failing to admit your errors
when I pointed them out to you. I will also not be at all hesitant to
tell the audience that, if you refuse to admit your errors regarding
me personally, this might be indicative of you also refusing to admit
your errors regarding the JFK assassination.
(Watch everyone, he'll never, ever, ever agree to any live debate with
me. Rather obviously, it will be because he knows his credibility
will be catastrophically demolished in front of a live audience.)
> On Sep 1, 7:14 pm, John King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ask Marsh, he has often attributed the claim of an ice bullet to
> Humes.
Oh. It's you again. This is one of the handful of occasions that I
have read your articles since 2005, Bud, and only because I'm looking
on (ugh) Google Groups at the moment, and most times even when I do
look on Google Groups, I almost always skip right past your articles.
I find you to be absolutely no better than Marsh, ever since on
September 9, 2005, you said this to me:
**********
I will do everything I can to cause you to relapse. I think I`ll take
to naming you in everything I post. Maybe I`ll say things like
"Caeruleo says this..." or "Caeruleo thinks this...", even if you
never said or thought such things as I intend to relate. I have no
qualms regarding my credibility. I know what bait to use, we`ll see if
I can get you to bite. (that oughta be good for a killfiling).
**********
It certainly was good for a killfiling, Bud, a killfiling that has
lasted for almost seven years on three different computers. Not once
here, not once, have I ever threatened another poster that I would
claim the poster said things that were actually never said. You will
be helplessly unable to locate a single reply by my to you between
9-9-05 and today. Almost seven years later, have you reconsidered
your credibility? Are you ready to discuss the JFK assassination with
me again, finally? I am willing to at long last take you off killfile
on my newsreader program. But that depends on how you respond to
this.
Never once have I killfiled anyone because of anything they've ever
said about the JFK assassination itself, no matter what it was, no
matter how strongly I disagreed with it. But I have little tolerance
for people who make false claims about me personally, or even threaten
to make false claims, even when those threats are not actually carried
out, since I have not once made such a threat. The question that
immediately comes to my mind is this: if the person makes false claims
about me, or threatens to, how many false claims has the person made
about the assassination?
