Mannlicher-Carcano Velocity Issues
robcap...@netscape.com
attributed to a high-velocity bullet. We have one person, who claims
to be a CTer, arguing the 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano was a high-velocity
rifle. This is something I have NOT heard before. So let's look at
some claims this person would probably agree with. They come from
Gerald Posner and are refuted by James Fetzer.
Fallacy #3: page 104, lines 14 to 15:
Posner: "When the FBI ran Oswald's gun through a series of rigorous
shooting tests, it concluded 'it is a very accurate weapon'".
Lane's chapter provides a nice rebuttal, but Posner has apparently not
read it. Other sources provide the strongest confirmation of the
absurdity of any claims to accuracy on behalf of this weapon. Indeed,
as Summers, Conspiracy, pp. 46-47, observes, "The original Mannlicher-
Carcano [alleged to be Oswald's rifle] was an uncooperative piece of
evidence, as army experts discovered after the assassination. As a
spokesman put it, one of them 'had difficulty in opening the bolt in
his first firing exercise. . . ' He added that, as newcomers to the
weapon, 'The pressure to open the bolt was so great that we tended to
move the rifle off the target . . .' An assassin using the Mannlicher-
Carcano in Dealey Plaza may, of course, have known the quirks of his
weapon, but this account suggests the gun was hardly ideal for feats
of marksmanship." O'Toole reports the commission "also heard rifle
experts testify that the telescopic sight could be easily knocked out
of adjustment and that this would make accurate shooting with the gun
unlikely, that shims had to be inserted to elevate and move the sight
before the commission's three marksmen could fire the rifle
accurately, and that, even using stationary targets, expert marksmen
were unable to equal Oswald's alleged accuracy" (Assassination Tapes,
p. 27). No doubt Posner has not read them either. He thus commits a
nice example of the fallacy of equivocation: the tests were not done
with Oswald's rifle in its original condition, because it was a
terrible weapon. When he says "the FBI ran Oswald's gun through a
series of rigorous tests", it was a reconstructed weapon that was not
available to Oswald, so it is difficult to see how they concluded it
was accurate.
Fallacy #4: page 104, lines 15 to 17:
Posner: "It had a low kickback compared to other military rifles,
which helped in rapid bolt-action firing."
This is an outstanding case of special pleading, where you cite only
evidence favorable to your side and ignore the unfavorable. Kickback
is a function of recoil, which is determined by the amount of force
directly imparted to your shoulder with a shoulder-supported weapon.
That amount of force depends upon the caliber, weight, and charge of
the round. A more powerful bullet imparts greater recoil, a less
powerful bullet, less recoil, for weapons which can chamber both. Less
force, in general, produces less velocity, less penetration power, and
often less accuracy. (More detailed discussions may be found in
Fadala, Rifle Guide, pp. 38-41, for example, and Withers, Precision
Handloading, pp. 135-145). The "low kickback" of the Mannlicher-
Carcano thus indicates that it is a weapon of low penetrating power
and probably of low accuracy. There is a great deal of direct and
indirect evidence for these conclusions. Rice's Gun Data Book (1975),
p. 89, for example, characterizes a cartridge that is manufactured for
the Mannlicher-Carcano as follows:
6.5 Italian (Carcano). This cartridge, made by Norma** in a 156 grain
bullet, has the slowest muzzle velocity and weakest striking power of
any of the 6.5 mm imports, so it is not as popular as its Japanese,
German, or Swedish counterparts.
**Norma list the following speeds for the 6.5mm ammo by weight. IF
the bullet is 140 grain it will travel at 2224fps on average (note
speed also is reliant on barrel length and we know the alleged rifle
is A SHORT RIFLE meaning the barrel is only between 17"-24" long).
The 160 grain bullet, the type allegedly used by LHO, travels at
2067fps on average.
As I explained above, the ammunition that Oswald was alleged to have
used had not been manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company since
1944, so it is not surprising that a gun data book published in 1975
does not include it. However, since the bullet picked up from a
stretcher at Parkland Hospital is alleged to be of the same kind and
weighed 158.6 grains, the properties of the Norma and Western
cartridges are probably very similar. This inference is supported by
the muzzle velocities that are recorded for the Norma bullet:
Cartridge - Carcano
Wt. Grains -156
Type - SP
Velocity:
Muzzle - 2000
100 yds - 1810
200yds - 1640
SP means "soft point" as opposed to HP "hollow point", BP "bronze
point", etc. (Rice, Gun Data Book, p. 118). The bullets that hit JFK
are supposed to have been "copper jacketed". Since John Withers
observes that "high velocity is a relative term without exact
meaning" (Precision Handloading, p. 135), I looked for evidence
indicating that "high velocity" and "medium velocity" had an
essentially similar meaning around the time of the assassination.
Leyson's New Guns Annual (1961), p. 19, describes a 170 grain, .30/30
bullet which still has a velocity of 1890 fps at 100 yards as a
"heavier bullet of slower velocity" than the high velocity bullets he
has discussed, such as the Silver Tip 180 grain bullet with a velocity
of 2850 fps at 100 yards. Notice, especially, that this .30/30 bullet
is traveling faster than the Carcano bullet at 100 yards, yet is still
described as slower than high velocity. This strongly supports the
description of the Mannlicher-Carcano as a medium to low velocity
weapon in technical terms that have been constant since at least 1961.
As for "helping" with its bolt-action firing, see the discussion of
Fallacy #3.
So we see at 200 yds the muzzle velocity is just 1640 on average, and
keep in mind the head shot occured way past 200 yds. 1640 fps is by
NO means a high-velocity bullet and anyone who argues otherwise, Ben,
is a liar.
The complete article can be found here:
a1e...@verizon.net
wrote:
The range for the head shot was less than ninety yards.
Herbert
robc...@netscape.com
Herb -- YOU are are misleading as Ben!! It might have been 90 yards
from the FRONT, but we are discussing the claims of the WC and IF you
knew this theory you would know they themselves place the head shot as
being fired from a distance of 265.3 feet (R585).
Please learn the case before responding, or perhaps deception is your
goal.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
I was waiting to see if someone was stupid enough to make this argument. It
seems that I didn't have to wait very long.
Your proposal is because the impact velocity at a given distance is less than
the muzzle velocity, a rifle can NEVER be described as a "high velocity rifle"
unless the distance is *also* mentioned. For just as you describe a lower speed
with distance, there will also come a distance at which the speed is ZERO.
That means that ANY rifle can correctly be described as a "Zero Velocity Rifle".
But most people will immediately realize the stupidity of such a stance, and
understand that "high velocity rifle" can *ONLY* refer to the muzzle velocity,
and none other.
So the liar, even if only by sheer stupidity and lack of common sense, is you,
Rob.
>The complete article can be found here:
>
>http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
>
>On May 28, 10:36=A0am, a1ea...@verizon.net wrote:
>> On May 28, 1:12=A0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > This debate has come up due to the cause of death to JFK being
>> > to be a CTer, arguing the 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano was a high-velocity
>t
>> > some claims this person would probably agree with. =A0They come from
>> > NO means a high-velocity bullet and anyone who argues otherwise, Ben,
>> > is a liar.
>>
>> > The complete article can be found here:
>>
>> >http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html
>>
>> The range for the head shot was less than ninety yards.
>>
>> Herbert
>
>Herb -- YOU are are misleading as Ben!! It might have been 90 yards
>from the FRONT, but we are discussing the claims of the WC and IF you
>knew this theory you would know they themselves place the head shot as
>being fired from a distance of 265.3 feet (R585).
"265.3 feet" is 88.43 yards. Rather close to the 90 yards that Herbert tossed
out.
To put it another way, 4.7 feet separate your two measurements.
So tell us Rob - did you even understand that 3 feet equals one yard?
Do you stop to think before you respond?
>Please learn the case before responding, or perhaps deception is your
>goal.
Please take the time to think through your responses so that you don't
constantly look stupid on this forum.
bigdog
key component of recoil. The power of the bullet is just one factor.
Another is the weight of the gun. A heavier gun will absorb more
recoil than a lighter weapon. It simply takes more force to move a
heavier object than a lighter one. Recoil is the result of an equal
and opposite reaction to the firing of the bullet. That force propels
the gun backward in the opposite direction of the bullet. But if the
gun is heavy, less of that force will be transfered to the shooter. My
S&W .44 Magnum fires a much more powerful round than my lightweight
Glock 32C (.357 SIG) but the Glock has more recoil.
> goal.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Did you skip third grade arithmetic? Do you know how many feet are in
a yard?
Walt
> In article <eb7b1356-4684-41e3-8a33-8fd6f519c...@u8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
Ben,.... How can a stupid person keep from revealing their
stupidity?? Your answer will probably be:.... Keep their mouth shut
on subjects that they know little about..... and THAT is what a wise
man would do..... However, In addition to being very stupid, Rob can't
keep his mouth shut.... Hence he will keep displaying his stupidity
for the whole world to see, and he won't even know how stupid he
appears.
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Walt says...>> In article <eb7b1356-4684-41e3-8a33-8fd6f519c...@u8g2000yqn.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 28, 10:36=3DA0am, a1ea...@verizon.net wrote:
>> >> On May 28, 1:12=3DA0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.c=
>om>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> > This debate has come up due to the cause of death to JFK being
>laims
>> >> > to be a CTer, arguing the 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano was a high-veloci=
>ty
>> >> > rifle. =3DA0This is something I have NOT heard before. =3DA0So let's=
> look a=3D
>> >t
>> >> > some claims this person would probably agree with. =3DA0They come fr=
>om
>> >> > Gerald Posner and are refuted by James Fetzer.
>>
>> >> > Fallacy #3: page 104, lines 14 to 15:
>>
>> >> > Posner: "When the FBI ran Oswald's gun through a series of rigorous
>> >> > shooting tests, it concluded 'it is a very accurate weapon'".
>>
>ot
>> >> > read it. Other sources provide the strongest confirmation of the
>,
>> >> > as Summers, Conspiracy, pp. 46-47, observes, "The original Mannliche=
>r-
>> >> > Carcano [alleged to be Oswald's rifle] was an uncooperative piece of
>> >> > evidence, as army experts discovered after the assassination. As a
>> >> > spokesman put it, one of them 'had difficulty in opening the bolt in
>> >> > his first firing exercise. . . ' He added that, as newcomers to the
>o
>> >> > move the rifle off the target . . .' An assassin using the Mannliche=
>r-
>> >> > Carcano in Dealey Plaza may, of course, have known the quirks of his
>> >> > weapon, but this account suggests the gun was hardly ideal for feats
>> >> > of marksmanship." O'Toole reports the commission "also heard rifle
>t
>> >> > of adjustment and that this would make accurate shooting with the gu=
>n
>> >> > unlikely, that shims had to be inserted to elevate and move the sigh=
>t
>> >> > before the commission's three marksmen could fire the rifle
>> >> > accurately, and that, even using stationary targets, expert marksmen
>,
>> >> > p. 27). No doubt Posner has not read them either. He thus commits a
>> >> > nice example of the fallacy of equivocation: the tests were not done
>> >> > with Oswald's rifle in its original condition, because it was a
>> >> > terrible weapon. When he says "the FBI ran Oswald's gun through a
>t
>> >> > available to Oswald, so it is difficult to see how they concluded it
>> >> > was accurate.
>>
>> >> > Fallacy #4: page 104, lines 15 to 17:
>>
>> >> > Posner: "It had a low kickback compared to other military rifles,
>> >> > which helped in rapid bolt-action firing."
>>
>> >> > This is an outstanding case of special pleading, where you cite only
>> >> > evidence favorable to your side and ignore the unfavorable. Kickback
>> >> > is a function of recoil, which is determined by the amount of force
>> >> > directly imparted to your shoulder with a shoulder-supported weapon.
>> >> > That amount of force depends upon the caliber, weight, and charge of
>> >> > the round. A more powerful bullet imparts greater recoil, a less
>ss
>> >> > force, in general, produces less velocity, less penetration power, a=
>nd
>> >> > often less accuracy. (More detailed discussions may be found in
>> >> > Fadala, Rifle Guide, pp. 38-41, for example, and Withers, Precision
>> >> > Handloading, pp. 135-145). The "low kickback" of the Mannlicher-
>> >> > Carcano thus indicates that it is a weapon of low penetrating power
>> >> > and probably of low accuracy. There is a great deal of direct and
>,
>> >> > p. 89, for example, characterizes a cartridge that is manufactured f=
>or
>> >> > the Mannlicher-Carcano as follows:
>>
>n
>> >> > bullet, has the slowest muzzle velocity and weakest striking power o=
>f
>> >> > any of the 6.5 mm imports, so it is not as popular as its Japanese,
>> >> > German, or Swedish counterparts.
>>
> =3DA0I=3D
>> >F
>> >> > the bullet is 140 grain it will travel at 2224fps on average (note
>> >> > speed also is reliant on barrel length and we know the alleged rifle
>> >> > is A SHORT RIFLE meaning the barrel is only between 17"-24" long).
>> >> > The 160 grain bullet, the type allegedly used by LHO, travels at
>> >> > 2067fps on average.
>>
>> >> > As I explained above, the ammunition that Oswald was alleged to have
>e
>> >> > 1944, so it is not surprising that a gun data book published in 1975
>> >> > does not include it. However, since the bullet picked up from a
>> >> > stretcher at Parkland Hospital is alleged to be of the same kind and
>> >> > weighed 158.6 grains, the properties of the Norma and Western
>> >> > cartridges are probably very similar. This inference is supported by
>> >> > the muzzle velocities that are recorded for the Norma bullet:
>>
>> >> > Cartridge - Carcano
>> >> > Wt. Grains -156
>> >> > Type - SP
>> >> > Velocity:
>> >> > Muzzle - 2000
>> >> > 100 yds - 1810
>> >> > 200yds - 1640
>>
>> >> > SP means "soft point" as opposed to HP "hollow point", BP "bronze
>> >> > point", etc. (Rice, Gun Data Book, p. 118). The bullets that hit JFK
>> >> > are supposed to have been "copper jacketed". Since John Withers
>> >> > observes that "high velocity is a relative term without exact
>> >> > meaning" (Precision Handloading, p. 135), I looked for evidence
>> >> > indicating that "high velocity" and "medium velocity" had an
>> >> > essentially similar meaning around the time of the assassination.
>0
>> >> > bullet which still has a velocity of 1890 fps at 100 yards as a
>e
>> >> > has discussed, such as the Silver Tip 180 grain bullet with a veloci=
>ty
>> >> > of 2850 fps at 100 yards. Notice, especially, that this .30/30 bulle=
>t
>> >> > is traveling faster than the Carcano bullet at 100 yards, yet is sti=
>ll
>> >> > described as slower than high velocity. This strongly supports the
>> >> > description of the Mannlicher-Carcano as a medium to low velocity
>1.
>> >> > As for "helping" with its bolt-action firing, see the discussion of
>> >> > Fallacy #3.
>>
>d
>> >> > keep in mind the head shot occured way past 200 yds. =3DA01640 fps i=
>s by
>> >> > NO means a high-velocity bullet and anyone who argues otherwise, Ben=
>,
>> >> > is a liar.
>>
>> >> > The complete article can be found here:
>>
>> >> >http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html
>>
>> >> The range for the head shot was less than ninety yards.
>>
>> >> Herbert
>>
>> >Herb -- YOU are are misleading as Ben!! It might have been 90 yards
>> >from the FRONT, but we are discussing the claims of the WC and IF you
>> >knew this theory you would know they themselves place the head shot as
>> >being fired from a distance of 265.3 feet (R585).
>>
> tossed
>> out.
>>
>> To put it another way, 4.7 feet separate your two measurements.
>>
>> So tell us Rob - did you even understand that 3 feet equals one yard?
>>
>> Do you stop to think before you respond?
>>
>> >Please learn the case before responding, or perhaps deception is your
>> >goal.
>>
>> Please take the time to think through your responses so that you don't
>> constantly look stupid on this forum.
>
>Ben,.... How can a stupid person keep from revealing their
>stupidity?? Your answer will probably be:.... Keep their mouth shut
>on subjects that they know little about..... and THAT is what a wise
>man would do..... However, In addition to being very stupid, Rob can't
>keep his mouth shut.... Hence he will keep displaying his stupidity
>for the whole world to see, and he won't even know how stupid he
>appears.
Much of the time it's because he doesn't stop to think through an issue.
His silly nonsense about a "high velocity rifle" changing to a "medium velocity
rifle" because the bullet slows down the further it gets from the rifle.
By his logic, EVERY rifle is a "zero velocity rifle"... since the bullet
INVARIABLY will end up with no speed whatsoever in just a few seconds or less.
Or, as in this example, where Robsie can't figure out that someone is stating
yards instead of feet.
It's just sheer stupidity, and it doesn't need to be.
But, beware Walt... Robsie thinks I'm talking to myself right now.
robc...@netscape.com
> In article <f7a5e0bc-8159-40dc-bdde-ee5ed6412...@j18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
Go read "Smoking Gun #3" you are are always talking about Ben. Why
are you ARGUING AGAINST it now?
> Your proposal is because the impact velocity at a given distance is less than
> the muzzle velocity, a rifle can NEVER be described as a "high velocity rifle"
> unless the distance is *also* mentioned. For just as you describe a lower speed
> with distance, there will also come a distance at which the speed is ZERO.
Dance all you want Ben, the point is the 40" Carcano was NEVER a high-
velocity weapon, period. When we throw in the FACT the evidence YOUR
WC gave us we windup with a 36" Carbine to boot. NOW that is
certainly NOT a high-velocity weapon.
> That means that ANY rifle can correctly be described as a "Zero Velocity Rifle".
> But most people will immediately realize the stupidity of such a stance, and
> understand that "high velocity rifle" can *ONLY* refer to the muzzle velocity,
> and none other.
We are talking about ONE rifle and your INABILITY to show it is a high-
powered or high-velocity weapon. Why are you lying sooo much?
> So the liar, even if only by sheer stupidity and lack of common sense, is you,
> Rob.
LOL!! Hardly Ben, and we CTers on here finally see you for what you
are! YOU have gone way out on the "lying limb" to save the WC on
this topic and I'm sure it has been duly noted.
> >The complete article can be found here:
>
> >http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com
Hey Ben, using your Walt "ego" on this one?
Where has "Walt" been all this time?
robc...@netscape.com
> In article <eb7b1356-4684-41e3-8a33-8fd6f519c...@u8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Yes, my apologies to Herb on this one. He is correct.
> To put it another way, 4.7 feet separate your two measurements.
>
> So tell us Rob - did you even understand that 3 feet equals one yard?
>
> Do you stop to think before you respond?
My math skills are not always the best, I have admitted this before,
and sometimes I don't have time to stop and ponder all the info like
you Ben/Walt, as I actually have a life and a job. Sometimes I have
only a few minutes to respond or NOT respond at all, and IF I choose
the latter I will be called "a runner" by you. So either way I lose
sometimes. Oh well.
NONE of my math errors makes YOUR 6.5 M-C (Short rifle) a high-
velocity weapon either so you and "Walt" are trying to defend the WC
in a losing cause.
By going against Fetzer all you have done is shown your true colors.
robc...@netscape.com
> In article <4fd1191f-a23c-473e-8a81-2049ab772...@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
YOU are, and I guess Jim Fetzer, Harold Weisberg, Robert Groden,
Harrison Livingstone and others all don't "think things through
either", huh?
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
>
>On May 28, 10:24=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <4fd1191f-a23c-473e-8a81-2049ab772...@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.=>> >> In article <eb7b1356-4684-41e3-8a33-8fd6f519c...@u8g2000yqn.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >On May 28, 10:36=3D3DA0am, a1ea...@verizon.net wrote:
>> >> >> On May 28, 1:12=3D3DA0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netsc=
>ape.c=3D
>> >om>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > This debate has come up due to the cause of death to JFK being
>who c=3D
>> >laims
>> >> >> > to be a CTer, arguing the 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano was a high-vel=
>oci=3D
>> >ty
>> >> >> > rifle. =3D3DA0This is something I have NOT heard before. =3D3DA0S=
>o let's=3D
>> > look a=3D3D
>> >> >t
>> >> >> > some claims this person would probably agree with. =3D3DA0They co=
>me fr=3D
>> >om
>> >> >> > Gerald Posner and are refuted by James Fetzer.
>>
>> >> >> > Fallacy #3: page 104, lines 14 to 15:
>>
>us
>> >> >> > shooting tests, it concluded 'it is a very accurate weapon'".
>>
>y n=3D
>> >ot
>> >> >> > read it. Other sources provide the strongest confirmation of the
>eed=3D
>> >,
>> >> >> > as Summers, Conspiracy, pp. 46-47, observes, "The original Mannli=
>che=3D
>> >r-
>> >> >> > Carcano [alleged to be Oswald's rifle] was an uncooperative piece=
> of
>> >> >> > evidence, as army experts discovered after the assassination. As =
>a
>> >> >> > spokesman put it, one of them 'had difficulty in opening the bolt=
> in
>> >> >> > his first firing exercise. . . ' He added that, as newcomers to t=
>he
>> >> >> > weapon, 'The pressure to open the bolt was so great that we tende=
>d t=3D
>> >o
>> >> >> > move the rifle off the target . . .' An assassin using the Mannli=
>che=3D
>> >r-
>> >> >> > Carcano in Dealey Plaza may, of course, have known the quirks of =
>his
>> >> >> > weapon, but this account suggests the gun was hardly ideal for fe=
>ats
>> >> >> > of marksmanship." O'Toole reports the commission "also heard rifl=
>e
>> >> >> > experts testify that the telescopic sight could be easily knocked=
> ou=3D
>> >t
>> >> >> > of adjustment and that this would make accurate shooting with the=
> gu=3D
>> >n
>> >> >> > unlikely, that shims had to be inserted to elevate and move the s=
>igh=3D
>> >t
>> >> >> > before the commission's three marksmen could fire the rifle
>men
>> >> >> > were unable to equal Oswald's alleged accuracy" (Assassination Ta=
>pes=3D
>> >,
>> >> >> > p. 27). No doubt Posner has not read them either. He thus commits=
> a
>> >> >> > nice example of the fallacy of equivocation: the tests were not d=
>one
>> >> >> > with Oswald's rifle in its original condition, because it was a
>> >> >> > terrible weapon. When he says "the FBI ran Oswald's gun through a
> no=3D
>> >t
>> >> >> > available to Oswald, so it is difficult to see how they concluded=
> it
>> >> >> > was accurate.
>>
>> >> >> > Fallacy #4: page 104, lines 15 to 17:
>>
>> >> >> > Posner: "It had a low kickback compared to other military rifles,
>> >> >> > which helped in rapid bolt-action firing."
>>
>nly
>> >> >> > evidence favorable to your side and ignore the unfavorable. Kickb=
>ack
>> >> >> > is a function of recoil, which is determined by the amount of for=
>ce
>> >> >> > directly imparted to your shoulder with a shoulder-supported weap=
>on.
>> >> >> > That amount of force depends upon the caliber, weight, and charge=
> of
>> >> >> > the round. A more powerful bullet imparts greater recoil, a less
> Le=3D
>> >ss
>> >> >> > force, in general, produces less velocity, less penetration power=
>, a=3D
>> >nd
>> >> >> > often less accuracy. (More detailed discussions may be found in
>on
>> >> >> > Handloading, pp. 135-145). The "low kickback" of the Mannlicher-
>er
>> >> >> > and probably of low accuracy. There is a great deal of direct and
>75)=3D
>> >,
>> >> >> > p. 89, for example, characterizes a cartridge that is manufacture=
>d f=3D
>> >or
>> >> >> > the Mannlicher-Carcano as follows:
>>
>rai=3D
>> >n
>> >> >> > bullet, has the slowest muzzle velocity and weakest striking powe=
>r o=3D
>> >f
>> >> >> > any of the 6.5 mm imports, so it is not as popular as its Japanes=
>e,
>> >> >> > German, or Swedish counterparts.
>>
>> >> >> > =3D3DA0**Norma list the following speeds for the 6.5mm ammo by we=
>ight.=3D
>> > =3D3DA0I=3D3D
>> >> >F
>> >> >> > the bullet is 140 grain it will travel at 2224fps on average (not=
>e
>> >> >> > speed also is reliant on barrel length and we know the alleged ri=
>fle
>> >> >> > is A SHORT RIFLE meaning the barrel is only between 17"-24" long)=
>.
>> >> >> > The 160 grain bullet, the type allegedly used by LHO, travels at
>> >> >> > 2067fps on average.
>>
>ave
>> >> >> > used had not been manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company s=
>inc=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> > 1944, so it is not surprising that a gun data book published in 1=
>975
>> >> >> > does not include it. However, since the bullet picked up from a
>and
>> >> >> > weighed 158.6 grains, the properties of the Norma and Western
> by
>> >> >> > the muzzle velocities that are recorded for the Norma bullet:
>>
>> >> >> > Cartridge - Carcano
>> >> >> > Wt. Grains -156
>> >> >> > Type - SP
>> >> >> > Velocity:
>> >> >> > Muzzle - 2000
>> >> >> > 100 yds - 1810
>> >> >> > 200yds - 1640
>>
>> >> >> > SP means "soft point" as opposed to HP "hollow point", BP "bronze
>JFK
>> >> >> > are supposed to have been "copper jacketed". Since John Withers
>> >> >> > observes that "high velocity is a relative term without exact
>> >> >> > meaning" (Precision Handloading, p. 135), I looked for evidence
>> >> >> > indicating that "high velocity" and "medium velocity" had an
>> >> >> > essentially similar meaning around the time of the assassination.
>0/3=3D
>> >0
>> >> >> > bullet which still has a velocity of 1890 fps at 100 yards as a
>s h=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> > has discussed, such as the Silver Tip 180 grain bullet with a vel=
>oci=3D
>> >ty
>> >> >> > of 2850 fps at 100 yards. Notice, especially, that this .30/30 bu=
>lle=3D
>> >t
>> >> >> > is traveling faster than the Carcano bullet at 100 yards, yet is =
>sti=3D
>> >ll
>> >> >> > described as slower than high velocity. This strongly supports th=
>e
>> >> >> > description of the Mannlicher-Carcano as a medium to low velocity
>196=3D
>> >1.
>> >> >> > As for "helping" with its bolt-action firing, see the discussion =
>of
>> >> >> > Fallacy #3.
>>
>> >> >> > So we see at 200 yds the muzzle velocity is just 1640 on average,=
> an=3D
>> >d
>> >> >> > keep in mind the head shot occured way past 200 yds. =3D3DA01640 =
>fps i=3D
>> >s by
>> >> >> > NO means a high-velocity bullet and anyone who argues otherwise, =
>Ben=3D
>> >,
>> >> >> > is a liar.
>>
>> >> >> > The complete article can be found here:
>>
>> >> >> >http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html
>>
>> >> >> The range for the head shot was less than ninety yards.
>>
>> >> >> Herbert
>>
>> >> >Herb -- YOU are are misleading as Ben!! It might have been 90 yards
>> >> >from the FRONT, but we are discussing the claims of the WC and IF you
>s
>> >> >being fired from a distance of 265.3 feet (R585).
>>
>rbert=3D
>> > tossed
>> >> out.
>>
>> >> To put it another way, 4.7 feet separate your two measurements.
>>
>> >> So tell us Rob - did you even understand that 3 feet equals one yard?
>>
>> >> Do you stop to think before you respond?
>>
>> >> >Please learn the case before responding, or perhaps deception is your
>> >> >goal.
>>
>> >> Please take the time to think through your responses so that you don't
>> >> constantly look stupid on this forum.
>>
>> >Ben,.... How can a stupid person keep from revealing their
>ut
>> >on subjects that they know little about..... and THAT is what a wise
>> >man would do..... However, In addition to being very stupid, Rob can't
>> >keep his mouth shut.... Hence he will keep displaying his stupidity
>> >for the whole world to see, and he won't even know how stupid he
>> >appears.
>>
>> Much of the time it's because he doesn't stop to think through an issue.
>>
>locity
>> rifle" because the bullet slows down the further it gets from the rifle.
>>
>> By his logic, EVERY rifle is a "zero velocity rifle"... since the bullet
>less.
>>
>> Or, as in this example, where Robsie can't figure out that someone is sta=
>ting
>> yards instead of feet.
>>
>> It's just sheer stupidity, and it doesn't need to be.
>>
>> But, beware Walt... Robsie thinks I'm talking to myself right now.
>
>YOU are,
LOL! More stupidity...
>and I guess Jim Fetzer, Harold Weisberg, Robert Groden,
>Harrison Livingstone and others all don't "think things through
>either", huh?
Feel free to quote them on the "zero velocity rifle" issue.
But you won't.
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
>
>On May 28, 12:00=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <f7a5e0bc-8159-40dc-bdde-ee5ed6412...@j18g2000yql.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >This debate has come up due to the cause of death to JFK being
>> >to be a CTer, arguing the 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano was a high-velocity
>> >some claims this person would probably agree with. =A0They come from
>> >NO means a high-velocity bullet and anyone who argues otherwise, Ben,
>> >is a liar.
>>
>> I was waiting to see if someone was stupid enough to make this argument.
>> It seems that I didn't have to wait very long.
>
>Go read "Smoking Gun #3" you are are always talking about Ben. Why
>are you ARGUING AGAINST it now?
It fails to make the point you're now making. It makes the SAME logical error
that you have already made.
The truth doesn't need lies or misinformation to support it.
>> Your proposal is because the impact velocity at a given distance is less
>> than the muzzle velocity, a rifle can NEVER be described as a "high
>> velocity rifle" unless the distance is *also* mentioned. For just as you
>> describe a lower speed with distance, there will also come a distance at
>> which the speed is ZERO.
>
>Dance all you want Ben,
This is simple and irrefutable... hence you're now running from it.
>the point is the 40" Carcano was NEVER a high-
>velocity weapon, period.
And yet, I provided several citations that it *IS*, and you ran from 'em.
>When we throw in the FACT the evidence YOUR
>WC gave us we windup with a 36" Carbine to boot. NOW that is
>certainly NOT a high-velocity weapon.
When do you suppose that you'll get around to answering my citations, coward?
>> That means that ANY rifle can correctly be described as a "Zero Velocity
>> Rifle". But most people will immediately realize the stupidity of such a
>> stance, and understand that "high velocity rifle" can *ONLY* refer to
>> the muzzle velocity, and none other.
>
>We are talking about ONE rifle and your INABILITY to show it is a high-
>powered or high-velocity weapon. Why are you lying sooo much?
Already provided several citations, coward.
Now you refuse to defend your silly assertion that the description of a rifle's
"velocity" depends on the precise point of measurement.
>> So the liar, even if only by sheer stupidity and lack of common sense,
>> is you, Rob.
>
>LOL!! Hardly Ben, and we CTers on here finally see you for what you
>are! YOU have gone way out on the "lying limb" to save the WC on
>this topic and I'm sure it has been duly noted.
Perhaps we should change your name to "Robsie 'Zero Velocity' Caprio".
>> >The complete article can be found here:
>>
>> >http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html
Do you plan to continue running away from the two citations I provided on what a
"high velocity rifle" consists of?
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
>
>On May 28, 3:25=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> On 28 May, 14:06, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>s.com>,
>> > robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> > >On May 28, 10:36=3DA0am, a1ea...@verizon.net wrote:
>> > >> On May 28, 1:12=3DA0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape=
>.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > This debate has come up due to the cause of death to JFK being
> claims
>> > >> > to be a CTer, arguing the 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano was a high-velo=
>city
>> > >> > rifle. =3DA0This is something I have NOT heard before. =3DA0So let=
>'s look a=3D
>> > >t
>> > >> > some claims this person would probably agree with. =3DA0They come =
>from
>> > >> > Gerald Posner and are refuted by James Fetzer.
>>
>> > >> > Fallacy #3: page 104, lines 14 to 15:
>>
>s
>> > >> > shooting tests, it concluded 'it is a very accurate weapon'".
>>
> not
>> > >> > read it. Other sources provide the strongest confirmation of the
>ed,
>> > >> > as Summers, Conspiracy, pp. 46-47, observes, "The original Mannlic=
>her-
>> > >> > Carcano [alleged to be Oswald's rifle] was an uncooperative piece =
>of
>> > >> > evidence, as army experts discovered after the assassination. As a
>in
>> > >> > his first firing exercise. . . ' He added that, as newcomers to th=
>e
>> > >> > weapon, 'The pressure to open the bolt was so great that we tended=
> to
>> > >> > move the rifle off the target . . .' An assassin using the Mannlic=
>her-
>> > >> > Carcano in Dealey Plaza may, of course, have known the quirks of h=
>is
>> > >> > weapon, but this account suggests the gun was hardly ideal for fea=
>ts
>> > >> > of marksmanship." O'Toole reports the commission "also heard rifle
>out
>> > >> > of adjustment and that this would make accurate shooting with the =
>gun
>> > >> > unlikely, that shims had to be inserted to elevate and move the si=
>ght
>> > >> > before the commission's three marksmen could fire the rifle
>en
>> > >> > were unable to equal Oswald's alleged accuracy" (Assassination Tap=
>es,
>> > >> > p. 27). No doubt Posner has not read them either. He thus commits =
>a
>> > >> > nice example of the fallacy of equivocation: the tests were not do=
>ne
>> > >> > with Oswald's rifle in its original condition, because it was a
>> > >> > terrible weapon. When he says "the FBI ran Oswald's gun through a
>not
>> > >> > available to Oswald, so it is difficult to see how they concluded =
>it
>> > >> > was accurate.
>>
>> > >> > Fallacy #4: page 104, lines 15 to 17:
>>
>> > >> > Posner: "It had a low kickback compared to other military rifles,
>> > >> > which helped in rapid bolt-action firing."
>>
>ly
>> > >> > evidence favorable to your side and ignore the unfavorable. Kickba=
>ck
>> > >> > is a function of recoil, which is determined by the amount of forc=
>e
>> > >> > directly imparted to your shoulder with a shoulder-supported weapo=
>n.
>> > >> > That amount of force depends upon the caliber, weight, and charge =
>of
>> > >> > the round. A more powerful bullet imparts greater recoil, a less
>Less
>> > >> > force, in general, produces less velocity, less penetration power,=
> and
>> > >> > often less accuracy. (More detailed discussions may be found in
>n
>> > >> > Handloading, pp. 135-145). The "low kickback" of the Mannlicher-
>r
>> > >> > and probably of low accuracy. There is a great deal of direct and
>5),
>> > >> > p. 89, for example, characterizes a cartridge that is manufactured=
> for
>> > >> > the Mannlicher-Carcano as follows:
>>
>ain
>> > >> > bullet, has the slowest muzzle velocity and weakest striking power=
> of
>> > >> > any of the 6.5 mm imports, so it is not as popular as its Japanese=
>,
>> > >> > German, or Swedish counterparts.
>>
>t. =3DA0I=3D
>> > >F
>> > >> > the bullet is 140 grain it will travel at 2224fps on average (note
>le
>> > >> > is A SHORT RIFLE meaning the barrel is only between 17"-24" long).
>> > >> > The 160 grain bullet, the type allegedly used by LHO, travels at
>> > >> > 2067fps on average.
>>
>ve
>> > >> > used had not been manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company si=
>nce
>> > >> > 1944, so it is not surprising that a gun data book published in 19=
>75
>> > >> > does not include it. However, since the bullet picked up from a
>nd
>> > >> > weighed 158.6 grains, the properties of the Norma and Western
>by
>> > >> > the muzzle velocities that are recorded for the Norma bullet:
>>
>> > >> > Cartridge - Carcano
>> > >> > Wt. Grains -156
>> > >> > Type - SP
>> > >> > Velocity:
>> > >> > Muzzle - 2000
>> > >> > 100 yds - 1810
>> > >> > 200yds - 1640
>>
>> > >> > SP means "soft point" as opposed to HP "hollow point", BP "bronze
>FK
>> > >> > are supposed to have been "copper jacketed". Since John Withers
>> > >> > observes that "high velocity is a relative term without exact
>> > >> > meaning" (Precision Handloading, p. 135), I looked for evidence
>> > >> > indicating that "high velocity" and "medium velocity" had an
>> > >> > essentially similar meaning around the time of the assassination.
>/30
>> > >> > bullet which still has a velocity of 1890 fps at 100 yards as a
> he
>> > >> > has discussed, such as the Silver Tip 180 grain bullet with a velo=
>city
>> > >> > of 2850 fps at 100 yards. Notice, especially, that this .30/30 bul=
>let
>> > >> > is traveling faster than the Carcano bullet at 100 yards, yet is s=
>till
>> > >> > described as slower than high velocity. This strongly supports the
>> > >> > description of the Mannlicher-Carcano as a medium to low velocity
>961.
>> > >> > As for "helping" with its bolt-action firing, see the discussion o=
>f
>> > >> > Fallacy #3.
>>
>> > >> > So we see at 200 yds the muzzle velocity is just 1640 on average, =
>and
>> > >> > keep in mind the head shot occured way past 200 yds. =3DA01640 fps=
> is by
>> > >> > NO means a high-velocity bullet and anyone who argues otherwise, B=
>en,
>> > >> > is a liar.
>>
>> > >> > The complete article can be found here:
>>
>> > >> >http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html
>>
>> > >> The range for the head shot was less than ninety yards.
>>
>> > >> Herbert
>>
>> > >Herb -- YOU are are misleading as Ben!! It might have been 90 yards
>> > >from the FRONT, but we are discussing the claims of the WC and IF you
>> > >knew this theory you would know they themselves place the head shot as
>> > >being fired from a distance of 265.3 feet (R585).
>>
>rt tossed
>> > out.
>>
>> > To put it another way, 4.7 feet separate your two measurements.
>>
>> > So tell us Rob - did you even understand that 3 feet equals one yard?
>>
>> > Do you stop to think before you respond?
>>
>> > >Please learn the case before responding, or perhaps deception is your
>> > >goal.
>>
>> > Please take the time to think through your responses so that you don't
>> > constantly look stupid on this forum.
>>
>> Ben,.... How can a stupid person keep from revealing their
>t
>> on subjects that they know little about..... and THAT is what a wise
>> man would do..... However, In addition to being very stupid, Rob can't
>> keep his mouth shut.... Hence he will keep displaying his stupidity
>> for the whole world to see, and he won't even know how stupid he
>> appears.
>>
>
>Hey Ben, using your Walt "ego" on this one?
>
>Where has "Walt" been all this time?
What!!??
No retraction of your stupid error on distance?
Yet another illustration of not only how stupid you are, but how dishonest you
are.
All you had to say, Robsie, was "Sorry, my mind was thinking feet, and I didn't
notice the "yards" measurement."
But Noooooo.... you have to delve into more stupidity.
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
>
>On May 28, 12:06=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <eb7b1356-4684-41e3-8a33-8fd6f519c...@u8g2000yqn.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>> >On May 28, 10:36=3DA0am, a1ea...@verizon.net wrote:
>> >> On May 28, 1:12=3DA0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.c=
>om>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> > This debate has come up due to the cause of death to JFK being
>laims
>> >> > to be a CTer, arguing the 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano was a high-veloci=
>ty
>> >> > rifle. =3DA0This is something I have NOT heard before. =3DA0So let's=
> look a=3D
>> >> > some claims this person would probably agree with. =3DA0They come fr=
>om
>> >> > Gerald Posner and are refuted by James Fetzer.
>>
>> >> > Fallacy #3: page 104, lines 14 to 15:
>>
>> >> > Posner: "When the FBI ran Oswald's gun through a series of rigorous
>> >> > shooting tests, it concluded 'it is a very accurate weapon'".
>>
>ot
>> >> > read it. Other sources provide the strongest confirmation of the
>,
>> >> > as Summers, Conspiracy, pp. 46-47, observes, "The original Mannliche=
>r-
>> >> > Carcano [alleged to be Oswald's rifle] was an uncooperative piece of
>> >> > evidence, as army experts discovered after the assassination. As a
>> >> > spokesman put it, one of them 'had difficulty in opening the bolt in
>> >> > his first firing exercise. . . ' He added that, as newcomers to the
>o
>> >> > move the rifle off the target . . .' An assassin using the Mannliche=
>r-
>> >> > Carcano in Dealey Plaza may, of course, have known the quirks of his
>> >> > weapon, but this account suggests the gun was hardly ideal for feats
>> >> > of marksmanship." O'Toole reports the commission "also heard rifle
>t
>> >> > of adjustment and that this would make accurate shooting with the gu=
>n
>> >> > unlikely, that shims had to be inserted to elevate and move the sigh=
>t
>> >> > before the commission's three marksmen could fire the rifle
>> >> > accurately, and that, even using stationary targets, expert marksmen
>,
>> >> > p. 27). No doubt Posner has not read them either. He thus commits a
>> >> > nice example of the fallacy of equivocation: the tests were not done
>> >> > with Oswald's rifle in its original condition, because it was a
>> >> > terrible weapon. When he says "the FBI ran Oswald's gun through a
>t
>> >> > available to Oswald, so it is difficult to see how they concluded it
>> >> > was accurate.
>>
>> >> > Fallacy #4: page 104, lines 15 to 17:
>>
>> >> > Posner: "It had a low kickback compared to other military rifles,
>> >> > which helped in rapid bolt-action firing."
>>
>> >> > This is an outstanding case of special pleading, where you cite only
>> >> > evidence favorable to your side and ignore the unfavorable. Kickback
>> >> > is a function of recoil, which is determined by the amount of force
>> >> > directly imparted to your shoulder with a shoulder-supported weapon.
>> >> > That amount of force depends upon the caliber, weight, and charge of
>> >> > the round. A more powerful bullet imparts greater recoil, a less
>ss
>> >> > force, in general, produces less velocity, less penetration power, a=
>nd
>> >> > often less accuracy. (More detailed discussions may be found in
>> >> > Fadala, Rifle Guide, pp. 38-41, for example, and Withers, Precision
>> >> > Handloading, pp. 135-145). The "low kickback" of the Mannlicher-
>> >> > Carcano thus indicates that it is a weapon of low penetrating power
>> >> > and probably of low accuracy. There is a great deal of direct and
>,
>> >> > p. 89, for example, characterizes a cartridge that is manufactured f=
>or
>> >> > the Mannlicher-Carcano as follows:
>>
>n
>> >> > bullet, has the slowest muzzle velocity and weakest striking power o=
>f
>> >> > any of the 6.5 mm imports, so it is not as popular as its Japanese,
>> >> > German, or Swedish counterparts.
>>
> =3DA0I=3D
>> >F
>> >> > the bullet is 140 grain it will travel at 2224fps on average (note
>> >> > speed also is reliant on barrel length and we know the alleged rifle
>> >> > is A SHORT RIFLE meaning the barrel is only between 17"-24" long).
>> >> > The 160 grain bullet, the type allegedly used by LHO, travels at
>> >> > 2067fps on average.
>>
>> >> > As I explained above, the ammunition that Oswald was alleged to have
>e
>> >> > 1944, so it is not surprising that a gun data book published in 1975
>> >> > does not include it. However, since the bullet picked up from a
>> >> > stretcher at Parkland Hospital is alleged to be of the same kind and
>> >> > weighed 158.6 grains, the properties of the Norma and Western
>> >> > cartridges are probably very similar. This inference is supported by
>> >> > the muzzle velocities that are recorded for the Norma bullet:
>>
>> >> > Cartridge - Carcano
>> >> > Wt. Grains -156
>> >> > Type - SP
>> >> > Velocity:
>> >> > Muzzle - 2000
>> >> > 100 yds - 1810
>> >> > 200yds - 1640
>>
>> >> > SP means "soft point" as opposed to HP "hollow point", BP "bronze
>> >> > point", etc. (Rice, Gun Data Book, p. 118). The bullets that hit JFK
>> >> > are supposed to have been "copper jacketed". Since John Withers
>> >> > observes that "high velocity is a relative term without exact
>> >> > meaning" (Precision Handloading, p. 135), I looked for evidence
>> >> > indicating that "high velocity" and "medium velocity" had an
>> >> > essentially similar meaning around the time of the assassination.
>0
>> >> > bullet which still has a velocity of 1890 fps at 100 yards as a
>e
>> >> > has discussed, such as the Silver Tip 180 grain bullet with a veloci=
>ty
>> >> > of 2850 fps at 100 yards. Notice, especially, that this .30/30 bulle=
>t
>> >> > is traveling faster than the Carcano bullet at 100 yards, yet is sti=
>ll
>> >> > described as slower than high velocity. This strongly supports the
>> >> > description of the Mannlicher-Carcano as a medium to low velocity
>1.
>> >> > As for "helping" with its bolt-action firing, see the discussion of
>> >> > Fallacy #3.
>>
>d
>> >> > keep in mind the head shot occured way past 200 yds. =3DA01640 fps i=
>s by
>> >> > NO means a high-velocity bullet and anyone who argues otherwise, Ben=
>,
>> >> > is a liar.
>>
>> >> > The complete article can be found here:
>>
>> >> >http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html
>>
>> >> The range for the head shot was less than ninety yards.
>>
>> >> Herbert
>>
>> >Herb -- YOU are are misleading as Ben!! It might have been 90 yards
>> >from the FRONT, but we are discussing the claims of the WC and IF you
>> >knew this theory you would know they themselves place the head shot as
>> >being fired from a distance of 265.3 feet (R585).
>>
>> "265.3 feet" is 88.43 yards. Rather close to the 90 yards that Herbert
>> tossed out.
>
>Yes, my apologies to Herb on this one. He is correct.
In which case I owe you an apology for pointing out that this is all you needed
to do. Since I responded to your other post before seeing this one.
>> To put it another way, 4.7 feet separate your two measurements.
>>
>> So tell us Rob - did you even understand that 3 feet equals one yard?
>>
>> Do you stop to think before you respond?
>
>My math skills are not always the best, I have admitted this before,
>and sometimes I don't have time to stop and ponder all the info like
>you Ben/Walt, as I actually have a life and a job. Sometimes I have
>only a few minutes to respond or NOT respond at all, and IF I choose
>the latter I will be called "a runner" by you. So either way I lose
>sometimes. Oh well.
No-one would be bothered if you took an extra day, two days, a week or more to
respond correctly to a post.
It would certainly improve what people think of you around here if you stopped
making stupid errors all the time.
>NONE of my math errors makes YOUR 6.5 M-C (Short rifle) a high-
>velocity weapon either
And yet, I've provided two citations that show EXACTLY that - and you've refused
to respond to them, or even admit they exist.
Why is that, Robsie? Why does the evidence frighten you?
>so you and "Walt" are trying to defend the WC
>in a losing cause.
>
>By going against Fetzer all you have done is shown your true colors.
If Fetzer is wrong, he's wrong. It's just that simple. The idea that someone
has to 'fall in line' with a specific CT'er in order to be a CT'er is simply
silly. However, I'll keep this in mind the next time you assert ANYTHING
contrary to what Fetzer has stated.
Walt
Amazing!!.... Though not a direct admission that he often doesn't know
what he's talking about, Rob admits that he makes mistakes!!! The
problem is Rob, once you open your mouth and put your foot in it you
lack the honesty and integretity to quickly admit that you've made a
mistake. You'll drag the discussion miles away from the original
point in an effort to hide the fact that you've erred.
>
> NONE of my math errors makes YOUR 6.5 M-C (Short rifle) a high-
> velocity weapon either so you and "Walt" are trying to defend the WC
> in a losing cause.
>
> By going against Fetzer all you have done is shown your true colors.- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Walt says...>> On May 28, 12:06=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article <eb7b1356-4684-41e3-8a33-8fd6f519c...@u8g2000yqn.googlegroup=
>s.com>,
>> > robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> > >On May 28, 10:36=3DA0am, a1ea...@verizon.net wrote:
>> > >> On May 28, 1:12=3DA0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape=
>.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > This debate has come up due to the cause of death to JFK being
>> > >> > to be a CTer, arguing the 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano was a high-velo=
>city
>> > >> > rifle. =3DA0This is something I have NOT heard before. =3DA0So let=
>'s look a=3D
>> > >> > some claims this person would probably agree with. =3DA0They come =
>from
>> > >> > Gerald Posner and are refuted by James Fetzer.
>>
>> > >> > Fallacy #3: page 104, lines 14 to 15:
>>
>s
>> > >> > shooting tests, it concluded 'it is a very accurate weapon'".
>>
> not
>> > >> > read it. Other sources provide the strongest confirmation of the
>ed,
>> > >> > as Summers, Conspiracy, pp. 46-47, observes, "The original Mannlic=
>her-
>> > >> > Carcano [alleged to be Oswald's rifle] was an uncooperative piece =
>of
>> > >> > evidence, as army experts discovered after the assassination. As a
>in
>> > >> > his first firing exercise. . . ' He added that, as newcomers to th=
>e
>> > >> > weapon, 'The pressure to open the bolt was so great that we tended=
> to
>> > >> > move the rifle off the target . . .' An assassin using the Mannlic=
>her-
>> > >> > Carcano in Dealey Plaza may, of course, have known the quirks of h=
>is
>> > >> > weapon, but this account suggests the gun was hardly ideal for fea=
>ts
>> > >> > of marksmanship." O'Toole reports the commission "also heard rifle
>out
>> > >> > of adjustment and that this would make accurate shooting with the =
>gun
>> > >> > unlikely, that shims had to be inserted to elevate and move the si=
>ght
>> > >> > before the commission's three marksmen could fire the rifle
>en
>> > >> > were unable to equal Oswald's alleged accuracy" (Assassination Tap=
>es,
>> > >> > p. 27). No doubt Posner has not read them either. He thus commits =
>a
>> > >> > nice example of the fallacy of equivocation: the tests were not do=
>ne
>> > >> > with Oswald's rifle in its original condition, because it was a
>> > >> > terrible weapon. When he says "the FBI ran Oswald's gun through a
>not
>> > >> > available to Oswald, so it is difficult to see how they concluded =
>it
>> > >> > was accurate.
>>
>> > >> > Fallacy #4: page 104, lines 15 to 17:
>>
>> > >> > Posner: "It had a low kickback compared to other military rifles,
>> > >> > which helped in rapid bolt-action firing."
>>
>ly
>> > >> > evidence favorable to your side and ignore the unfavorable. Kickba=
>ck
>> > >> > is a function of recoil, which is determined by the amount of forc=
>e
>> > >> > directly imparted to your shoulder with a shoulder-supported weapo=
>n.
>> > >> > That amount of force depends upon the caliber, weight, and charge =
>of
>> > >> > the round. A more powerful bullet imparts greater recoil, a less
>Less
>> > >> > force, in general, produces less velocity, less penetration power,=
> and
>> > >> > often less accuracy. (More detailed discussions may be found in
>n
>> > >> > Handloading, pp. 135-145). The "low kickback" of the Mannlicher-
>r
>> > >> > and probably of low accuracy. There is a great deal of direct and
>5),
>> > >> > p. 89, for example, characterizes a cartridge that is manufactured=
> for
>> > >> > the Mannlicher-Carcano as follows:
>>
>ain
>> > >> > bullet, has the slowest muzzle velocity and weakest striking power=
> of
>> > >> > any of the 6.5 mm imports, so it is not as popular as its Japanese=
>,
>> > >> > German, or Swedish counterparts.
>>
>t. =3DA0I=3D
>> > >F
>> > >> > the bullet is 140 grain it will travel at 2224fps on average (note
>le
>> > >> > is A SHORT RIFLE meaning the barrel is only between 17"-24" long).
>> > >> > The 160 grain bullet, the type allegedly used by LHO, travels at
>> > >> > 2067fps on average.
>>
>ve
>> > >> > used had not been manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company si=
>nce
>> > >> > 1944, so it is not surprising that a gun data book published in 19=
>75
>> > >> > does not include it. However, since the bullet picked up from a
>nd
>> > >> > weighed 158.6 grains, the properties of the Norma and Western
>by
>> > >> > the muzzle velocities that are recorded for the Norma bullet:
>>
>> > >> > Cartridge - Carcano
>> > >> > Wt. Grains -156
>> > >> > Type - SP
>> > >> > Velocity:
>> > >> > Muzzle - 2000
>> > >> > 100 yds - 1810
>> > >> > 200yds - 1640
>>
>> > >> > SP means "soft point" as opposed to HP "hollow point", BP "bronze
>FK
>> > >> > are supposed to have been "copper jacketed". Since John Withers
>> > >> > observes that "high velocity is a relative term without exact
>> > >> > meaning" (Precision Handloading, p. 135), I looked for evidence
>> > >> > indicating that "high velocity" and "medium velocity" had an
>> > >> > essentially similar meaning around the time of the assassination.
>/30
>> > >> > bullet which still has a velocity of 1890 fps at 100 yards as a
> he
>> > >> > has discussed, such as the Silver Tip 180 grain bullet with a velo=
>city
>> > >> > of 2850 fps at 100 yards. Notice, especially, that this .30/30 bul=
>let
>> > >> > is traveling faster than the Carcano bullet at 100 yards, yet is s=
>till
>> > >> > described as slower than high velocity. This strongly supports the
>> > >> > description of the Mannlicher-Carcano as a medium to low velocity
>961.
>> > >> > As for "helping" with its bolt-action firing, see the discussion o=
>f
>> > >> > Fallacy #3.
>>
>> > >> > So we see at 200 yds the muzzle velocity is just 1640 on average, =
>and
>> > >> > keep in mind the head shot occured way past 200 yds. =3DA01640 fps=
> is by
>> > >> > NO means a high-velocity bullet and anyone who argues otherwise, B=
>en,
>> > >> > is a liar.
>>
>> > >> > The complete article can be found here:
>>
>> > >> >http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html
>>
>> > >> The range for the head shot was less than ninety yards.
>>
>> > >> Herbert
>>
>> > >Herb -- YOU are are misleading as Ben!! It might have been 90 yards
>> > >from the FRONT, but we are discussing the claims of the WC and IF you
>> > >knew this theory you would know they themselves place the head shot as
>> > >being fired from a distance of 265.3 feet (R585).
>>
>rt tossed
>> > out.
>>
>> Yes, my apologies to Herb on this one. He is correct.
>>
>> > To put it another way, 4.7 feet separate your two measurements.
>>
>> > So tell us Rob - did you even understand that 3 feet equals one yard?
>>
>> > Do you stop to think before you respond?
>>
>> My math skills are not always the best, I have admitted this before,
>> and sometimes I don't have time to stop and ponder all the info like
>> only a few minutes to respond or NOT respond at all, and IF I choose
>> sometimes. =A0Oh well.
>
>Amazing!!.... Though not a direct admission that he often doesn't know
>what he's talking about, Rob admits that he makes mistakes!!! The
>problem is Rob, once you open your mouth and put your foot in it you
>lack the honesty and integretity to quickly admit that you've made a
>mistake. You'll drag the discussion miles away from the original
>point in an effort to hide the fact that you've erred.
His latest error is the "Zero Velocity Rifle" issue. His decision to
arbitrarily decide that velocity must be measured at some specified distance
from the rifle, rather than muzzle velocity.
EVERY rifle exhibits "zero velocity" a few seconds later... so EVERY rifle is a
"zero velocity rifle".
>> NONE of my math errors makes YOUR 6.5 M-C (Short rifle) a high-
>> velocity weapon either so you and "Walt" are trying to defend the WC
>> in a losing cause.
>>
>> By going against Fetzer all you have done is shown your true colors.- Hid=
>e quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
Brokedad
TOP POST!
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm
Mr. EISENBERG - Have you tested Commission Exhibit 139 with the type
of ammunition you have been looking at to determine the muzzle
velocity of that type of ammunition in this weapon?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. The tests were run to determine the muzzle
velocity of this rifle, using this ammunition, at the Naval Research
Laboratory in Washington, D.C., on December 2, 1963, using two
different lots of ammunition--Lot No. 6,000 and Lot No. 6,003.
I might point out that there were four lots of ammunition manufactured
by the Western Cartridge Co., only two of which are available.
Mr. EISENBERG - Can you give the results?
Mr. FRAZIER - Possibly I can give the results shot by shot, so the
record will show each one, and then give an average for them.
Mr. EISENBERG - Fine.
Mr. FRAZIER - The first shot, Lot 6,000, the velocity was 2199.7 feet
per second.
Shot No. 2, Lot 6,000, velocity 2,180.3 feet per second.
The third shot, velocity--same lot--velocity 2,178.9 feet per second.
The third shot, velocity--and this is Lot No. 6,003--velocity was
2,184.8 feet per second.
The fourth shot, Lot No. 6,003, was 2,137.6 feet per second.
Fifth shot, Lot No. 6,000, 2,162.7 feet per second.
The sixth shot, Lot 6,003, 2,134.8 feet per second.
An average of all shots of 2,165 feet per second.
Mr. EISENBERG - Have you calculated the muzzle energy of this 6.5
millimeter ammunition in this weapon?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was furnished by letter to the Commission. Yes, sir--
the muzzle energy was calculated on the basis of the average velocity
of 2,165 feet per second as 1,676 foot-pounds.
Mr. EISENBERG - This is a calculation rather than a measurement?
Mr. FRAZIER - Necessarily a calculation, because it is merely a term
used to compare one bullet against another rather than for any
practical purposes because--because of the bullet's extremely light
weight. The bullet's velocity and weight, and gravity enter into the
determination of its energy in foot-pounds.
==============================================================
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNBLST.html
It is difficult in practice to measure the forces within a gun barrel,
but the one easily measured parameter is the velocity with which the
bullet exits the barrel (muzzle velocity) and this is what will be
used in examples below.
Bullet velocity and mass will affect the nature of wounding. Velocity
is classified as low (<1000 fps), medium (1000 to 2000 fps), and high
(>2000 fps). (Wilson, 1977)
===============================================================
OHHHH! That was sooooo difficult to figure out!
On May 28, 10:12�am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
wrote:
tomnln
Amazing!!.... Though not a direct admission that he often doesn't know
what he's talking about, Rob admits that he makes mistakes!!! The
problem is Rob, once you open your mouth and put your foot in it you
lack the honesty and integretity to quickly admit that you've made a
mistake. You'll drag the discussion miles away from the original
point in an effort to hide the fact that you've erred.
Walt never proved that the rifle
in CE-133A had "Dual Sling Mounts".
Walt never proved that LHO worked
for RFK.
Walt never proved that General Walker called Germany.
Walt never proved
Mike Paine gave the DPD a copy of the CE-133A photo
on
11/22/63.
Walt never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's
car
(allegedly LHO's).
Walt never proved Michael Paine had
same model rifle as LHO (Carcano
40").
Walt never proved
General Walker believed LHO shot at him in 4/63.
Walt never proved that
Capt. O A Jones said LHO shot AT General Walker
in 4/63.
Walt
never proved LHO received a 40" Carcano rifle.
Walt never proved that
the bill of lading proved a 40" Carcano was
ordered by
LHO.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO shot at General Walker in
4/63.
Walt never proved that LHO ordered a 40" Carcano
rifle.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO altered his OWN chin in
CE-133A.
Walt never proved his claim that a 6.5mm was fired from a
"sabot".
Walt never proved his claim that the CIA was going to "rescue
LHO."
Walt never proved there was a clip inside the Carcano when it
was
found at the TSBD.
Walt never proved LHO ordered a rifle
that was easily traceable so he
could shoot at Gen. Walker with
it.
Walt never proved Marcello was a "payroll runner" for
RFK.
Walt never proved that Truly held a "roll call" and LHO was the
ONLY
one missing.
Walt never proved the casings found at the
TSBD (6.5mm ammo) came from a
Marine Corps order for the
CIA.
Walt never proved DeMohrenschildt actually owned the 40"
Carcano
allegedly ordered from Klein's.
Walt never proved that
the bullet recovered from Walker shooting
was
copper-jacketed.
Walt never proved 133A (deMohrenschildt
BY photo) came from the SAME
negative as CE-133A.
Walt never
proved LHO went to Mexico
City in Sept./Oct. 1963.
Walt never proved his
claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
11/22/63.
Walt
never proved that George DeMohrenschildt purchased the money
order used
allegedly for the Carcano rifle order.
Walt never proved Marina did in fact take
CE-133A (backyard photo),
and it is AUTHENTIC.
Walt never
proved Fritz was just sloppy when timing the arrest report
ELEVEN
minutes BEFORE LHO was arrested.
Walt never proved the weight listed on
the "Bill of lading" was TARE
weight.
Walt never proved the
weight of the 40" Carcano is 7.5LBS when the ad
the WC used says
7.0LBS.
Walt never proved a "signed affadavit with a notary seal"
signed by
the LHO saying he was going to hijack a plane and make the
pilot fly
him to Cuba EVER existed.
Walt never proved the
rifle found on the roof was a DPD shotgun and
NOT a Mauser as the
Mentesana film shows.
Walt said Mausers are NOT stamped on the
barrel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ø
Saaaaaaaaaaaaay, Aren't you the guy who said Marina had a "folded" photo of
Walker's back Yard hidden in her Shoe???
robc...@netscape.com
Of course NOT when you LEAVE OUT other things! I guess "Brokedad"
missed this part:
"The Commission asserts that the fatal shot was fired at a distance
of 270 feet (R585). Although the Report gives the average striking
velocity of the bullets fired from "Oswald's" rifle at other distances
as measured during the wound ballistics tests, it does not record the
velocity for the head shot tests at the proper distance. At 210 feet,
the average striking velocity was 1,858 feet per second (R584). Dr.
Fillinger told me that he would consider an impact velocity of 2,000
f.p.s. "medium."[Fillinger Interview.] Even Dr. Malcolm Perry of
Parkland Hospital testified that he considered the Mannlicher-Carcano
"a medium velocity weapon" (3H389). FBI ballistics expert Robert
Frazier called the velocity "low" (3H414) although this would appear
more of a comparative evaluation than an absolute statement, since
bullets can be fired as slowly as 800 f.p.s. or as fast as 4,100
f.p.s."
Howard Roffman -- Presumed Guilty
Please explain how the STRKING VELOCITY of 1858f.p.s. is high
velocity. Keep in mind that this was recorded at 210 feet and we know
the WC later says JFK was struck at 265.3 feet so even this number is
high.
Based on your own numbers, 2000 f.p.s or greater = high velocity,
please explain how 1858 f.p.s., or lower in all liklihood, IS HIGH
VELOCITY????
This is the same lying claim Bendsie/Walt has made.
> >http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html- Hide quoted text -
robc...@netscape.com
Hey Walt/Bendsie/John McAdams,
I made a mistake that does NOT alter one iota the truth. The truth is
the WC said the stricking force at impact was 1858 f.p.s. (calculated
at 210 feet when in fact JFK was hit at 265.3 per THEIR OWN ADMISSION)
and YOUR OWN cites (under your Bendsie alias) show only 2000 f.p.s. or
higher is high velocity. Game over liar.
> > NONE of my math errors makes YOUR 6.5 M-C (Short rifle) a high-
> > velocity weapon either so you and "Walt" are trying to defend the WC
> > in a losing cause.
>
> > By going against Fetzer all you have done is shown your true colors.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robc...@netscape.com
> In article <ed892342-2bef-49e9-b77d-4f8aa2950...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Sorry Bendsie/Walt/John McAdams YOUR latest error proves you are a
liar. Thanks! 1858 f.p.s., and it would be lower given the
ADDITIONAL 55.3 feet, does NOT equal 2000 f.p.s. or HIGHER, now does
it? Next?
> >> NONE of my math errors makes YOUR 6.5 M-C (Short rifle) a high-
> >> velocity weapon either so you and "Walt" are trying to defend the WC
> >> in a losing cause.
>
> >> By going against
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Jun 2, 6:23=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <ed892342-2bef-49e9-b77d-4f8aa2950...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups=>> >> On May 28, 12:06=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > In article <eb7b1356-4684-41e3-8a33-8fd6f519c...@u8g2000yqn.googlegr=
>oup=3D
>> >s.com>,
>> >> > robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> > >On May 28, 10:36=3D3DA0am, a1ea...@verizon.net wrote:
>> >> > >> On May 28, 1:12=3D3DA0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@net=
>scape=3D
>> >.com>
>> >> > >> wrote:
>>
>> >> > >> > This debate has come up due to the cause of death to JFK being
>, who=3D
>> > claims
>> >> > >> > to be a CTer, arguing the 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano was a high-v=
>elo=3D
>> >city
>> >> > >> > rifle. =3D3DA0This is something I have NOT heard before. =3D3DA=
>0So let=3D
>> >'s look a=3D3D
>> >> > >t
>> >> > >> > some claims this person would probably agree with. =3D3DA0They =
>come =3D
>> >from
>> >> > >> > Gerald Posner and are refuted by James Fetzer.
>>
>> >> > >> > Fallacy #3: page 104, lines 14 to 15:
>>
>rou=3D
>> >s
>> >> > >> > shooting tests, it concluded 'it is a very accurate weapon'".
>>
>tly=3D
>> > not
>> >> > >> > read it. Other sources provide the strongest confirmation of th=
>e
>> >> > >> > absurdity of any claims to accuracy on behalf of this weapon. I=
>nde=3D
>> >ed,
>> >> > >> > as Summers, Conspiracy, pp. 46-47, observes, "The original Mann=
>lic=3D
>> >her-
>> >> > >> > Carcano [alleged to be Oswald's rifle] was an uncooperative pie=
>ce =3D
>> >of
>> >> > >> > evidence, as army experts discovered after the assassination. A=
>s a
>> >> > >> > spokesman put it, one of them 'had difficulty in opening the bo=
>lt =3D
>> >in
>> >> > >> > his first firing exercise. . . ' He added that, as newcomers to=
> th=3D
>> >e
>> >> > >> > weapon, 'The pressure to open the bolt was so great that we ten=
>ded=3D
>> > to
>> >> > >> > move the rifle off the target . . .' An assassin using the Mann=
>lic=3D
>> >her-
>> >> > >> > Carcano in Dealey Plaza may, of course, have known the quirks o=
>f h=3D
>> >is
>> >> > >> > weapon, but this account suggests the gun was hardly ideal for =
>fea=3D
>> >ts
>> >> > >> > of marksmanship." O'Toole reports the commission "also heard ri=
>fle
>> >> > >> > experts testify that the telescopic sight could be easily knock=
>ed =3D
>> >out
>> >> > >> > of adjustment and that this would make accurate shooting with t=
>he =3D
>> >gun
>> >> > >> > unlikely, that shims had to be inserted to elevate and move the=
> si=3D
>> >ght
>> >> > >> > before the commission's three marksmen could fire the rifle
>ksm=3D
>> >en
>> >> > >> > were unable to equal Oswald's alleged accuracy" (Assassination =
>Tap=3D
>> >es,
>> >> > >> > p. 27). No doubt Posner has not read them either. He thus commi=
>ts =3D
>> >a
>> >> > >> > nice example of the fallacy of equivocation: the tests were not=
> do=3D
>> >ne
>> >> > >> > with Oswald's rifle in its original condition, because it was a
> a
>> >> > >> > series of rigorous tests", it was a reconstructed weapon that w=
>as =3D
>> >not
>> >> > >> > available to Oswald, so it is difficult to see how they conclud=
>ed =3D
>> >it
>> >> > >> > was accurate.
>>
>> >> > >> > Fallacy #4: page 104, lines 15 to 17:
>>
>s,
>> >> > >> > which helped in rapid bolt-action firing."
>>
> on=3D
>> >ly
>> >> > >> > evidence favorable to your side and ignore the unfavorable. Kic=
>kba=3D
>> >ck
>> >> > >> > is a function of recoil, which is determined by the amount of f=
>orc=3D
>> >e
>> >> > >> > directly imparted to your shoulder with a shoulder-supported we=
>apo=3D
>> >n.
>> >> > >> > That amount of force depends upon the caliber, weight, and char=
>ge =3D
>> >of
>> >> > >> > the round. A more powerful bullet imparts greater recoil, a les=
>s
>> >> > >> > powerful bullet, less recoil, for weapons which can chamber bot=
>h. =3D
>> >Less
>> >> > >> > force, in general, produces less velocity, less penetration pow=
>er,=3D
>> > and
>> >> > >> > often less accuracy. (More detailed discussions may be found in
>sio=3D
>> >n
>> >> > >> > Handloading, pp. 135-145). The "low kickback" of the Mannlicher=
>-
>> >> > >> > Carcano thus indicates that it is a weapon of low penetrating p=
>owe=3D
>> >r
>> >> > >> > and probably of low accuracy. There is a great deal of direct a=
>nd
>> >> > >> > indirect evidence for these conclusions. Rice's Gun Data Book (=
>197=3D
>> >5),
>> >> > >> > p. 89, for example, characterizes a cartridge that is manufactu=
>red=3D
>> > for
>> >> > >> > the Mannlicher-Carcano as follows:
>>
> gr=3D
>> >ain
>> >> > >> > bullet, has the slowest muzzle velocity and weakest striking po=
>wer=3D
>> > of
>> >> > >> > any of the 6.5 mm imports, so it is not as popular as its Japan=
>ese=3D
>> >,
>> >> > >> > German, or Swedish counterparts.
>>
>weigh=3D
>> >t. =3D3DA0I=3D3D
>> >> > >F
>> >> > >> > the bullet is 140 grain it will travel at 2224fps on average (n=
>ote
>> >> > >> > speed also is reliant on barrel length and we know the alleged =
>rif=3D
>> >le
>> >> > >> > is A SHORT RIFLE meaning the barrel is only between 17"-24" lon=
>g).
>> >> > >> > The 160 grain bullet, the type allegedly used by LHO, travels a=
>t
>> >> > >> > 2067fps on average.
>>
>> >> > >> > As I explained above, the ammunition that Oswald was alleged to=
> ha=3D
>> >ve
>> >> > >> > used had not been manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company=
> si=3D
>> >nce
>> >> > >> > 1944, so it is not surprising that a gun data book published in=
> 19=3D
>> >75
>> >> > >> > does not include it. However, since the bullet picked up from a
>d a=3D
>> >nd
>> >> > >> > weighed 158.6 grains, the properties of the Norma and Western
>ed =3D
>> >by
>> >> > >> > the muzzle velocities that are recorded for the Norma bullet:
>>
>> >> > >> > Cartridge - Carcano
>> >> > >> > Wt. Grains -156
>> >> > >> > Type - SP
>> >> > >> > Velocity:
>> >> > >> > Muzzle - 2000
>> >> > >> > 100 yds - 1810
>> >> > >> > 200yds - 1640
>>
>ze
>> >> > >> > point", etc. (Rice, Gun Data Book, p. 118). The bullets that hi=
>t J=3D
>> >FK
>> >> > >> > are supposed to have been "copper jacketed". Since John Withers
>> >> > >> > observes that "high velocity is a relative term without exact
>> >> > >> > meaning" (Precision Handloading, p. 135), I looked for evidence
>> >> > >> > indicating that "high velocity" and "medium velocity" had an
>n.
>> >> > >> > Leyson's New Guns Annual (1961), p. 19, describes a 170 grain, =
>.30=3D
>> >/30
>> >> > >> > bullet which still has a velocity of 1890 fps at 100 yards as a
>ets=3D
>> > he
>> >> > >> > has discussed, such as the Silver Tip 180 grain bullet with a v=
>elo=3D
>> >city
>> >> > >> > of 2850 fps at 100 yards. Notice, especially, that this .30/30 =
>bul=3D
>> >let
>> >> > >> > is traveling faster than the Carcano bullet at 100 yards, yet i=
>s s=3D
>> >till
>> >> > >> > described as slower than high velocity. This strongly supports =
>the
>> >> > >> > description of the Mannlicher-Carcano as a medium to low veloci=
>ty
>> >> > >> > weapon in technical terms that have been constant since at leas=
>t 1=3D
>> >961.
>> >> > >> > As for "helping" with its bolt-action firing, see the discussio=
>n o=3D
>> >f
>> >> > >> > Fallacy #3.
>>
>> >> > >> > So we see at 200 yds the muzzle velocity is just 1640 on averag=
>e, =3D
>> >and
>> >> > >> > keep in mind the head shot occured way past 200 yds. =3D3DA0164=
>0 fps=3D
>> > is by
>> >> > >> > NO means a high-velocity bullet and anyone who argues otherwise=
>, B=3D
>> >en,
>> >> > >> > is a liar.
>>
>> >> > >> > The complete article can be found here:
>>
>> >> > >> >http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html
>>
>> >> > >> The range for the head shot was less than ninety yards.
>>
>> >> > >> Herbert
>>
>> >> > >Herb -- YOU are are misleading as Ben!! It might have been 90 yards
>ou
>> >> > >knew this theory you would know they themselves place the head shot=
> as
>> >> > >being fired from a distance of 265.3 feet (R585).
>>
>Herbe=3D
>> >rt tossed
>> >> > out.
>>
>> >> Yes, my apologies to Herb on this one. He is correct.
>>
>> >> > To put it another way, 4.7 feet separate your two measurements.
>>
>?
>>
>> >> > Do you stop to think before you respond?
>>
>> >> My math skills are not always the best, I have admitted this before,
>> >> and sometimes I don't have time to stop and ponder all the info like
>ve
>> >> only a few minutes to respond or NOT respond at all, and IF I choose
>se
>> >> sometimes. =3DA0Oh well.
>>
>> >Amazing!!.... Though not a direct admission that he often doesn't know
>> >problem is Rob, once you open your mouth and put your foot in it you
>> >mistake. =A0 You'll drag the discussion miles away from the original
>> >point in an effort to hide the fact that you've erred.
>>
>> His latest error is the "Zero Velocity Rifle" issue. His decision to
>> arbitrarily decide that velocity must be measured at some specified
>> distance from the rifle, rather than muzzle velocity.
>>
>> EVERY rifle exhibits "zero velocity" a few seconds later... so EVERY
>> rifle is a "zero velocity rifle".
>
>Sorry Bendsie/Walt/John McAdams YOUR latest error proves you are a
>liar. Thanks!
How can citations given be a "lie", Robsie?
Indeed, I can provide even more citations...
You're using your poor logic to parse simple citations... so you end up with
silly things like "zero velocity rifles". Yet *YOU* can't provide a single
citation for something like that.
>1858 f.p.s., and it would be lower given the
>ADDITIONAL 55.3 feet,
Where's the standard, Robsie? At what distance do you measure "rifle velocity".
Be so kind as to cite for your assertion.
>does NOT equal 2000 f.p.s. or HIGHER, now does
>it? Next?
Sorry Robsie, I don't believe in "zero velocity rifles".
>> >> NONE of my math errors makes YOUR 6.5 M-C (Short rifle) a high-
>> >> velocity weapon either so you and "Walt" are trying to defend the WC
>> >> in a losing cause.
>>
>> >> By going against
>>
>> ...
Brokedad
"Of course NOT when you LEAVE OUT other things! I guess "Brokedad"
missed this part"
By your method of ignorant reasoning, a 4,000 fps bullet would be a
"low velocity" round at some 1,000 to 1,500 feet downrange.
Muzzle Velocity is exactly that!-----Muzzle Velocity!
Irrelevant as to how rapidly the velocity decay does or does not
occur.
If one is to calculate kinetic energy, then they must know the
approximate bullet velocity at the point of impact.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with Muzzle Velocity (MV) which is
utilized to determine whether the weapon constitutes a low; medium; or
high velocity round.
And, which is as stated:
Velocity
> > is classified as low (<1000 fps), medium (1000 to 2000 fps), and high
> > (>2000 fps). (Wilson, 1977)
>
Who gives a shit about the NORMA round and it's ballistic
information?????
JFK was struck by WCC Carcano bullets, which clearly and consistantly
demonstrated a mv of greater than 2,000 fps.
P.S. Dumbass! The WCC Carcano rounds were manufactured in 1954,
(except for the "ballistic trial" batch which was produced in late
1953), and despite what you may think, the ballistic data for these
rounds has in fact been published.
If recalled correctly, it is in a "Guns & Ammo" book (although I can
not recall exactly for certain).
Whatever it was published in, I have a copy of the book stuck away
somewhere with other information relative to the Carcano weapon and
it's ammunition.
> > >http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html-Hide quoted text -
robc...@netscape.com
> TOP POST
>
> "Of course NOT when you LEAVE OUT other things! I guess "Brokedad"
> missed this part"
>
> By your method of ignorant reasoning, a 4,000 fps bullet would be a
> "low velocity" round at some 1,000 to 1,500 feet downrange.
YOU and Bendsie are of the same school I guess. I gave several
examples of tank main guns as they provide the exact point I am
making. One CANNOT expect their target to be right at the end of
their barrel, thus the higher the velocity the LONGER the projectile/
missle/bullet WILL STAY AT A HIGH VELOCITY WHILE TRAVELLING. To deny
that projectiles/missles/bullets are NOT going to lose speed while
travelling is like denying the concept of gravity. It is a fact of
life.
> Muzzle Velocity is exactly that!-----Muzzle Velocity!
Yes, and ALL THAT MEANS IS IT WILL PROJECT A BULLET AT A CERTAIN SPEED
FOR A CERTAIN DISTANCE. The higher the velocity the higher the bullet
will stay in the high velocity range. There are weapons that will
fire bullets that will be at 2800 f.p.s. at 200 yards. NOW that is
high velocity. There are weapons that will fire bullets that will
stay at 3000 or greater f.p.s. at 200 yards -- again that is high
velocity. A bullet that is 1858 f.p.s. or lower at 200 yds is NOT
high velocity. Tis that simple.
Last time I check the rifle itself kills very vew people (unless it is
used in close-quarter fighting as a slegehammer) thus the whole
velocity diachotomy is in reference to the bullet/missle NOT the
rifle. The higher powered the rifle the more velocity at a greater
distance the bullet will go.
Can you show the M-C was to JFK's head (or a very short distance) when
he was killed? Because you are starting at a number that is the either
the first, or next to first number in the "high velocity" category
(2000 f.p.s.), thus unless you can show the bullet travelled very
little distance you are out of luck.
Why folks who belive the WC is wrong find the need to defend this
claim of theirs is beyond me. THEY COULDN'T EVEN SHOW LHO EVER
PURCHASED, RECEIVED AND OWNED A 40" CARCANO ANYWAY. So this is really
a moot topic in my mind.
> Irrelevant as to how rapidly the velocity decay does or does not
> occur.
YOU are wrong. Bullets kill, NOT rifles, and the distance has to be
taken into account when looking at wounds. The point of IMPACT is
what matters, NOT when the bullet left the barrel.
> If one is to calculate kinetic energy, then they must know the
> approximate bullet velocity at the point of impact.
Exactly, and NO bullet is going to have the same velocity at a
distance as it had when it left the barrel. This is basic stuff. So
why are you using the muzzle velocity at discharge INSTEAD of the
impact location velocity?
> Which has absolutely nothing to do with Muzzle Velocity (MV) which is
> utilized to determine whether the weapon constitutes a low; medium; or
> high velocity round.
> And, which is as stated:
>
> Velocity
>
> > > is classified as low (<1000 fps), medium (1000 to 2000 fps), and high
> > > (>2000 fps). (Wilson, 1977)
This means nothing in the real world and you and Bendsie are playing
games of semantics. Show me JFK's head was at THE END OF THE BARREL
OR VERY NEAR IT OR MOVE ON. The WC said itself the IMPACT point was
265.3 feet from the END OF THE RIFLE ALLEGEDLY, THUS THE VELOCITY AT
THIS POINT IS WHAT MATTERS, NOT when it left the rifle's barrel. The
fact it could NOT sustain a velocity of 2000 f.p.s or greater over 200
yards shows it is NOT a high velocity weapon as there are many rifles
that can do this.
> Who gives a shit about the NORMA round and it's ballistic
> information?????
Obviously those NOT interested in the truth like you.
> JFK was struck by WCC Carcano bullets, which clearly and consistantly
> demonstrated a mv of greater than 2,000 fps.
Prove it. The WC's tests sure didn't, but perhaps you will have
better luck. I want a legitimate person officiating this too when you
film it for us.
> P.S. Dumbass! The WCC Carcano rounds were manufactured in 1954,
> (except for the "ballistic trial" batch which was produced in late
> 1953), and despite what you may think, the ballistic data for these
> rounds has in fact been published.
So we see "Brokedad" is yet another alias the Bendsie/Walt guy uses.
This is pure Walt here.
I've seen it as Mr. Fetzer has looked into this as well as other folks
like Harold Weisberg, Robert Groden and Harrison Livingstone. The
ONLY people I have read that have SUPPORTED THE CLAIM THAT THE M-C IS
A HIGH VELOCITY WEAPON ARE YOU, WALT, BENDSIE (really the same person
I'm sure), and Gerald Posner. YOU are in great company, huh?
> If recalled correctly, it is in a "Guns & Ammo" book (although I can
> not recall exactly for certain).
YOU are straying from the main point, but most folks who are lying
usually do. Bendsie accuses me of defending the WC but again I ask
how does pointing out the cause of death NOT matching the alleged
murder weapon help the WC??? ANYONE who sides with the claim the M-C
being a high velocity rifle are the ones DEFENDING the WC as this
allows their claim of the M-C being the murder weapon to stand up.
> Whatever it was published in, I have a copy of the book stuck away
> somewhere with other information relative to the Carcano weapon and
> it's ammunition.
Who cares, I have read about others who have looked into this and the
main point is the velocity at IMPACT was NOT high velocity, thus, it
COULD NOT CREATE WOUNDS SIMILAR TO HIGH VELOCITY WOUNDS. PERIOD.
Maybe under this alias you will explain how a FMJ shattered so much
for us too since the other "two" won't answer me.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Brokedad
==================================================================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_velocity
A gun's muzzle velocity is the speed at which the projectile leaves
the muzzle of the gun.
==================================================================================
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNBLST.html
==================================================================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_ballistics
Terminal ballistics, a sub-field of ballistics, is the study of the
behavior of a projectile when it hits its target.
==================================================================================
Were it that I too were so stupid that I did not understand the
difference between the determination of Muzzle Velocity (MV) in
determination as to whether the weapon rated as firing a high; medium;
or low velocity bullet, and the difference between Impact Velocity of
the projectile at some point downrange after velocity decay had
occurred, then I too would most likely not admit to such ignorance of
the subject matter.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++
http://www.answers.com/topic/impact-velocity
mechanics) The velocity of a projectile or missile at the instant of
impact. Also known as striking velocity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://rad.usuhs.edu/medpix/medpix_home.html?mode=single&recnum=6509&table=&srchstr=&search=
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++
Lilkewise:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++
"This is an outstanding case of special pleading, where you cite only
evidence favorable to your side and ignore the unfavorable. Kickback
is a function of recoil, which is determined by the amount of force
directly imparted to your shoulder with a shoulder-supported weapon.
That amount of force depends upon the caliber, weight, and charge of
the round. A more powerful bullet imparts greater recoil, a less
powerful bullet, less recoil, for weapons which can chamber both.
Less
force, in general, produces less velocity, less penetration power,
and
often less accuracy."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/simmons.htm
Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is
as accurate as the current American military rifles?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of
accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate. For most small arms,
we discover that the round- to-round dispersion is of the order of
three-tenths of a mil. We have run into some unusual ones, however,
which give us higher values, but very few which give us smaller
values, except in selected lots of ammunition.
Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will you
designate it?
Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14.
===================================================
Note: For those who are unaware, the M14 remains a basis for many of
our current Sniper Rifles.
==========================================================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5x54mm_Mannlicher-Sch%C3%B6nauer
Among professional elephant hunters of the 19th and 20th centuries,
Walter Dalrymple Maitland "Karamojo" Bell, who shot more than 1,000
elephants in the period 1895-1930, had a very high regard for the 6.5
mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer, and had Daniel Fraser of Edinburgh, Scotland
build him a special, lightweight rifle in that calibre. He only set it
aside when he was unable to acquire dependable ammunition for it,
In part, the 6.5 x 54 mm's reputation stems from its use of a 160-
grain (10 g) bullet, giving the projectile very high sectional density
and therefore penetrating ability.
================================================================
http://www.chuckhawks.com/bell_elephants.htm
He shot 300 elephants with a Mannlicher-Schoenauer 6.5x54mm carbine.
====================================================================
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Jun 2, 6:06=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> On 29 May, 09:57, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > > In article <eb7b1356-4684-41e3-8a33-8fd6f519c...@u8g2000yqn.googlegro=
>ups.com>,
>> > > robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> > > >On May 28, 10:36=3DA0am, a1ea...@verizon.net wrote:
>> > > >> On May 28, 1:12=3DA0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netsca=
>pe.com>
>> > > >> wrote:
>>
>> > > >> > This debate has come up due to the cause of death to JFK being
>ho claims
>> > > >> > to be a CTer, arguing the 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano was a high-ve=
>locity
>> > > >> > rifle. =3DA0This is something I have NOT heard before. =3DA0So l=
>et's look a=3D
>> > > >t
>> > > >> > some claims this person would probably agree with. =3DA0They com=
>e from
>> > > >> > Gerald Posner and are refuted by James Fetzer.
>>
>> > > >> > Fallacy #3: page 104, lines 14 to 15:
>>
>ous
>> > > >> > shooting tests, it concluded 'it is a very accurate weapon'".
>>
>ly not
>> > > >> > read it. Other sources provide the strongest confirmation of the
>deed,
>> > > >> > as Summers, Conspiracy, pp. 46-47, observes, "The original Mannl=
>icher-
>> > > >> > Carcano [alleged to be Oswald's rifle] was an uncooperative piec=
>e of
>> > > >> > evidence, as army experts discovered after the assassination. As=
> a
>> > > >> > spokesman put it, one of them 'had difficulty in opening the bol=
>t in
>> > > >> > his first firing exercise. . . ' He added that, as newcomers to =
>the
>> > > >> > weapon, 'The pressure to open the bolt was so great that we tend=
>ed to
>> > > >> > move the rifle off the target . . .' An assassin using the Mannl=
>icher-
>> > > >> > Carcano in Dealey Plaza may, of course, have known the quirks of=
> his
>> > > >> > weapon, but this account suggests the gun was hardly ideal for f=
>eats
>> > > >> > of marksmanship." O'Toole reports the commission "also heard rif=
>le
>> > > >> > experts testify that the telescopic sight could be easily knocke=
>d out
>> > > >> > of adjustment and that this would make accurate shooting with th=
>e gun
>> > > >> > unlikely, that shims had to be inserted to elevate and move the =
>sight
>> > > >> > before the commission's three marksmen could fire the rifle
>smen
>> > > >> > were unable to equal Oswald's alleged accuracy" (Assassination T=
>apes,
>> > > >> > p. 27). No doubt Posner has not read them either. He thus commit=
>s a
>> > > >> > nice example of the fallacy of equivocation: the tests were not =
>done
>> > > >> > with Oswald's rifle in its original condition, because it was a
>a
>> > > >> > series of rigorous tests", it was a reconstructed weapon that wa=
>s not
>> > > >> > available to Oswald, so it is difficult to see how they conclude=
>d it
>> > > >> > was accurate.
>>
>> > > >> > Fallacy #4: page 104, lines 15 to 17:
>>
>,
>> > > >> > which helped in rapid bolt-action firing."
>>
>only
>> > > >> > evidence favorable to your side and ignore the unfavorable. Kick=
>back
>> > > >> > is a function of recoil, which is determined by the amount of fo=
>rce
>> > > >> > directly imparted to your shoulder with a shoulder-supported wea=
>pon.
>> > > >> > That amount of force depends upon the caliber, weight, and charg=
>e of
>> > > >> > the round. A more powerful bullet imparts greater recoil, a less
>. Less
>> > > >> > force, in general, produces less velocity, less penetration powe=
>r, and
>> > > >> > often less accuracy. (More detailed discussions may be found in
>ion
>> > > >> > Handloading, pp. 135-145). The "low kickback" of the Mannlicher-
>wer
>> > > >> > and probably of low accuracy. There is a great deal of direct an=
>d
>> > > >> > indirect evidence for these conclusions. Rice's Gun Data Book (1=
>975),
>> > > >> > p. 89, for example, characterizes a cartridge that is manufactur=
>ed for
>> > > >> > the Mannlicher-Carcano as follows:
>>
>grain
>> > > >> > bullet, has the slowest muzzle velocity and weakest striking pow=
>er of
>> > > >> > any of the 6.5 mm imports, so it is not as popular as its Japane=
>se,
>> > > >> > German, or Swedish counterparts.
>>
>> > > >> > =3DA0**Norma list the following speeds for the 6.5mm ammo by wei=
>ght. =3DA0I=3D
>> > > >F
>> > > >> > the bullet is 140 grain it will travel at 2224fps on average (no=
>te
>> > > >> > speed also is reliant on barrel length and we know the alleged r=
>ifle
>> > > >> > is A SHORT RIFLE meaning the barrel is only between 17"-24" long=
>).
>> > > >> > The 160 grain bullet, the type allegedly used by LHO, travels at
>> > > >> > 2067fps on average.
>>
>have
>> > > >> > used had not been manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company =
>since
>> > > >> > 1944, so it is not surprising that a gun data book published in =
>1975
>> > > >> > does not include it. However, since the bullet picked up from a
> and
>> > > >> > weighed 158.6 grains, the properties of the Norma and Western
>d by
>> > > >> > the muzzle velocities that are recorded for the Norma bullet:
>>
>> > > >> > Cartridge - Carcano
>> > > >> > Wt. Grains -156
>> > > >> > Type - SP
>> > > >> > Velocity:
>> > > >> > Muzzle - 2000
>> > > >> > 100 yds - 1810
>> > > >> > 200yds - 1640
>>
>e
>> > > >> > point", etc. (Rice, Gun Data Book, p. 118). The bullets that hit=
> JFK
>> > > >> > are supposed to have been "copper jacketed". Since John Withers
>> > > >> > observes that "high velocity is a relative term without exact
>> > > >> > meaning" (Precision Handloading, p. 135), I looked for evidence
>> > > >> > indicating that "high velocity" and "medium velocity" had an
>.
>> > > >> > Leyson's New Guns Annual (1961), p. 19, describes a 170 grain, .=
>30/30
>> > > >> > bullet which still has a velocity of 1890 fps at 100 yards as a
>ts he
>> > > >> > has discussed, such as the Silver Tip 180 grain bullet with a ve=
>locity
>> > > >> > of 2850 fps at 100 yards. Notice, especially, that this .30/30 b=
>ullet
>> > > >> > is traveling faster than the Carcano bullet at 100 yards, yet is=
> still
>> > > >> > described as slower than high velocity. This strongly supports t=
>he
>> > > >> > description of the Mannlicher-Carcano as a medium to low velocit=
>y
>> > > >> > weapon in technical terms that have been constant since at least=
> 1961.
>> > > >> > As for "helping" with its bolt-action firing, see the discussion=
> of
>> > > >> > Fallacy #3.
>>
>> > > >> > So we see at 200 yds the muzzle velocity is just 1640 on average=
>, and
>> > > >> > keep in mind the head shot occured way past 200 yds. =3DA01640 f=
>ps is by
>> > > >> > NO means a high-velocity bullet and anyone who argues otherwise,=
> Ben,
>> > > >> > is a liar.
>>
>> > > >> > The complete article can be found here:
>>
>> > > >> >http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html
>>
>> > > >> The range for the head shot was less than ninety yards.
>>
>> > > >> Herbert
>>
>> > > >Herb -- YOU are are misleading as Ben!! It might have been 90 yards
>u
>> > > >knew this theory you would know they themselves place the head shot =
>as
>> > > >being fired from a distance of 265.3 feet (R585).
>>
>bert tossed
>> > > out.
>>
>> > Yes, my apologies to Herb on this one. He is correct.
>>
>> > > To put it another way, 4.7 feet separate your two measurements.
>>
>> > > So tell us Rob - did you even understand that 3 feet equals one yard?
>>
>> > > Do you stop to think before you respond?
>>
>> > My math skills are not always the best, I have admitted this before,
>> > and sometimes I don't have time to stop and ponder all the info like
>> > only a few minutes to respond or NOT respond at all, and IF I choose
>> > sometimes. =A0Oh well.
>>
>> Amazing!!.... Though not a direct admission that he often doesn't know
>> problem is Rob, once you open your mouth and put your foot in it you
>> mistake. =A0 You'll drag the discussion miles away from the original
>> point in an effort to hide the fact that you've erred.
>
>
>Hey Walt/Bendsie/John McAdams,
The moron can't figure it out. It's obviously a conspiracy against him,
perpetrated by just one person.
The fact that Robsie's wrong simply cannot be contemplated.
>I made a mistake that does NOT alter one iota the truth. The truth is
>the WC said the stricking force at impact was 1858 f.p.s.
And this changes the DESCRIPTION OF THE RIFLE how, exactly?
>(calculated
>at 210 feet when in fact JFK was hit at 265.3 per THEIR OWN ADMISSION)
>and YOUR OWN cites (under your Bendsie alias) show only 2000 f.p.s. or
>higher is high velocity. Game over liar.
Yep... game over. You've been completely unable to provide ANY CITATION
WHATSOEVER - yet I've cited for every major point I've made.
The fact that you CANNOT cite means that you're merely asserting your
speculation and opinion.
>> > NONE of my math errors makes YOUR 6.5 M-C (Short rifle) a high-
>> > velocity weapon either so you and "Walt" are trying to defend the WC
>> > in a losing cause.
>>
>> > By going against Fetzer all you have done is shown your true colors.
robc...@netscape.com
>
> A gun's muzzle velocity is the speed at which the projectile leaves
> the muzzle of the gun.
Exactly! NOW show me either JFK's head was at the end of the muzzle
or admit the bullet loses velocity the further it goes!
> ==================================================================================http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNBLST.html
>
> ==================================================================================http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_ballistics
>
> Terminal ballistics, a sub-field of ballistics, is the study of the
> behavior of a projectile when it hits its target.
I am interested in Forensic Pathology as it relates to the head wounds
JFK suffered.
> ==================================================================================
>
> Were it that I too were so stupid that I did not understand the
> difference between the determination of Muzzle Velocity (MV) in
> determination as to whether the weapon rated as firing a high; medium;
> or low velocity bullet, and the difference between Impact Velocity of
> the projectile at some point downrange after velocity decay had
> occurred, then I too would most likely not admit to such ignorance of
> the subject matter.
This is the downfall of all folks like this one. IF you do NOT see
things THEIR way, you are too stupid to understand. IF you are
Purvis, and I have doubts, I see quite a few folks on the education
forum DO NOT see things your way, are they stupid too?
I understand muzzle velocity. YOUR problem is a truly high powered
rifle would fire a bullet that would be at high velocity speed 265.3
feet from the target. Just curious, why is a supposed CTer so
interested in covering up the WC's mistake?
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> ++++++++++++++++
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/impact-velocity
>
> mechanics) The velocity of a projectile or missile at the instant of
> impact. Also known as striking velocity.
Yes, and the striking velocity the WC gave us is MEDIUM! That is the
WHOLE POINT! A medium striking velocity CANNOT leave wounds that make
every one think they are from a high velocity striking bullet.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://rad.usuhs.edu/medpix/medpix_home.html?mode=single&recnum=6509&...
> ================================================================http://www.chuckhawks.com/bell_elephants.htm
robc...@netscape.com
> In article <cde24d44-3c5f-426c-b29e-e53dbd3f5...@s16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
Let's say we set-up a reality show that has one car crashing into
another car. We then call in experts to judge the damage to settle
any suits that would arise IF it were real. We call in a insurance
claims adjuster and a body shop guy.
We pick a car that go up to 220 mph to do the ramming and select a
mini-van for the impact. We set it up this way though for safety
reasons and to see what speed the car will maintain. We tell the
expert driver to get it up to 220 mph and then eject himself into the
safety net we have set up that way we can watch the guided car ram
into the mini-van with complete safety.
NOW for argument sake lets say the distance is 265.3 feet between the
220 mph attainment and the mini-van's location. IF we use Bendsie's
argument the car will stay at 220 mph for the whole 265.3 feet because
it is silly to think about decreasing velocity.
Let's say the car makes impact while still going 50 mph. Do you think
the claims adjuster and body shop guy will claim the accident occured
at 220 mph or 50 mph? IF they choose the 50 mph (which is the correct
impact velocity) will they be morons? OR should they say, I realize
the accident happened at 50 mph but the car is capable of producing
220 mph so let's say it was a 220 mph accident? Use your own common
sense for this one.
NOW let's consider the fact there are cars way more capable of a lot
more speed than 220 mph, and given the same parameters would impact
the mini-van going a lot faster than 50 mph. Should we treat this
differently or just say "Ah, what the heck, I like the sound of a 50
mph impact" and call it a day? The main question is, how should we
treat a car that can go 400 mph vs. one that can only go as high as
220 mph? Is it too much to expect a much more powerful car to keep up
a higher rate of speed for much longer than a lower powered car?
The whole point in all of this is the IMPACT velocity and NO one can
show the impact speed the WC gave us as equalling the term "high
velocity". NOW if Bendsie or someone else can show that JFK's head
was near the muzzle of the rifle they may have something, but I don't
expect this to happen.
The doctors were looking at the damage they saw, they were NOT gun
shopping for the gun with the most power so it gets back to the first
point I challenged Bendsie with - can he show the doctors to be
wrong? So far we have NOT seen any evidence for this claim of his.
NOW he is even lying he ever said they were wrong. Keep in mind, the
doctors said high velocity bullets were used BEFORE they knew what the
alleged murder weapon was going to be and what its capabilities were.
They were being honest and this honesty has been backed up by other
sources when they should have lied about it (The WC and JAMA) because
the alleged murder weapon cannot match this criteria given the
parameters they gave us.
THIS IS WHY THE DEATH CERTIFICATE AND ALL THE BALLISTIC REPORTS WERE
NEVER RELEASED WITH THE 26 VOLUMES!
Bendsie can call me whatever he wants, but his is aligned with the
likes of the WC, JAMA and Posner, so as they said, "Those who live in
glass houses...".
Brokedad
>
> read more �- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
TOP POST
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO WIN IN ARGUMENT WITH AN IGNORANT MAN !
(William G. McAdoo)
"I am interested in Forensic Pathology as it relates to the head
wounds
JFK suffered."
In event that you can not get past the seperation of distinction
between MV for classification of low; vs. medium; vs; high velocity
bullets, then is is quite unlikely that you will ever develop even the
most basic understanding of wound ballistics.
Especially with such totally unsupported and easily disproven
statements such as:
" >A medium striking velocity CANNOT leave wounds that make
> every one think they are from a high velocity striking bullet."
When any basic idiot is aware that even a "LOW VELOCITY" projectile
with an even LOWER VELOCITY at impact can create massive damage due to
so many variables that it is not even worthwhile in attempting to list
them here.
Let me leave you with this:
"Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of
that evidence.
As a general rule, it merely means that one does not understand the
evidence"
(Tom Purvis)
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Jun 4, 6:05=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <cde24d44-3c5f-426c-b29e-e53dbd3f5...@s16g2000vbp.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On Jun 2, 6:06=3DA0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> >> On 29 May, 09:57, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> > > In article <eb7b1356-4684-41e3-8a33-8fd6f519c...@u8g2000yqn.google=
>gro=3D
>> >ups.com>,
>> >> > > robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> > > >On May 28, 10:36=3D3DA0am, a1ea...@verizon.net wrote:
>> >> > > >> On May 28, 1:12=3D3DA0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@n=
>etsca=3D
>> >pe.com>
>> >> > > >> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > >> > This debate has come up due to the cause of death to JFK bein=
>g
>> >> > > >> > attributed to a high-velocity bullet. =3D3DA0We have one pers=
>on, w=3D
>> >ho claims
>> >> > > >> > to be a CTer, arguing the 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano was a high=
>-ve=3D
>> >locity
>> >> > > >> > rifle. =3D3DA0This is something I have NOT heard before. =3D3=
>DA0So l=3D
>> >et's look a=3D3D
>> >> > > >t
>> >> > > >> > some claims this person would probably agree with. =3D3DA0The=
>y com=3D
>> >e from
>> >> > > >> > Gerald Posner and are refuted by James Fetzer.
>>
>> >> > > >> > Fallacy #3: page 104, lines 14 to 15:
>>
>gor=3D
>> >ous
>> >> > > >> > shooting tests, it concluded 'it is a very accurate weapon'".
>>
>ent=3D
>> >ly not
>> >> > > >> > read it. Other sources provide the strongest confirmation of =
>the
>> >> > > >> > absurdity of any claims to accuracy on behalf of this weapon.=
> In=3D
>> >deed,
>> >> > > >> > as Summers, Conspiracy, pp. 46-47, observes, "The original Ma=
>nnl=3D
>> >icher-
>> >> > > >> > Carcano [alleged to be Oswald's rifle] was an uncooperative p=
>iec=3D
>> >e of
>> >> > > >> > evidence, as army experts discovered after the assassination.=
> As=3D
>> > a
>> >> > > >> > spokesman put it, one of them 'had difficulty in opening the =
>bol=3D
>> >t in
>> >> > > >> > his first firing exercise. . . ' He added that, as newcomers =
>to =3D
>> >the
>> >> > > >> > weapon, 'The pressure to open the bolt was so great that we t=
>end=3D
>> >ed to
>> >> > > >> > move the rifle off the target . . .' An assassin using the Ma=
>nnl=3D
>> >icher-
>> >> > > >> > Carcano in Dealey Plaza may, of course, have known the quirks=
> of=3D
>> > his
>> >> > > >> > weapon, but this account suggests the gun was hardly ideal fo=
>r f=3D
>> >eats
>> >> > > >> > of marksmanship." O'Toole reports the commission "also heard =
>rif=3D
>> >le
>> >> > > >> > experts testify that the telescopic sight could be easily kno=
>cke=3D
>> >d out
>> >> > > >> > of adjustment and that this would make accurate shooting with=
> th=3D
>> >e gun
>> >> > > >> > unlikely, that shims had to be inserted to elevate and move t=
>he =3D
>> >sight
>> >> > > >> > before the commission's three marksmen could fire the rifle
>ark=3D
>> >smen
>> >> > > >> > were unable to equal Oswald's alleged accuracy" (Assassinatio=
>n T=3D
>> >apes,
>> >> > > >> > p. 27). No doubt Posner has not read them either. He thus com=
>mit=3D
>> >s a
>> >> > > >> > nice example of the fallacy of equivocation: the tests were n=
>ot =3D
>> >done
>> >> > > >> > with Oswald's rifle in its original condition, because it was=
> a
>> >> > > >> > terrible weapon. When he says "the FBI ran Oswald's gun throu=
>gh =3D
>> >a
>> >> > > >> > series of rigorous tests", it was a reconstructed weapon that=
> wa=3D
>> >s not
>> >> > > >> > available to Oswald, so it is difficult to see how they concl=
>ude=3D
>> >d it
>> >> > > >> > was accurate.
>>
>> >> > > >> > Fallacy #4: page 104, lines 15 to 17:
>>
>les=3D
>> >,
>> >> > > >> > which helped in rapid bolt-action firing."
>>
>te =3D
>> >only
>> >> > > >> > evidence favorable to your side and ignore the unfavorable. K=
>ick=3D
>> >back
>> >> > > >> > is a function of recoil, which is determined by the amount of=
> fo=3D
>> >rce
>> >> > > >> > directly imparted to your shoulder with a shoulder-supported =
>wea=3D
>> >pon.
>> >> > > >> > That amount of force depends upon the caliber, weight, and ch=
>arg=3D
>> >e of
>> >> > > >> > the round. A more powerful bullet imparts greater recoil, a l=
>ess
>> >> > > >> > powerful bullet, less recoil, for weapons which can chamber b=
>oth=3D
>> >. Less
>> >> > > >> > force, in general, produces less velocity, less penetration p=
>owe=3D
>> >r, and
>> >> > > >> > often less accuracy. (More detailed discussions may be found =
>in
>> >> > > >> > Fadala, Rifle Guide, pp. 38-41, for example, and Withers, Pre=
>cis=3D
>> >ion
>> >> > > >> > Handloading, pp. 135-145). The "low kickback" of the Mannlich=
>er-
>> >> > > >> > Carcano thus indicates that it is a weapon of low penetrating=
> po=3D
>> >wer
>> >> > > >> > and probably of low accuracy. There is a great deal of direct=
> an=3D
>> >d
>> >> > > >> > indirect evidence for these conclusions. Rice's Gun Data Book=
> (1=3D
>> >975),
>> >> > > >> > p. 89, for example, characterizes a cartridge that is manufac=
>tur=3D
>> >ed for
>> >> > > >> > the Mannlicher-Carcano as follows:
>>
>56 =3D
>> >grain
>> >> > > >> > bullet, has the slowest muzzle velocity and weakest striking =
>pow=3D
>> >er of
>> >> > > >> > any of the 6.5 mm imports, so it is not as popular as its Jap=
>ane=3D
>> >se,
>> >> > > >> > German, or Swedish counterparts.
>>
>y wei=3D
>> >ght. =3D3DA0I=3D3D
>> >> > > >F
>> >> > > >> > the bullet is 140 grain it will travel at 2224fps on average =
>(no=3D
>> >te
>> >> > > >> > speed also is reliant on barrel length and we know the allege=
>d r=3D
>> >ifle
>> >> > > >> > is A SHORT RIFLE meaning the barrel is only between 17"-24" l=
>ong=3D
>> >).
>> >> > > >> > The 160 grain bullet, the type allegedly used by LHO, travels=
> at
>> >> > > >> > 2067fps on average.
>>
>> >> > > >> > As I explained above, the ammunition that Oswald was alleged =
>to =3D
>> >have
>> >> > > >> > used had not been manufactured by the Western Cartridge Compa=
>ny =3D
>> >since
>> >> > > >> > 1944, so it is not surprising that a gun data book published =
>in =3D
>> >1975
>> >> > > >> > does not include it. However, since the bullet picked up from=
> a
>> >> > > >> > stretcher at Parkland Hospital is alleged to be of the same k=
>ind=3D
>> > and
>> >> > > >> > weighed 158.6 grains, the properties of the Norma and Western
>rte=3D
>> >d by
>> >> > > >> > the muzzle velocities that are recorded for the Norma bullet:
>>
>> >> > > >> > Cartridge - Carcano
>> >> > > >> > Wt. Grains -156
>> >> > > >> > Type - SP
>> >> > > >> > Velocity:
>> >> > > >> > Muzzle - 2000
>> >> > > >> > 100 yds - 1810
>> >> > > >> > 200yds - 1640
>>
>onz=3D
>> >e
>> >> > > >> > point", etc. (Rice, Gun Data Book, p. 118). The bullets that =
>hit=3D
>> > JFK
>> >> > > >> > are supposed to have been "copper jacketed". Since John Withe=
>rs
>> >> > > >> > observes that "high velocity is a relative term without exact
>ce
>> >> > > >> > indicating that "high velocity" and "medium velocity" had an
>ion=3D
>> >.
>> >> > > >> > Leyson's New Guns Annual (1961), p. 19, describes a 170 grain=
>, .=3D
>> >30/30
>> >> > > >> > bullet which still has a velocity of 1890 fps at 100 yards as=
> a
>> >> > > >> > "heavier bullet of slower velocity" than the high velocity bu=
>lle=3D
>> >ts he
>> >> > > >> > has discussed, such as the Silver Tip 180 grain bullet with a=
> ve=3D
>> >locity
>> >> > > >> > of 2850 fps at 100 yards. Notice, especially, that this .30/3=
>0 b=3D
>> >ullet
>> >> > > >> > is traveling faster than the Carcano bullet at 100 yards, yet=
> is=3D
>> > still
>> >> > > >> > described as slower than high velocity. This strongly support=
>s t=3D
>> >he
>> >> > > >> > description of the Mannlicher-Carcano as a medium to low velo=
>cit=3D
>> >y
>> >> > > >> > weapon in technical terms that have been constant since at le=
>ast=3D
>> > 1961.
>> >> > > >> > As for "helping" with its bolt-action firing, see the discuss=
>ion=3D
>> > of
>> >> > > >> > Fallacy #3.
>>
>> >> > > >> > So we see at 200 yds the muzzle velocity is just 1640 on aver=
>age=3D
>> >, and
>> >> > > >> > keep in mind the head shot occured way past 200 yds. =3D3DA01=
>640 f=3D
>> >ps is by
>> >> > > >> > NO means a high-velocity bullet and anyone who argues otherwi=
>se,=3D
>> > Ben,
>> >> > > >> > is a liar.
>>
>> >> > > >> > The complete article can be found here:
>>
>> >> > > >> >http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html
>>
>> >> > > >> The range for the head shot was less than ninety yards.
>>
>> >> > > >> Herbert
>>
>ds
>> >> > > >from the FRONT, but we are discussing the claims of the WC and IF=
> yo=3D
>> >u
>> >> > > >knew this theory you would know they themselves place the head sh=
>ot =3D
>> >as
>> >> > > >being fired from a distance of 265.3 feet (R585).
>>
>t Her=3D
>> >bert tossed
>> >> > > out.
>>
>> >> > Yes, my apologies to Herb on this one. He is correct.
>>
>> >> > > To put it another way, 4.7 feet separate your two measurements.
>>
>rd?
>>
>> >> > > Do you stop to think before you respond?
>>
>> >> > My math skills are not always the best, I have admitted this before,
>> >> > and sometimes I don't have time to stop and ponder all the info like
>have
>> >> > only a few minutes to respond or NOT respond at all, and IF I choose
>lose
>> >> > sometimes. =3DA0Oh well.
>>
>> >> Amazing!!.... Though not a direct admission that he often doesn't know
>e
>> >> problem is Rob, once you open your mouth and put your foot in it you
>e a
>> >> mistake. =3DA0 You'll drag the discussion miles away from the original
>> >> point in an effort to hide the fact that you've erred.
>>
>> >Hey Walt/Bendsie/John McAdams,
>>
>> The moron can't figure it out.
>
>Let's say we set-up a reality show that has one car crashing into
>another car. We then call in experts to judge the damage to settle
>any suits that would arise IF it were real. We call in a insurance
>claims adjuster and a body shop guy.
>
>We pick a car that go up to 220 mph to do the ramming and select a
>mini-van for the impact.
Yep. Let's define a car that can travel at 220mph as a "high velocity car", and
one that can't break 100mph (the mini-van) as a "low velocity car"
>We set it up this way though for safety
>reasons and to see what speed the car will maintain. We tell the
>expert driver to get it up to 220 mph and then eject himself into the
>safety net we have set up that way we can watch the guided car ram
>into the mini-van with complete safety.
Yep... so the damage to the low velocity car WAS CAUSED BY A HIGH VELOCITY CAR.
>NOW for argument sake lets say the distance is 265.3 feet between the
>220 mph attainment and the mini-van's location. IF we use Bendsie's
>argument the car will stay at 220 mph for the whole 265.3 feet because
>it is silly to think about decreasing velocity.
The "high velocity car" did not suddenly turn into a "low velocity car" because
it was in a parking lot, with it's engine turned off.
Only a moron would think so.
And no matter how many times you illustrate your stupidity, "high velocity car"
is not a description that defines an impact speed... it defines the highest
speed of the car.
Just as "high velocity rifle" defines the highest speed of the bullet ... at the
muzzle.
But feel free to keep these threads going, moron - because you really are simply
illustrating how stupid you are.
>Let's say the car makes impact while still going 50 mph. Do you think
>the claims adjuster and body shop guy will claim the accident occured
>at 220 mph or 50 mph?
The claims adjuster can certainly specify the impact speed, but he will be
FORCED to state that it was a "high velocity car" that caused the damage.
>IF they choose the 50 mph (which is the correct
>impact velocity) will they be morons?
Of course not... unless, of course, they try to assert that the "high velocity
car" is no longer a "high velocity car".
>OR should they say, I realize
>the accident happened at 50 mph but the car is capable of producing
>220 mph so let's say it was a 220 mph accident? Use your own common
>sense for this one.
Indeed, I do invite readers to do exactly that - use your own common sense.
>NOW let's consider the fact there are cars way more capable of a lot
>more speed than 220 mph, and given the same parameters would impact
>the mini-van going a lot faster than 50 mph. Should we treat this
>differently or just say "Ah, what the heck, I like the sound of a 50
>mph impact" and call it a day? The main question is, how should we
>treat a car that can go 400 mph vs. one that can only go as high as
>220 mph?
You'd label it an "express velocity car", or perhaps a "magnum velocity car"...
or some other label that differentiates it from a car that cannot hit those
speeds.
The DEFINITION isn't going to change because the car is sitting in a parking
lot, with the key out of the ignition. Only a moron would think so.
The Red car doesn't stop being labeled a "Red Car" because the sun is down, and
the red looks like black. Only a moron would think so.
Labels stay the same. So if someone said that the "red high velocity car" was
the cause of the accident, I won't be looking at the Yellow VW Beetle, and
thinking that I'm looking at the cause of the accident.
>Is it too much to expect a much more powerful car to keep up
>a higher rate of speed for much longer than a lower powered car?
Non sequitur... Meaningless in terms of the label that fits the car.
>The whole point in all of this is the IMPACT velocity
Then by all means, refer to the "impact velocity" and stop referring to the
"high velocity car". Only a moron would use the term "high velocity car" when
he was trying to define the IMPACT speed.
Words *DO* have meanings, and common sense isn't really needed. Just ordinary
intelligence. Morons merely look stupid.
>and NO one can
>show the impact speed the WC gave us as equalling the term "high
>velocity".
"High Velocity Rifle" is NEVER a term used to describe the impact velocity.
Only a moron would try to equate the two.
Anyone around here know any morons who keep trying to equate these two
completely different concepts?
>NOW if Bendsie or someone else can show that JFK's head
>was near the muzzle of the rifle they may have something, but I don't
>expect this to happen.
I wouldn't have expected you to make such a stupid argument... but there you go!
>The doctors were looking at the damage they saw, they were NOT gun
>shopping for the gun with the most power so it gets back to the first
>point I challenged Bendsie with - can he show the doctors to be
>wrong?
I already *have*... I've demonstrated that the doctors were not trained or
experienced to be able to make this determination... even if they were correct.
For example, I've given citations showing that a *LOW VELOCITY RIFLE* could have
cause far *MORE* damage to JFK's skull... indeed, struck with a Civil War era
Minie Ball, there may not have been much of JFK's head *left*.
I've also shown that the 6.5mm MC was indeed considered a "high velocity rifle",
despite the lie told by Frazier, which even the FBI contradicts.
Sadly, we've seen no citations from the moron that support his position - he's
even refused to provide the Death Certificate quote that started this.
>So far we have NOT seen any evidence for this claim of his.
When you have to lie, you've merely demonstrated that you're willing to lie, not
that you've shown anything supporting your position.
>NOW he is even lying he ever said they were wrong.
And you can't quote me saying so. Why is that, moron? You've been perfectly
capable of posting thread after thread with my quotes, yet you can't seem to
find a quote where you really need one.
Why is that, stupid?
Why not go look for a quote where I stated (and you'll find several of them)
that Dr. Burkley did not have the TRAINING to assert what you claim he stated?
>Keep in mind, the
>doctors said high velocity bullets were used BEFORE they knew what the
>alleged murder weapon was going to be
Another unsupportable opinion by a moron. Indeed, your claim is now based on a
Death Certificate from 11/23/63 - THAT DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU CLAIM IT SAYS.
So you're a liar... and a poor one at that. *ANYONE* can Google the Death
Certificate, and read it for themselves.
>and what its capabilities were.
>They were being honest and this honesty has been backed up by other
>sources when they should have lied about it (The WC and JAMA) because
>the alleged murder weapon cannot match this criteria given the
>parameters they gave us.
CE139 *IS* a "high velocity rifle", and nothing you can do will erase that
particular fact. I've provided several citations to that effect, and have more.
>THIS IS WHY THE DEATH CERTIFICATE AND ALL THE BALLISTIC REPORTS WERE
>NEVER RELEASED WITH THE 26 VOLUMES!
Since the Death Certificate does *NOT* say what you keep asserting, perhaps you
should take the time to do a little research before continuing to spout lies.
>Bendsie can call me whatever he wants,
You've PROVABLY lied about the Death Certificate, haven't you moron?
>but his is aligned with the
>likes of the WC, JAMA and Posner, so as they said, "Those who live in
>glass houses...".
Only a moron could think that I support the WC, JAMA, or Posner.
You're certainly welcome to your stupidity - but it bears pointing out.
Brokedad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_ballistics
Terminal ballistics, a sub-field of ballistics, is the study of the
behavior of a projectile when it hits its target.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++
http://www.defencejournal.com/april98/bulletwound.htm
Unfortunately there has been a considerable debate and difference of
opinion about the terminal ballistics of an ordinary bullet
The surgeon, the ballistician and the manufacturer have haggled about
this effect (ie the terminal effect) which has been erroneously
thought to be a function of the muzzle velocity. This unfortunately is
not quite true
many misconceptions arose from the tunnel vision of ammunition
designers and surgeons who had only a partial understanding of each
other's disciplines. When the subject was reported on by journalists
with no understanding of either field, the problems were compounded
There is considerable vagueness about the classification of bullets
into low and high velocity. For one European high velocity indicated
the 5.56 mm rifles of the last 20 years with a muzzle velocity of
around 900 m/s. In America, it is thought that the term denoted a
muzzle velocity of 700-800 m/s. Yet there were people who defined it
as 900 m/s while others bestowed the term on any projectile with a
speed of more than 300 m/s - so all this is not very precise.
To quote Col Fackler, The potential for tissue disruption depends on
mass and velocity realisation depends on bullet construction, shape
and interaction with target tissue, the type of tissue it hits. You
can't say that a certain velocity in every case will give an X amount
of damage. The high velocity shibboleth in fact have given the
surgeons a wrong attitude to bullet wounds
It also came out very clearly in the discussion that the kinetic
energy transfer was not a mechanism of injury as were the crushing and
stretching of tissues, and the amount of kinetic energy deposited or
the bullet's striking velocity were not reliable indicators of the
wound severity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Fackler
On May 28, 10:12�am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
wrote:
> This debate has come up due to the cause of death to JFK being
> attributed to a high-velocity bullet. �We have one person, who claims
> to be a CTer, arguing the 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano was a high-velocity
> rifle. �This is something I have NOT heard before. �So let's look at
> some claims this person would probably agree with. �They come from
> Gerald Posner and are refuted by James Fetzer.
>
> Fallacy #3: page 104, lines 14 to 15:
>
> Posner: "When the FBI ran Oswald's gun through a series of rigorous
> shooting tests, it concluded 'it is a very accurate weapon'".
>
> Lane's chapter provides a nice rebuttal, but Posner has apparently not
> read it. Other sources provide the strongest confirmation of the
> absurdity of any claims to accuracy on behalf of this weapon. Indeed,
> as Summers, Conspiracy, pp. 46-47, observes, "The original Mannlicher-
> Carcano [alleged to be Oswald's rifle] was an uncooperative piece of
> evidence, as army experts discovered after the assassination. As a
> spokesman put it, one of them 'had difficulty in opening the bolt in
> his first firing exercise. . . ' He added that, as newcomers to the
> weapon, 'The pressure to open the bolt was so great that we tended to
> move the rifle off the target . . .' An assassin using the Mannlicher-
> Carcano in Dealey Plaza may, of course, have known the quirks of his
> weapon, but this account suggests the gun was hardly ideal for feats
> of marksmanship." O'Toole reports the commission "also heard rifle
> experts testify that the telescopic sight could be easily knocked out
> of adjustment and that this would make accurate shooting with the gun
> unlikely, that shims had to be inserted to elevate and move the sight
> before the commission's three marksmen could fire the rifle
> accurately, and that, even using stationary targets, expert marksmen
> were unable to equal Oswald's alleged accuracy" (Assassination Tapes,
> p. 27). No doubt Posner has not read them either. He thus commits a
> nice example of the fallacy of equivocation: the tests were not done
> with Oswald's rifle in its original condition, because it was a
> terrible weapon. When he says "the FBI ran Oswald's gun through a
> series of rigorous tests", it was a reconstructed weapon that was not
> available to Oswald, so it is difficult to see how they concluded it
> was accurate.
>
> Fallacy #4: page 104, lines 15 to 17:
>
> Posner: "It had a low kickback compared to other military rifles,
> which helped in rapid bolt-action firing."
>
> This is an outstanding case of special pleading, where you cite only
> evidence favorable to your side and ignore the unfavorable. Kickback
> is a function of recoil, which is determined by the amount of force
> directly imparted to your shoulder with a shoulder-supported weapon.
> That amount of force depends upon the caliber, weight, and charge of
> the round. A more powerful bullet imparts greater recoil, a less
> powerful bullet, less recoil, for weapons which can chamber both. Less
> force, in general, produces less velocity, less penetration power, and
> often less accuracy. (More detailed discussions may be found in
> Fadala, Rifle Guide, pp. 38-41, for example, and Withers, Precision
> Handloading, pp. 135-145). The "low kickback" of the Mannlicher-
> Carcano thus indicates that it is a weapon of low penetrating power
> and probably of low accuracy. There is a great deal of direct and
> indirect evidence for these conclusions. Rice's Gun Data Book (1975),
> p. 89, for example, characterizes a cartridge that is manufactured for
> the Mannlicher-Carcano as follows:
>
> 6.5 Italian (Carcano). This cartridge, made by Norma** in a 156 grain
> bullet, has the slowest muzzle velocity and weakest striking power of
> any of the 6.5 mm imports, so it is not as popular as its Japanese,
> German, or Swedish counterparts.
>
> �**Norma list the following speeds for the 6.5mm ammo by weight. �IF
> the bullet is 140 grain it will travel at 2224fps on average (note
> speed also is reliant on barrel length and we know the alleged rifle
> is A SHORT RIFLE meaning the barrel is only between 17"-24" long).
> The 160 grain bullet, the type allegedly used by LHO, travels at
> 2067fps on average.
>
> As I explained above, the ammunition that Oswald was alleged to have
> used had not been manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company since
> 1944, so it is not surprising that a gun data book published in 1975
> does not include it. However, since the bullet picked up from a
> stretcher at Parkland Hospital is alleged to be of the same kind and
> weighed 158.6 grains, the properties of the Norma and Western
> cartridges are probably very similar. This inference is supported by
> the muzzle velocities that are recorded for the Norma bullet:
>
> Cartridge - Carcano
> Wt. Grains -156
> Type - SP
> Velocity:
> Muzzle - 2000
> 100 yds - 1810
> 200yds - 1640
>
> SP means "soft point" as opposed to HP "hollow point", BP "bronze
> point", etc. (Rice, Gun Data Book, p. 118). The bullets that hit JFK
> are supposed to have been "copper jacketed". Since John Withers
> observes that "high velocity is a relative term without exact
> meaning" (Precision Handloading, p. 135), I looked for evidence
> indicating that "high velocity" and "medium velocity" had an
> essentially similar meaning around the time of the assassination.
> Leyson's New Guns Annual (1961), p. 19, describes a 170 grain, .30/30
> bullet which still has a velocity of 1890 fps at 100 yards as a
> "heavier bullet of slower velocity" than the high velocity bullets he
> has discussed, such as the Silver Tip 180 grain bullet with a velocity
> of 2850 fps at 100 yards. Notice, especially, that this .30/30 bullet
> is traveling faster than the Carcano bullet at 100 yards, yet is still
> described as slower than high velocity. This strongly supports the
> description of the Mannlicher-Carcano as a medium to low velocity
> weapon in technical terms that have been constant since at least 1961.
> As for "helping" with its bolt-action firing, see the discussion of
> Fallacy #3.
>
> So we see at 200 yds the muzzle velocity is just 1640 on average, and
> keep in mind the head shot occured way past 200 yds. �1640 fps is by
> NO means a high-velocity bullet and anyone who argues otherwise, Ben,