The Truly Magical Bullet

[Mitch Todd]

I "demanded" nothing so cut the crap.

You demanded it mostly nicely, but over the years, I've seen how that goes when someone asks for documentation for something they already know. In any case, why did you ask for linkage when you already knew who they were and what  their position was?

I see that the gospel according to Bugliosi is the chief source of reference for the parrots here.

Actually, I've never so much as picked up his book. Are you really that presumptuous?

So I will search for links that might be relevant to CE 399
In a segment on the Kennedy assassination produced for the HBO program Autopsy, Dr. Michael Baden made a number of claims that were certifiably false and/or extremely doubtful. Here are but a sampling of them:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/11988-baden-blithers-on/

"1. At roughly 3 minutes into the program, Baden discusses the initial press conference given by Kennedy's emergency room doctors. Baden says "In fact, the doctors down in Texas, where the shooting occurred, indicated he'd been shot in the back and in the front." The doctors, in fact, indicated no such thing. They described an entrance in Kennedy's throat and a large wound on the back of his head. They presumed this to be an exit for the bullet entering his throat. They said nothing to indicate the bullet causing this wound came from behind Kennedy.

2. A few minutes later, the program's narrator discusses the initial autopsy and states "Because the pathologist's notes were stained with blood, he burned them. After he found out that tracheotomy had been performed in Dallas, he tried to reconstitute his notes, based on what he could remember." This is nonsense. Dr. Humes, the pathologist in question, testified that he burned his notes only after copying them, and that he burned these notes after he found out about the tracheotomy. The implication that the initial autopsy report was in error because Dr. Humes couldn't remember what he saw is unjustified and undoubtedly deceptive, feeding into Dr. Baden's eventual conclusion that the mistakes in the autopsy report were all "innocent."

3. Shortly thereafter, when discussing the autopsy photos, Dr. Baden repeats the story of Floyd Riebe, a navy photographer whose camera was confiscated by the Secret Service. He then explains what he considers to be the poor quality of the photos by stating "The only one who was taking photographs was a Secret Service person who'd never taken autopsy photos before." This is frighteningly inaccurate. The lone autopsy photographer was John Stringer, the navy's top autopsy photographer, and Riebe's superior. In his memoirs, published nearly 20 years ago, Baden claimed the lone photographer was an FBI photographer. This incensed the original autopsists, Dr. James Humes and Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, to such an extent that they made a point of debunking Baden's claim and discussed Stringer's qualifications and abilities in a 1992 interview in the Journal of the American Medical Association. One would think Dr. Baden would remember his getting schooled in such a public fashion."

There is a 4-5-6-7-8-9 claims that follow.

None of them have to do with Baden's qualifications, abilities, or really anything at all about forensic medicine. How well Baden knows the exact story about Stringer and Reibe is immaterial with regard to what the photos and x-rays show, and says nothing about the skills required to correctly interpret such material. Ditto with exactly what Humes did with his notes, or with exactly what the Dallas doctors said in the news conference. It's like saying Jackie Stewart couldn't drive because he didn't remember the names of the pit crew or what the team owner told him about turn 4 at Spa. What a silly way to argue!

On Coe- found nothing
Davis testified on the fatal shot.. not in discussion here.
 Dittos  Loquvam
etc etc

All but Wecht signed off on the HSCA FPP report. He was allowed to testify to his dissent, and his dissenting opinion was added as an appendix to it.  If any of the other non-Wecht members of the HSCA FPP disagreed with the SBT, they've been mighty quiet about it for a very long time. For that matter, I've never heard that Wecht has claimed that other FPP members didn't believe in the SBT. He's not exactly a quiet guy, or a particularly diplomatic one, so the silence is significant.

In his dissenting opinion, he singles out Weston and Spitz in particular for arguing for the SBT. And, he points out with no small umbridge:

"I should like to point out in its report (first page of part 1), the statement that following its very first meeting at the National Archives on September 18, 1977, 'it was disclosed that subpanel l was in unanimous agreement with respect to the interpretation of the evidence.' (Subpanel 1 consisted of a]] the FPP members except Spitz, Wecht and Weston.)"

Loquvam and Weston wrote the FPP report  supporting the FPP Baden and Petty testified for it.

Given all that, there is no room to argue that the other FPP members didn't agree with the SBT, unless someone comes up with evidence otherwise. I've never found any.

What Bugliosi doesn't reveal is that the magic bullet theory was cooked up by Arlen Specter and Gerald Ford because they had to have it or the single shooter myth was doomed.

Which really doesn't apply to the question of how many experienced forensic pathologists agree with the SBT vs how many disagree with it. Why change the subject?

[Mitch Todd]

A couple of points:

1.  The SBT has CE399 striking bone other than nose-first, and it has it striking and shattering a rib at a speed much greater than 1100 fps.

2.  The SBT has CE399 striking the radius butt-first at about 1100 fps to explain the dent in the butt end.

So if there is any meaningful demonstration it should be to have the bullet strike a radius butt-first at 1100 fps and see what both the bullet and radius look like.

the SBT has CE399 striking the rib, but is agnostic about the bullet's particular attitude at impact.  Shaw said that the impact was what he called a "slap wound," where the bullet hit the rib in something like a glancing blow. The rib broke from being compressed inward by the impact. Dr Gregory originated the idea that Connally's wrist wound was caused by a bullet striking tail first. This was based on his observation that the entry wound was too ragged to be a "normal" nose-first affair. He'd been a field surgeon in the Korean War, and knew a bit about bullet wounds. He also had the luxury of not needing to work fast, unlike Shaw or the teams in the ER. Lattimer did a lot of work weighing out something like a couple hundred 6.5mm WCC rounds; he found that they averaged about 1.6gr more than CE399, with a very tight distribution around the mean. He also used a vise to squeeze a few 6.5mm rounds into a shape as close to CE399 as he could manage; this resulted in about 1.5gr of lead being extruded out of the tail of the bullet. Per Gregory's and Lattimer's input, it would seem that the bullet would have hit the radius going backwards, lead-extrusion first, and the impact would shear off the extrusion or otherwise cause it to separate from the bullet proper, which would account for the fragments in the wrist and thigh. And, it would imply that the bulk of the flattening and bending would have occurred in the rib impact.

[Jerry Freeman]

Which really doesn't apply to the question of how many experienced forensic pathologists agree with the SBT vs how many disagree with it. Why change the subject?
Actually, I've never so much as picked up his book. Are you really that presumptuous?

The topic is the Magic Bullet if you didn't notice.
About the other....Bugliosi seemed to buy the SBT, hook, line and sinker and you seem to also so... uhhhh....yeah I presumed. So what?
 
What is this crap about Jackie Stewart?
Someone doesn't stand up and agree so that means that they disagree?
Talk about 'presume'.
Back to square one....
Provide a link where a forensic specialist/scientific/medical professional DISAGREES with Cyril Wecht on the SBT and proves where Dr Wecht is wrong regarding CE 399...or shut up about it.

[Tim Nickerson]

Provide a link where a forensic specialist/scientific/medical professional DISAGREES with Cyril Wecht on the SBT and proves where Dr Wecht is wrong regarding CE 399...or shut up about it.

I already did. You ignored it. Wecht is a nut and is essentially a knownothing when it comes to this stuff.

[Jerry Freeman]

I already did.   Wecht is a nut and is essentially a knownothing when it comes to this stuff.

You're funny. You should change your moniker to Snickerson.
OK so I'm slow. Perhaps you could link to your link.
Should be easy for someone sharp ......like you.

[John Iacoletti]

I already did. You ignored it. Wecht is a nut and is essentially a knownothing when it comes to this stuff.

Any expert who disagrees with the party line is a "nut" by definition as far as LNers are concerned.

But ask them how many firearms experts agreed with Nicol that a slug pulled out of Tippit could be matched to a specific revolver and they all go silent...

[Ray Mitcham]

Any expert who disagrees with the party line is a "nut" by definition as far as LNers are concerned.

But ask them how many firearms experts agreed with Nicol that a slug pulled out of Tippit could be matched to a specific revolver and they all go silent...

Tim?

[Joe Elliott]

The following tables are from Larry Sturdivan?s ?The JFK Myths?:

Abbreviations used mean:
  m/s is meters per second
  f/s is feet per second
  Conn. Is Connally


Page 118

Table II. Approximate Velocities At Which WCC/MC Bullets and Bones Deform

Orientation     Velocity       Velocity       Velocity       Muzzle
Of the          at which       at which       at which       Velocity
Bullet          the bullet     bone will      soft
                will           deform         tissue
                shatter        the            will
                bone           bullet         deform
                                              bullet

Point First     120 m/s        520 m/s        730 m/s        600 m/s
Sideways        135 m/s        425 m/s        610 m/s

Point First     400 f/s        1700 f/s       2400 f/s       2160 f/s
Sideways        450 f/s        1400 f/s       2000 f/s

This table was calculated comparing the theorical ?tissue? drag with the yield strength of the WCC/MC bullet, based on it?s copper alloy shell and lead core. Which these are all theorical calculations, real world tests confirm this table.





Page 144

Table III. Probable Velocity and Orientation of CE 399 at Various Points Along Its Trajectory

Muzzle     At Impact   At Impact   Penetrating   At Impact   At Impact
Velocity   on JFK?s    on Conn.?s  Connally?s    on Conn.?s  on
           Neck        Back        Rib           Wrist       Thigh

660 m/s    615 m/s     500 m/s     440 m/s       150 m/s     40 m/s
+- 10      +- 10       +- 15       through       +- 30       +- 6
                                   244 m/s
                                   +- 30

2160 f/s   2015 f/s    1830 f/s    1450 f/s      500 f/s     135 fps
+- 30      +- 30       +- 100      through       +- 100      +- 20
                                   800   f/s
                                   +- 100

Table III was a rough estimate based on the shooting of goat carcasses. This table differs from Mr. Sturdivan?s estimates presented to the HSCA back in the 1970?s. More extensive experiments have allowed a more accurate table. All values are approximate estimates but based on real world experiments.
The margin of error generally becomes greater and greater at later portions of its flight. This is because the margins of error are additive. If there is a 10 m/s error range in the speed the bullet is going when it reaches the first target, and a 20 m/s error range on the effect of the first target on the velocity, then there will be a 30 m/s error range when it reaches the second target. The exception is the speed of the bullet that barely penetrated Connally?s thigh, since the bullet would have to be going just fast enough to penetrate the skin, but not much faster to prevent it from penetrating deep into the thigh.

A couple of points:

1.  The SBT has CE399 striking bone other than nose-first, and it has it striking and shattering a rib at a speed much greater than 1100 fps.

Larry Sturdivan?s estimate, the best estimate available (I believe) is that CE399 struck the rib at initially at 1450 f/s, just fast enough to deform the bullet. The bullet was travelling sideways at this point. It hit the rib with the back half of the bullet, causing the deformation. That is why the bullet is squeezed some near the base, with little or no deformity of the front half of the bullet.

Had the bullet still been traveling with the pointed end first, as it did through the air, it would have not deformed at all since such a bullet will not deform once the velocity dips below 1700 f/s.

Once the bullet slowed to about 1400 f/s, which still going through the rib, the deformation of the bullet stopped since even a sideways bullet won?t deform below 1400 f/s.

2.  The SBT has CE399 striking the radius butt-first at about 1100 fps to explain the dent in the butt end.

So if there is any meaningful demonstration it should be to have the bullet strike a radius butt-first at 1100 fps and see what both the bullet and radius look like.

The wrist bone deformed the bullet a minimum amount, since it was travelling relatively slowly at that time, 500 f/s.

As the bullet got squeezed near the base of the bullet, some lead oozed out of the base of the bullet, like toothpaste being squeezed from a tube. This exposed soft lead was scraped off of the base of the bullet. Otherwise the wrist bone did not deform the bullet.

The wrist bone, while stronger than the rib bone, failed to further deform the bullet because it?s velocity was so much less striking the wrist bone than the rib bone.