The Fundamental Problem

[Walt Cakebread]

To answer both you and Walt, impact velocity is inversely related to chance of perforation (so lower velocity is associated with increased chance of going straight through). This is because the higher the velocity at which a missile travels, the greater chance it has of fragmenting (it?s kinetic energy surpasses what its own mass can take). The lower the velocity, the lower this likelihood. Even at half impact velocity, the 6.5 bullet would?ve still gone clean through Kennedy?s torso.

Walt?s suggestion that some alternative missile resulted the injury doesn?t stack up as we?d need to find something weak enough to only go through less than finger?s length of relatively soft muscle tissue, but somehow strong enough to leave ordinary bullet holes (in the back and clothing) and not be taken out by the wind.   

Mr Rankin...Why don't you stop attempting to dazzle me with brilliance ....I know bull stuff when I smell it....

It is a fact that JFK was not stuck in the back by a 160 grain 6.5mm bullet that stopped almost immediately.......Any bullet that was traveling so slow that it didn't carry the energy to penetrate more than a couple of inches would not have had the energy to  fly true and hit the target....

A bullet with so little energy would probably have fell short of it's intended target.... Unless it was fired from close range....

Bottom Line....  IF there was a shallow non exiting wound in JFK's back....it was not caused by a 6.5mm ( 1/4 " ) bullet that was fired from a mannlicher carcano.

IF there was a shollow wound that was probed with a mans finger.....It was caused by a projectile a hell of a lot bigger than 6.5mm......

[Royell Storing]

The above argument applies to other types of ammunition. Again, what sort of ammo could survive a fight with the wind, clothing and tissue but only go through a kunckle?s length?

      Try to avoid the Evelyn Wood approach to reading. You failed to process "Intact".

[Dillon Rankine]

A "Fragment" of what?

A bullet.

Please think it through and thoroughly explain.

A bullet strikes Kennedy in the back or top of the head, the force of which causes it to fragment. One such shard is strikes the pavement near Tague resulting in the superficial injury.   

[Dillon Rankine]

      Try to avoid the Evelyn Wood approach to reading. You failed to process "Intact".

I didn?t because that doesn?t change anything (note my reference to normal inshoot wounds on the clothes and back). Try to avoid an arrogant and contemptuous argumentative style, it deflates the impact of everything you say.

[Dillon Rankine]

Mr Rankin...Why don't you stop attempting to dazzle me with brilliance ....I know bull stuff when I smell it....

It is a fact that JFK was not stuck in the back by a 160 grain 6.5mm bullet that stopped almost immediately.......Any bullet that was traveling so slow that it didn't carry the energy to penetrate more than a couple of inches would not have had the energy to  fly true and hit the target....

A bullet with so little energy would probably have fell short of it's intended target.... Unless it was fired from close range....

Bottom Line....  IF there was a shallow non exiting wound in JFK's back....it was not caused by a 6.5mm ( 1/4 " ) bullet that was fired from a mannlicher carcano.

IF there was a shollow wound that was probed with a mans finger.....It was caused by a projectile a hell of a lot bigger than 6.5mm......

I don?t know where your confidence comes from (you ?know? an awful lot ?for a fact?). I?m not attempting to dazzle anybody, but I?ll take that as a compliment. Simply put, some basic physics discards of a shallow wound, though I?m interested by your implying that it was more close range?care to eloborate?

[Walt Cakebread]

I don?t know where your confidence comes from (you ?know? an awful lot ?for a fact?). I?m not attempting to dazzle anybody, but I?ll take that as a compliment. Simply put, some basic physics discards of a shallow wound, though I?m interested by your implying that it was more close range?care to eloborate?

some basic physics discards of a shallow wound,.....

Yes , you're right simple basic physics, and common sense, are enough to refute the idea that a 6.5mm bullet fired from a carcano caused a shallow wound in JFK's back.

 I?m interested by your implying that it was more close range?care to eloborate?

Really...You want me to spell it out for you??    Any bullet traveling so slow with barely enough energy to penetrate a couple of inches of flesh would have to be fired from close range .....   Let's say a gun was fired behind JFK at his head.....But the cartridge had been under loaded with the wrong gunpowder.   So instead of the projectile emerging from the barrel at 950 fps it was only flying at 700fps.....  Naturally the bullet would not have the energy to hit the target (JFK's head) and would drop to a lower impact point....and it would not penetrate very deep into the muscle of his back .....

[Royell Storing]

A bullet.

A bullet strikes Kennedy in the back or top of the head, the force of which causes it to fragment. One such shard is strikes the pavement near Tague resulting in the superficial injury.

    Let's try this again.  1st you say a Bullet fragment hit Teague, and then you claim it was Pavement near Teague. Was it a Bullet Fragment striking the face of Teague or Pavement?

[Dillon Rankine]

    Let's try this again.  1st you say a Bullet fragment hit Teague, and then you claim it was Pavement near Teague. Was it a Bullet Fragment striking the face of Teague or Pavement?

Ain?t taking your foot off the gas with that arrogance and contempt I see.

My explanations don?t differ at all?I thought I was safe in assuming that all get the basic gist that the curb near Tague was damaged, and a fragment of said curb injured him that I wouldn?t have to spell it out.

This hypothesis is also fairly common: the FBI, WC, Tink Thompson, Flip de Mey, the Haags, Dale Myers and a bunch of others have all made it before me.