The Fundamental Problem

[Dillon Rankine]

Hear, hear!! I would say 99% of the CTers claims are nonsense. The two that deserve some scrutiny are James T. Tague and Silvia Odio, with Tague being the most worthy of serious debate. I just can't figure out how in the heck Tague received a wound to his cheek from so far away.

For what it?s worth I think the most plausible explanation for the Tague hit is a fragment from the headshot.

[Royell Storing]

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.   

       Your assumption being the wound was caused by an intact 6.5 bullet.

[Royell Storing]

For what it?s worth I think the most plausible explanation for the Tague hit is a fragment from the headshot.

     Please think it through and thoroughly explain. A "Fragment" of what?

[Dillon Rankine]

       Your assumption being the wound was caused by an intact 6.5 bullet.

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?

[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.