The Fundamental Problem

[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.

[Dillon Rankine]

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 .....

I was interested in where the shot came from when you thought it was close range.

None of your conclusions follow from your arguments; you?re just rambling a load of ?bull stuff?: ?according to me, if he didn?t load the gun properly it would drop to 700 ft/sec which wouldn?t penetrate the back very far because I said so and I?m me which means I?m right.? Making claims at this level of specificity requires some empiricism, actually prove what you?re saying. How do you expect anyone but yourself to believe this?

Give me an approx wound depth, rough details on the bullet (just to calculate KE), and a distance and some simple maths can tell whether or not you?re wrong.   

[Walt Cakebread]

I was interested in where the shot came from when you thought it was close range.

None of your conclusions follow from your arguments; you?re just rambling a load of ?bull stuff?: ?according to me, if he didn?t load the gun properly it would drop to 700 ft/sec which wouldn?t penetrate the back very far because I said so and I?m me which means I?m right.? Making claims at this level of specificity requires some empiricism, actually prove what you?re saying. How do you expect anyone but yourself to believe this?

Give me an approx wound depth, rough details on the bullet (just to calculate KE), and a distance and some simple maths can tell whether or not you?re wrong.

Making claims at this level of specificity requires some empiricism, actually prove what you?re saying. How do you expect anyone but yourself to believe this?

A person of average intelligence, with an ounce of commonsense, can understand that a weak load will not fire accurately....