The Other Single Bullet Theory

[Charles Collins]

Air resistance in the direction of travel is huge. So air resistance to horizontal movement is significant especially at high speeds around 2000 fps. Gravity is not in the direction of travel.  There is no difference, as you acknowledge, in time to drop a given distance for a bullet fired from a gun and a bullet that is just dropped.  Air resistance for the dropped bullet is negligible over a drop distance that we are talking about here. That is why air resistance does not affect the time required for a bullet to drop such a short distance.

Gravity is not in the direction of travel.

What!?     Gravity is downward toward the center of the earth. The ricocheted fragment has a downward component right from the time it leaves the Elm Street surface. That downward component increases over time. Especially in the second half of the calculated trajectory (parabolic curve). So I think that you are just plain wrong.

Some information from “Modern Practical Ballistics” by Arthur J. Pejsa:

Back in the 1730s Benjamin Robbins invented the ballistic pendulum and showed that the drag force (air resistance) is fifty to one hundred times as great as the force of gravity. Additionally, at speeds approaching the speed of sound, there is a rapid and dramatic twofold to threefold increase in air drag; between approximately 1000 and 1200 fps, air drag is found to increase with about the fifth or sixth power of the air speed rather than with the square, or second power as it does at lower speeds. This is the infamous “sonic barrier” we hear of.

I am currently building and experimenting with a DIY ballistic pendulum. So far, ~30-degrees ricochets off of a concrete surface appear to retain the vast majority of their initial velocities. This agrees with the results of the high speed filmed 30-degrees ricochets that I included screenshots from in my report. You can search and find and watch that video on YouTube if you use the information at the bottom of the last screenshot. They show the various penetration depths of the various angle ricochets in ballistic gel.

I intend to continue to study and learn more from Pejsa’s book and my experiments. So far I have to disagree with your assessment and claims based on what I have learned so far. Again, I do appreciate your input it tends to give me incentive to learn more about these things.

[Andrew Mason]

Gravity is not in the direction of travel.

What!?     Gravity is downward toward the center of the earth. The ricocheted fragment has a downward component right from the time it leaves the Elm Street surface. That downward component increases over time. Especially in the second half of the calculated trajectory (parabolic curve). So I think that you are just plain wrong.

Some information from “Modern Practical Ballistics” by Arthur J. Pejsa:

Back in the 1730s Benjamin Robbins invented the ballistic pendulum and showed that the drag force (air resistance) is fifty to one hundred times as great as the force of gravity. Additionally, at speeds approaching the speed of sound, there is a rapid and dramatic twofold to threefold increase in air drag; between approximately 1000 and 1200 fps, air drag is found to increase with about the fifth or sixth power of the air speed rather than with the square, or second power as it does at lower speeds. This is the infamous “sonic barrier” we hear of.

I am currently building and experimenting with a DIY ballistic pendulum. So far, ~30-degrees ricochets off of a concrete surface appear to retain the vast majority of their initial velocities. This agrees with the results of the high speed filmed 30-degrees ricochets that I included screenshots from in my report. You can search and find and watch that video on YouTube if you use the information at the bottom of the last screenshot. They show the various penetration depths of the various angle ricochets in ballistic gel.

I intend to continue to study and learn more from Pejsa’s book and my experiments. So far I have to disagree with your assessment and claims based on what I have learned so far. Again, I do appreciate your input it tends to give me incentive to learn more about these things.

At a 2 degree downward slope, the downward component initially is -.035 times the horizontal component. So even at 2000 fps the downward speed would be no more than -70 fps.  And after .1 second it would be -73.2 fps.  (v_y=v_0y-gt)

 If there is more drag it will take longer to fall a given distance so it would have to be moving horizontally at an even slower speed for it to fall 5 feet (or 4 feet now with your revision) by taking into account vertical drag due to air resistance.

Projectile motion is fairly basic if one does not take into account air resistance. That’s why it is a first year physics subject.  Fluid dynamics is typically a third or fourth year subject as it is very complicated.

[Charles Collins]

At a 2 degree downward slope, the downward component initially is -.035 times the horizontal component. So even at 2000 fps the downward speed would be no more than -70 fps.  And after .1 second it would be -73.2 fps.  (v_y=v_0y-gt)

 If there is more drag it will take longer to fall a given distance so it would have to be moving horizontally at an even slower speed for it to fall 5 feet (or 4 feet now with your revision) by taking into account vertical drag due to air resistance.

Projectile motion is fairly basic if one does not take into account air resistance. That’s why it is a first year physics subject.  Fluid dynamics is typically a third or fourth year subject as it is very complicated.

A total velocity of 1500 fps with a downward component of 0.035 X 1500 = 52.5 fps. In 0.2419 seconds it would drop approximately the required 12.7-feet. The vertical component of the drag force would be acting to slow this descent while gravity would be acting to speed it up. Since the vertical component of the drag force would be stronger than gravity, the net effect would be deceleration of the descent. But, the point I have been making is that since there is a vertical velocity to begin with, the time required to accelerate from zero velocity (of a dropped bullet) is eliminated. Here is an image that shows the dropped bullet’s much smaller velocity and distance at the same 0.2419 seconds elapsed time. That is the running start I have been describing.

[Tom Graves]

Oswald most likely was looking through the scope as he began to try to track the moving target.

If Oswald was using his scope while the limo was still on Houston Street and the Secret Service agents somehow didn't notice him and he somehow resisted the temptation squeeze off a round at JFK's large, impossible-to-miss head, when the limo started turning onto Elm Street, he may have switched over to his iron sights and . . . gasp . . . . lost his bead on JFK in the process.

If he didn't switch over to his iron sights when the limo turned onto Elm Street but continued tracking JFK's too-close head through his scope, that in-and-of-itself could explain how he managed to miss everything with his first shot.

[Charles Collins]

Why in the world would he have been looking through the scope?

If he had "tracked" JFK's head with his scope as the limo was coming towards him on Houston Street, he not only would have been spotted by the Secret Service agents in the follow-up car, but would have shot at JFK's huge, looming, enticing-through-the-scope head.

However, if he *was* "tacking" JFK's ever-more enticing head through his scope while the limo was still on Houston Street and 1) the Secret Service agents *somehow* didn't notice him and 2) he *somehow* resisted the temptation squeeze off a round at JFK's large, looming, ever-enticing, impossible-to-miss head, when the limo started turning onto Elm Street, he may have tried to switch over to his much-more-practical-at-that-close-range iron sights and . . . gasp . . . . lost his bead on JFK's head in the process.

If he *didn't* switch over to his iron sights when the limo turned onto Elm Street but stupidly continued "tracking" JFK's head through his scope, that in-and-of-itself could explain how he managed to miss everything with his first shot.

Why in the world would he have been looking through the scope?

A scope typically provides a faster and more accurate way to shoot.


If he had "tracked" JFK's head with his scope as the limo was coming towards him on Houston Street, he not only would have been spotted by the Secret Service agents in the follow-up car, but would have shot at JFK's huge, looming, enticing-through-the-scope head.

I said nothing about tracking while the limo was still on Houston Street. This all begins as the limo was turning onto Elm Street.


However, if he *was* "tacking" JFK's ever-more enticing head through his scope while the limo was still on Houston Street and 1) the Secret Service agents *somehow* didn't notice him and 2) he *somehow* resisted the temptation squeeze off a round at JFK's large, looming, ever-enticing, impossible-to-miss head, when the limo started turning onto Elm Street, he may have tried to switch over to his much-more-practical-at-that-close-range iron sights and . . . gasp . . . . lost his bead on JFK's head in the process.

First of all, a 4X power scope is not too powerful to use at a distance of about 100-feet. You can ask many dead squirrels about that. Also, it really doesn't matter whether he was using the scope or the fixed iron sights. The point is that he would have been trying to acquire the target in his sights and not paying attention to the box on the window sill.


If he *didn't* switch over to his iron sights when the limo turned onto Elm Street but stupidly continued "tracking" JFK's head through his scope, that in-and-of-itself could explain how he managed to miss everything with his first shot

No it doesn't. LHO apparently bought the scope as an extra cost item to use for a shot at General Walker. That shot at Walker was about the same distance (100-feet) as an early shot at the limo. LHO apparently spent time shooting the rifle/scope combo prior to the Walker event. I believe he would have zeroed the scope for the same distance he planned to shoot at. So it seems to me that using the scope makes the most sense.

Here's a clip that shows what I think may have happened. It starts with a plan to begin shooting as soon as the limo clears out from under the tree. It takes a second or two or three to raise the rifle, acquire the target in the sights, and pull the trigger. So I think that he would have begun that process while the limo was directly below him and once he acquired the target he would track it as best he could while it was passing under the tree (from his point of view). He probably didn't have a chance to practice this except in his mind. So, when first lowering the rifle towards the limo, if it suddenly and unexpectedly hit the box on the window sill (as depicted in the clip) and his finger was on the trigger, an inadvertent (accidental discharge) shot could have occurred. That is what I believe happened.

[Tom Graves]

Why in the world would he have been looking through the scope?

A scope typically provides a faster and more accurate way to shoot.


If he had "tracked" JFK's head with his scope as the limo was coming towards him on Houston Street, he not only would have been spotted by the Secret Service agents in the follow-up car, but would have shot at JFK's huge, looming, enticing-through-the-scope head.

I said nothing about tracking while the limo was still on Houston Street. This all begins as the limo was turning onto Elm Street.


However, if he *was* "tacking" JFK's ever-more enticing head through his scope while the limo was still on Houston Street and 1) the Secret Service agents *somehow* didn't notice him and 2) he *somehow* resisted the temptation squeeze off a round at JFK's large, looming, ever-enticing, impossible-to-miss head, when the limo started turning onto Elm Street, he may have tried to switch over to his much-more-practical-at-that-close-range iron sights and . . . gasp . . . . lost his bead on JFK's head in the process.

First of all, a 4X power scope is not too powerful to use at a distance of about 100-feet. You can ask many dead squirrels about that. Also, it really doesn't matter whether he was using the scope or the fixed iron sights. The point is that he would have been trying to acquire the target in his sights and not paying attention to the box on the window sill.


If he *didn't* switch over to his iron sights when the limo turned onto Elm Street but stupidly continued "tracking" JFK's head through his scope, that in-and-of-itself could explain how he managed to miss everything with his first shot

No it doesn't. LHO apparently bought the scope as an extra cost item to use for a shot at General Walker. That shot at Walker was about the same distance (100-feet) as an early shot at the limo. LHO apparently spent time shooting the rifle/scope combo prior to the Walker event. I believe he would have zeroed the scope for the same distance he planned to shoot at. So it seems to me that using the scope makes the most sense.

Here's a clip that shows what I think may have happened. It starts with a plan to begin shooting as soon as the limo clears out from under the tree. It takes a second or two or three to raise the rifle, acquire the target in the sights, and pull the trigger. So I think that he would have begun that process while the limo was directly below him and once he acquired the target he would track it as best he could while it was passing under the tree (from his point of view). He probably didn't have a chance to practice this except in his mind. So, when first lowering the rifle towards the limo, if it suddenly and unexpectedly hit the box on the window sill (as depicted in the clip) and his finger was on the trigger, an inadvertent (accidental discharge) shot could have occurred. That is what I believe happened.

Not wanting to have to wade through the whole thread to see if you've already answered this question, please tell me what your first shot equates to Zapruder-frame-wise.

Thanks.

[Charles Collins]

Not wanting to have to wade through the whole thread to see if you've already answered this question, please tell me what your first shot equates to Zapruder-frame-wise.

Thanks.

If you read the report you might remember this image showing a clear path for the bullet/fragment(s) at about Z133. This appears to be true for a period of time from shortly before to shortly after Z133.