Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Applying Logic and Critical Thinking to the JFK Assassination  (Read 16479 times)

Online Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1821
    • JFK Assassination Website
Re: Applying Logic and Critical Thinking to the JFK Assassination
« Reply #49 on: June 22, 2026, 08:11:14 PM »
Oswald's performance on 11/22/1963 proved he was capable of making the shots that killed JFK because the evidence he did that is overwhelming.

LOL! Look up the term "circular reasoning."

The burden of proof is on the CTs to provide the evidence that he was NOT capable of making he shots.

We've done that, in spades. You just won't admit it. Any credible, serious person would acknowledge that Oswald was not capable of performing his alleged feat given the fact that his alleged feat has never been duplicated in any halfway realistic Oswald rifle test. You keep ignoring the fact that virtually everyone who saw him shoot in the Marine Corps and in Russia said he was a poor shot.

A semi-auto like the M1 does automate the chambering of each round after the clip is inserted, but once the round is in the chamber, the fundamentals for making an accurate shot are pretty much the same. Both rifles have significant recoil which will require the shooter to reacquire the target and put the sight on the intended target. A bolt action rifle has the added step of manually operating the bolt to eject the spent round and chamber the next round in the clip.

IOW, you are so blindly biased that you can't even admit the self-evident, demonstrable fact that accurately firing a semi-automatic rifle is easier than accurately firing a bolt-action rifle.

A slow moving target moving almost directly away from the shooter is almost stationary in that there is very little movement in relation to the line of fire.

One, 11 mph is not a "slow moving target." If you ran 100 meters in 20 seconds, that would be 11 mph. 11 mph is a fairly rapid sprint. And you seem to forget that Elm Street sloped downward. I know you're just blindly repeating talking points you've read on lone-gunman sites, but you should have thought about this claim before repeating it.

That would have been true for Oswald's second and third shots but not for his first which is why that shot was by far the most difficult.

I've refuted this nonsense several times, but you just keep repeating it. Among the problems I've noted with this specious argument, I'll repeat the fact that the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes 13 out of 14 times with their second and third shots, even though they were firing at stationary target boards from only 30 feet up.


The effect of firing at greater ranges effectively makes the target smaller. I guess during your critical thinking you failed to take that into account.

Gee, I had no idea! I guess you "failed to take into account" that using a 4-power scope, as Oswald allegedly did, makes targets seem much closer than they are because of the magnification.

Let me see if I can do the arithmetic without a calculator. Oswald had to hit 42 out of 50 shots to qualify. That's an 84% hit rate. When shooting at JFK, he hit his target 2 out or 3 times. That's a hit rate of 67%. Sounds like Oswald was a little sharper when shooting in the USMC, but let's cut him some slack. He was firing with a bolt action rifle.

It would be hard to dream up a worse example of grade-school-level faulty logic and evasion. As I proved in my reply, it is clearly invalid to use Oswald's Marine Corps rifle scores as evidence he could have performed the alleged lone-gunman shooting feat. Yet, here are you are doing exactly that, ignoring all the factors that I listed that show that scoring a 210 in Marine Corps rifle qualification back then would have been far, far, far easier than scoring 2 hits in 3 shots in a max of 11 seconds and scoring both hits in 5.6 seconds. 


When firing from a level position or an elevated position, gravity starts to take effect as soon as the bullet leaves the barrel. The shorter the distance, the less the bullet will drop while in flight.

You really should stop pretending to know anything about marksmanship. 

Oswald's longest shot was 88 yards, so gravity had less effect on his shot.

But it would have had some effect. You might want to read what former Marine Corps sniper Craig Roberts has said about Oswald's alleged shooting feat. Why do you suppose that the most legendary Marine Corps sniper in the modern era, Gunny Carlos Hathcock, scoffed at the idea that Oswald could have done the shooting feat that your side claims he did?

And I see you're still assuming a priori that Oswald fired the shots, yet you refuse to deal with the fact that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used, that CE 543 could not have fired a bullet during the shooting, that acoustical science shows that at least 4 shots were fired, that a number of eyewitness accounts rule out Oswald being on the sixth-floor during the shooting, etc., etc. 

14 x 4 inch area? I didn't know JFK was a pinhead.

An area 14 inches high and 4 inches wide is hardly a pinhead. And we're actually probably talking about an area only 12-13 inches high, but I'm erring on the side of caution. Go look at the target silhouettes from the WC's rifle test. The WC's three Master-rated riflemen missed a larger area in the head-and-neck region 20 out of 21 times, but you say Oswald hit a smaller area twice in 5.6 seconds.

« Last Edit: June 22, 2026, 08:15:55 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Applying Logic and Critical Thinking to the JFK Assassination
« Reply #49 on: June 22, 2026, 08:11:14 PM »


Online John Corbett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
Re: Applying Logic and Critical Thinking to the JFK Assassination
« Reply #50 on: June 22, 2026, 09:35:11 PM »
LOL! Look up the term "circular reasoning."

There is ample forensic proof that Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK that do not require circular reasoning. Of course you will use cockamamie excuses to dismiss each and every one of those pieces of evidence rather than accept the obvious conclusion that Oswald was the assassin.
Quote

We've done that, in spades. You just won't admit it. Any credible, serious person would acknowledge that Oswald was not capable of performing his alleged feat given the fact that his alleged feat has never been duplicated in any halfway realistic Oswald rifle test.

Once again you ignore he fact that shootings cannot be duplicated. Each is unique. It is a preposterous demand the CTs have made for years. I can't even think of another shooting in which somebody even tried to duplicate it. I was juror in a gunshot murder case. The prosecution didn't even try to duplicate the shooting, he defense didn't demand the shooting be duplicated, and we as a jury didn't expect the prosecution to duplicate the shooting to show it was possible. Guess what? We convicted the perp anyway.
Quote

You keep ignoring the fact that virtually everyone who saw him shoot in the Marine Corps and in Russia said he was a poor shot.

Anecdotal evidence. The record says otherwise.
Quote

IOW, you are so blindly biased

It's hilarious that you of all people would hurl that accusation at somebody else.
Quote

that you can't even admit the self-evident, demonstrable fact that accurately firing a semi-automatic rifle is easier than accurately firing a bolt-action rifle.

It's only easier to fire it rapidly. Once the round is chambered, which the semi-auto does for you, the process of making an accurate shot is pretty much the same. The 1903 Springfield rifle and the WWII era semi--auto M1 Garand both fired the same .30-06 round with equal proficiency. Famed Marine sniper Carlos Hathcock used several models of bolt action rifles for his long range kills in the Vietnam War. The sniper's motto is "One shot. One kill". This makes rapid fire unnecessary. Bolt action rifles are plenty accurate.
Quote



One, 11 mph is not a "slow moving target." If you ran 100 meters in 20 seconds, that would be 11 mph.

That's really, really slow.
Quote

11 mph is a fairly rapid sprint.

Are you serious? I'm 74 years old and 50 lbs. overweight and I know I could still run 100 meters in under 20 seconds.
Quote

And you seem to forget that Elm Street sloped downward. I know you're just blindly repeating talking points you've read on lone-gunman sites, but you should have thought about this claim before repeating it.

What the hell difference does that make. 11 mph going downhill isn't any faster than 11 mph on a level surface. They both will take you 11 miles in one hour. The fact that Elm St was sloped actually reduces the amount of relative movement of the target to the line of fire.

The only LN website I remember visiting recently is David Von Pein's and that was to reference his excellent section on the SBT.
Quote

I've refuted this nonsense several times,

In your mind.
Quote

 but you just keep repeating it. Among the problems I've noted with this specious argument, I'll repeat the fact that the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes 13 out of 14 times with their second and third shots, even though they were firing at stationary target boards from only 30 feet up.

How fast were they firing?
Quote

Gee, I had no idea! I guess you "failed to take into account" that using a 4-power scope, as Oswald allegedly did, makes targets seem much closer than they are because of the magnification.

Yes it does. So what's your point?
Quote

It would be hard to dream up a worse example of grade-school-level faulty logic and evasion. As I proved in my reply,

The only thing you ever prove in your replies is that you are really, really bad at critical thinking.
Quote

it is clearly invalid to use Oswald's Marine Corps rifle scores as evidence he could have performed the alleged lone-gunman shooting feat.

It is the CTs who try to use Oswald's USMC scores to prove he couldn't. They fail miserably in their effort. He had to hit targets at much longer ranges to achieve he scores he did, even at is lower score of 191. His best score of 212 was only 2 points lower than Charles Whitman's USMC score and he killed about a dozen people from higher up and at longer ranges than Oswald.
Quote


The LN position is that the forensic evidence clearly proves Oswald was the shooter in Dealey Plaza. That is all that is needed to prove he could do the shooting. I guess logic isn't your strong suit either.
Quote


Yet, here are you are doing exactly that, ignoring all the factors that I listed that show that scoring a 210 in Marine Corps rifle qualification back then would have been far, far, far easier than scoring 2 hits in 3 shots in a max of 11 seconds and scoring both hits in 5.6 seconds.

You've claimed that absent any reasoning or logic.
Quote


You really should stop pretending to know anything about marksmanship.

I'll gladly put my knowledge up against yours any day.
Quote


But it would have had some effect. You might want to read what former Marine Corps sniper Craig Roberts has said about Oswald's alleged shooting feat. Why do you suppose that the most legendary Marine Corps sniper in the modern era, Gunny Carlos Hathcock, scoffed at the idea that Oswald could have done the shooting feat that your side claims he did?

There is no record of Hathcock saying that. I see no reason to think Hathcock who had a record kill shot of 2500 hundred yards couldn't have made a kill shot at 88 yards in his sleep. He once shot out the scope of a North Vietnamese sniper's scope at 800 yards only being able to see the sun reflecting off the scope. He aimed at the center of the reflection. He later said he could have only made that shot if the other sniper had Hathcock in his scope. Hathcock squeezed off his round just in time. In fact at a range of 800 yards, there was a real possibility they could have killed each other with their bullets passing each other in flight.
Quote

And I see you're still assuming a priori that Oswald fired the shots,

That's not an assumption. An assumption is a conclusion made in absence of evidence. There is overwhelming evidence that Oswald was the shooter, even if you invent silly excuses to dismiss that evidence.
Quote

 yet you refuse to deal with the fact that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used,

BS.
Quote

that CE 543 could not have fired a bullet during the shooting,

More BS.
Quote

that acoustical science shows that at least 4 shots were fired,

High tech BS.
Quote

that a number of eyewitness accounts rule out Oswald being on the sixth-floor during the shooting, etc., etc. 

The fact that you think eyewitness accounts can prove anything shows just how bad your are at critical thinking. Eyewitness accounts don't prove or disprove anything unless you can prove through corroborating evidence that the eyewitnesses are correct. Eyewitness accounts are the least reliable form of evidence our courts will accept which is why when a judge instructs a jury, they are told to weigh such testimony for credibility.
Quote

An area 14 inches high and 4 inches wide is hardly a pinhead. And we're actually probably talking about an area only 12-13 inches high, but I'm erring on the side of caution. Go look at the target silhouettes from the WC's rifle test. The WC's three Master-rated riflemen missed a larger area in the head-and-neck region 20 out of 21 times, but you say Oswald hit a smaller area twice in 5.6 seconds.

Just how wide do you think JFK's head was? How broad was his torso?

Online Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1821
    • JFK Assassination Website
Re: Applying Logic and Critical Thinking to the JFK Assassination
« Reply #51 on: June 23, 2026, 12:40:48 PM »
Regarding Oswald's alleged shooting feat and Oswald's rifle skills, for those who might be interested, I have published revised and expanded versions of two articles of mine on the subject:

"Was Oswald a Poor Shot?"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BI-gU_SUKh6o3J92P8oEGwBUGi5E9nkp/view?usp=sharing

"How Long Would Oswald Have Had to Fire?"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FjVfqgS0npzCsDuIgVNDqJVXQ_tf7Td0/view?usp=sharing

Online John Corbett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
Re: Applying Logic and Critical Thinking to the JFK Assassination
« Reply #52 on: June 23, 2026, 02:44:26 PM »
Regarding Oswald's alleged shooting feat and Oswald's rifle skills, for those who might be interested, I have published revised and expanded versions of two articles of mine on the subject:

Oh, goody.
Quote

"Was Oswald a Poor Shot?"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BI-gU_SUKh6o3J92P8oEGwBUGi5E9nkp/view?usp=sharing

"How Long Would Oswald Have Had to Fire?"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FjVfqgS0npzCsDuIgVNDqJVXQ_tf7Td0/view?usp=sharing

Now I have two more of your inane writings I can ignore.

Online Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1821
    • JFK Assassination Website
Re: Applying Logic and Critical Thinking to the JFK Assassination
« Reply #53 on: June 29, 2026, 01:41:21 PM »
The next issue I'd like to discuss on using logic and critical thinking in the JFK case is the wound ballistics aspects of the case.

Before doing so, let's recap the issue of Oswald's marksmanship and his alleged shooting feat.

One, nearly everyone who saw Oswald shoot in the Marine Corps (MC) or in Russia said he was a poor shot, and Oswald's MC rifle scores show he was only a mediocre shot even when using a superb semi-automatic rifle against stationary targets that he had practiced against for hours and while having no less than 5 seconds per shot in the fastest of the firing phases.

Two, Oswald's alleged shooting feat has never been duplicated. In the only rifle test that used the alleged murder weapon itself, three NRA-Master-rated riflemen failed to hit the head and neck area of the target silhouettes 20 out of 21 times, even though the rifle had been zeroed with the scope, even though they were firing from only 30 feet up, even though they were firing at stationary target boards, even though they took practice shots before the test, and even though they took all the time they wanted for their first shot.

In the 1967 CBS rifle test, only one of the 12 experienced riflemen, many of whom were expert marksmen, scored two hits in three shots in under 6 seconds on his first attempt, and that was only because the test counted as "hits" any shots that landed anywhere on the target silhouettes, even if they landed far from the 14 x 4-inch area that Oswald allegedly hit two out of two times in 5.6 seconds. I should add that the rifle in the CBS test was zeroed and that the riflemen were allowed to fire nine practice shots before the test.

Wound Ballistics Problems: Really Big Problems

One of the most glaring contradictions and illogical aspects of the lone-gunman theory involve its claims about the behavior of the two alleged Oswald bullets that supposedly hit Kennedy. Oswald supposedly used 6.5 mm full-metal-jacketed (FMJ) bullets, which are built to have tremendous penetrating power without markedly fragmenting. The lone-gunman theory says that his first alleged hit struck Kennedy in the back of the neck and that his second alleged hit struck the back of the head (we will not delve into the two severely inconsistent proposed entry points for this bullet). These two bullets behaved in dramatically different ways.

According to the lone-gunman theory's single-bullet theory (SBT), the first supposed Oswald bullet that hit JFK tore through JFK's neck, exited his throat, hit Governor Connally in the back, tore through Connally's chest while shattering 4 inches of rib bone, exited Connally's chest, hit his wrist and fractured the distal radius bone (one of the hardest bones in the body), exited the wrist, and buried itself in the governor's left thigh. And this bullet, CE 399, after supposedly doing all this destruction, emerged with minimal damage, with its lands and grooves intact, with no deformation to its nose, and with the loss of only 3-4 grains of its substance.

Yet, the alleged Oswald bullet that supposedly hit JFK in the head shattered into several large fragments and into dozens of tiny fragments, allegedly leaving at least two fragments on the rear outer table of the skull, leaving dozens of tiny fragments in a veritable "lead snowstorm" near the top of the skull around the right coronal suture, and leaving two sizable fragments just behind the right orbit.

What in the world?! So one FMJ bullet tears through seven layers of human skin, shatters 4 inches of rib bone, and fractures the distal radius bone--but somehow emerges with its lands and grooves intact, suffers no deformation to its nose, and loses only 3-4 grains of its substance. Yet, the other FMJ bullet penetrates the rear of a skull and then shatters into dozens of tiny fragments and also several sizable fragments while impossibly leaving at least two fragments at its entry point on the outer table of the skull.

Leaving aside the fact that no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has ever behaved the way the SBT bullet behaved or the way the head-shot bullet behaved, how could two FMJ bullets behave so drastically differently as these two bullets supposedly did?

It is hard to say which bullet's alleged behavior is more problematic. No genuine, realistic SBT wound ballistics test has ever produced a bullet that emerged looking like CE 399. Even some severely rigged SBT tests failed to duplicate the SBT. In the WC's SBT wound ballistics test, bullets that were merely fired into cotton wadding emerged with more deformity than CE 399, which is one reason the Army's top wound ballistics expert, Dr. Joseph Dolce, told the WC the SBT was impossible.

On the other hand, forensic science tells us that FMJ bullets will never, ever, ever shatter into dozens of tiny fragments after penetrating bone, skull bone or otherwise. Dr. Vincent DiMaio, considered one of the greatest forensic pathologists of the 20th and 21st centuries, made this clear in his famous forensic handbook Gunshot Wounds:

An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . . usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has perforated bone such as the skull or spine.If any fragments are seen, they are very sparse in number. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)

In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a 'lead snowstorm'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318)

Notice the two key points: (1) In the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" fragments. (2) If an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," i.e., a cluster of numerous tiny fragments, this "rules out" FMJ ammo.

Thus, it is not surprising that the skull x-rays from the WC's head-shot wound ballistics test show a fragmentation pattern that looks nothing like the pattern seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2026, 01:44:59 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
Re: Applying Logic and Critical Thinking to the JFK Assassination
« Reply #54 on: June 29, 2026, 02:41:26 PM »
The next issue I'd like to discuss on using logic and critical thinking in the JFK case is the wound ballistics aspects of the case.

Before doing so, let's recap the issue of Oswald's marksmanship and his alleged shooting feat.

One, nearly everyone who saw Oswald shoot in the Marine Corps (MC) or in Russia said he was a poor shot, and Oswald's MC rifle scores show he was only a mediocre shot even when using a superb semi-automatic rifle against stationary targets that he had practiced against for hours and while having no less than 5 seconds per shot in the fastest of the firing phases.

Two, Oswald's alleged shooting feat has never been duplicated. In the only rifle test that used the alleged murder weapon itself, three NRA-Master-rated riflemen failed to hit the head and neck area of the target silhouettes 20 out of 21 times, even though the rifle had been zeroed with the scope, even though they were firing from only 30 feet up, even though they were firing at stationary target boards, even though they took practice shots before the test, and even though they took all the time they wanted for their first shot.

In the 1967 CBS rifle test, only one of the 12 experienced riflemen, many of whom were expert marksmen, scored two hits in three shots in under 6 seconds on his first attempt, and that was only because the test counted as "hits" any shots that landed anywhere on the target silhouettes, even if they landed far from the 14 x 4-inch area that Oswald allegedly hit two out of two times in 5.6 seconds. I should add that the rifle in the CBS test was zeroed and that the riflemen were allowed to fire nine practice shots before the test.

Wound Ballistics Problems: Really Big Problems

One of the most glaring contradictions and illogical aspects of the lone-gunman theory involve its claims about the behavior of the two alleged Oswald bullets that supposedly hit Kennedy. Oswald supposedly used 6.5 mm full-metal-jacketed (FMJ) bullets, which are built to have tremendous penetrating power without markedly fragmenting. The lone-gunman theory says that his first alleged hit struck Kennedy in the back of the neck and that his second alleged hit struck the back of the head (we will not delve into the two severely inconsistent proposed entry points for this bullet). These two bullets behaved in dramatically different ways.

According to the lone-gunman theory's single-bullet theory (SBT), the first supposed Oswald bullet that hit JFK tore through JFK's neck, exited his throat, hit Governor Connally in the back, tore through Connally's chest while shattering 4 inches of rib bone, exited Connally's chest, hit his wrist and fractured the distal radius bone (one of the hardest bones in the body), exited the wrist, and buried itself in the governor's left thigh. And this bullet, CE 399, after supposedly doing all this destruction, emerged with minimal damage, with its lands and grooves intact, with no deformation to its nose, and with the loss of only 3-4 grains of its substance.

Yet, the alleged Oswald bullet that supposedly hit JFK in the head shattered into several large fragments and into dozens of tiny fragments, allegedly leaving at least two fragments on the rear outer table of the skull, leaving dozens of tiny fragments in a veritable "lead snowstorm" near the top of the skull around the right coronal suture, and leaving two sizable fragments just behind the right orbit.

What in the world?! So one FMJ bullet tears through seven layers of human skin, shatters 4 inches of rib bone, and fractures the distal radius bone--but somehow emerges with its lands and grooves intact, suffers no deformation to its nose, and loses only 3-4 grains of its substance. Yet, the other FMJ bullet penetrates the rear of a skull and then shatters into dozens of tiny fragments and also several sizable fragments while impossibly leaving at least two fragments at its entry point on the outer table of the skull.

Leaving aside the fact that no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has ever behaved the way the SBT bullet behaved or the way the head-shot bullet behaved, how could two FMJ bullets behave so drastically differently as these two bullets supposedly did?

It is hard to say which bullet's alleged behavior is more problematic. No genuine, realistic SBT wound ballistics test has ever produced a bullet that emerged looking like CE 399. Even some severely rigged SBT tests failed to duplicate the SBT. In the WC's SBT wound ballistics test, bullets that were merely fired into cotton wadding emerged with more deformity than CE 399, which is one reason the Army's top wound ballistics expert, Dr. Joseph Dolce, told the WC the SBT was impossible.

On the other hand, forensic science tells us that FMJ bullets will never, ever, ever shatter into dozens of tiny fragments after penetrating bone, skull bone or otherwise. Dr. Vincent DiMaio, considered one of the greatest forensic pathologists of the 20th and 21st centuries, made this clear in his famous forensic handbook Gunshot Wounds:

An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . . usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has perforated bone such as the skull or spine.If any fragments are seen, they are very sparse in number. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)

In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a 'lead snowstorm'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318)

Notice the two key points: (1) In the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" fragments. (2) If an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," i.e., a cluster of numerous tiny fragments, this "rules out" FMJ ammo.

Thus, it is not surprising that the skull x-rays from the WC's head-shot wound ballistics test show a fragmentation pattern that looks nothing like the pattern seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.

This article was posted by Natalie on a ladies beauty products site, She seems to know a lot more about it than you do.

Understanding The Fragmentation Of Full Metal Jacket Bullets

Last updated

Feb 21, 2024 Posted by

Natalia

To summarize, the velocity at which a full metal jacket bullet is traveling, the construction and shape of the bullet, the type of target, the angle of impact, and the distance at which the bullet is fired are all factors that can determine whether the bullet will fragment upon impact. These factors interact with each other and can vary depending on the specific circumstances, so it is difficult to make generalizations about whether a full metal jacket bullet will fragment in any given situation.

However, it is important to note that FMJ bullets can still fragment to a certain extent, depending on various factors. When a FMJ bullet strikes a hard or dense material, such as bone or metal, it can chip or break, leading to fragmentation. Similarly, when the bullet strikes a soft or fluid-filled target, such as gel or water, it can cause cavitation and disrupt the surrounding tissues, resulting in fragmentation.


Maybe we can contact Natalie if you have any further questions on fragmenting FMJ bullets.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Applying Logic and Critical Thinking to the JFK Assassination
« Reply #54 on: June 29, 2026, 02:41:26 PM »