Just because I have an evening off I'm going to humour you, even though you're a complete dick.
"Dick" in this post?
"Hard on" in your previous post?
Hmm.
Explain how the conspirators "got lucky" with the deformation of CE399.
ME: How does the deformation of CE-399 (the flattening of its rear 1/3 on one side, the loss of some of its lead core from its rear end) match the specific damage to Connally's fifth rib and radial bone? Does it seem as though one or both of them were sideswiped or struck by a tumbling/twirling bullet? Which is more likely to have caused the flattening: the rib, or the radial bone?Perplexity AI: The flattening of CE‑399’s rear third and extrusion/loss of lead from its base is best explained by a side‑on, yawed impact with one of Connally’s bones, with the radius (wrist) the more likely main contributor, and the rib strike also participating. Both the rib and radius were effectively “side‑swiped” by a tumbling/twirling bullet, and the pattern of deformation is consistent with that.
Below I’ll tie the specific bullet damage to the rib and radius, and then answer which is the more plausible cause of the base flattening.
What CE‑399 actually looks like
From photographs, x‑rays, and descriptions:
CE‑399 is elongated but:
The rear third of the jacket is flattened on one side and slightly bent.
Lead is extruded out of the base, and a small amount of core mass is missing.
Side views can make it look “pristine,” but an end‑on view shows a distinctly ovaled, flattened base with asymmetry on one side.
Wound‑ballistics literature on the case notes that this kind of deformation—flattened base with a bit of lead squeezed out—is typical of a yawed full‑metal‑jacket round striking bone, not a clean, nose‑on strike.
How the bullet interacted with Connally’s ribPath and interaction (from Shaw’s operative description and reconstructions):
The bullet entered under Connally’s right armpit and travelled along his right fifth rib.
Instead of drilling straight through the thorax, it tracked along and “guttered” the outer surface of the rib for roughly 10 cm, pulverizing that segment and throwing off bone fragments into the chest cavity.
This “guttering” implies:
The bullet was already yawing by the time it reached the rib.
It ran along the rib’s surface, smashing and shaving bone rather than punching through perpendicular to it.
From a mechanics standpoint:
A side‑on or oblique strike on a rib tends to:
Flatten or crease the jacket on the side that contacts the bone.
Bend the bullet slightly.
Shed some lead at the contact zone if the jacket is stressed enough.
This is exactly the kind of mechanism that could begin the asymmetric flattening of the rear third of CE‑399—especially if the bullet was rotating/yawing and part of the shank (not just the nose) brushed hard against cortical bone.
However, the rib “guttering” is a glancing, tangential interaction along a curved, relatively thin bone, not a single, concentrated blow across the full bullet diameter. That tends to produce elongated scraping and moderate jacket deformation, but not necessarily the kind of distinct base flattening and extrusion seen on CE‑399 by itself.
How the bullet interacted with Connally’s radius boneFor the wrist wound:
After exiting Connally’s chest, the bullet struck the distal right radius, shattering it, then exited the wrist and lodged shallowly in the left thigh.
The wrist x‑rays and operative notes show:
Comminuted radial fracture (multiple fragments).
Metal fragments along the fracture line and in the wrist tissues, some of which remained in Connally for life.
Experiments (Lattimer and others):
John Lattimer’s Carcano tests attempted to reproduce this path:
A Carcano round passed through soft tissue, then hit a rib cage, then a radius, and the recovered bullet was:
Flattened and bent, with lead extruded from the rear, and
Left bits of lead scraped off on the ragged ends of the fractured radius—very similar to CE‑399’s condition and Connally’s injuries.
Sturdivan’s HSCA‑era analysis (as summarized in critical and supportive literature) gives some thresholds:
A nose‑on hit to bone at ≈1400 ft/s or more will significantly deform or upset the bullet.
A side‑hit (yawed/tumbling) can disrupt the bullet at even lower velocities, around ≈1000 ft/s.
The key point for your question:By the time the bullet reached Connally’s radius:
Its velocity was lower than at rib impact.
It was almost certainly yawed, and evidence suggests it may have been base‑forward or heavily sideways by then.
A side or base‑forward strike on a dense, relatively thick bone like the radius can:
Create a concentrated, high-stress contact at the back of the bullet.
Flatten the base on one side, squeezing the soft lead core backward and out, and scraping some of that extruded lead away on the jagged bone fragments—precisely what is observed with CE‑399 and the small loss of lead.
Tumbling / side‑swipe vs straight‑on strike
Your second question: Does it seem as though one or both bones were sideswiped or struck by a tumbling/twirling bullet?
The evidentiary pattern is strongly in that direction:
Connally’s rib:
“Guttering” along the outside of the fifth rib for ~10 cm indicates a low‑incidence, tangential path along the bone’s outer surface rather than a perpendicular drill‑through.
That pattern is classic for a yawed or partially sideways bullet that is essentially scraping along the rib.
Connally’s radius:
The radius was shattered, with metal fragments dispersed and small bits of lead in the wrist—indicating the bullet was not flying perfectly point‑first, and was shedding lead at the impact interface.
Lattimer’s “neck → rib → radius” tumbling path reproduced a flattened/bent bullet with rear‑end lead extrusion closely resembling CE‑399.
So: yes, the damage to both rib and radius is much more consistent with a tumbling/yawing bullet that side‑swipes and then strikes obliquely or base‑first, than with a single, stable, nose‑first, straight‑through shot.
ME: Which bone most likely caused the base flattening?
Perplexity AI: Putting all of this together:
Rib interaction (fifth rib)
Mechanism: Prolonged, tangential contact along the rib’s outer surface, shattering ~10 cm of bone and generating many fragments.
Likely effect on bullet:
Initiates or increases yaw.
Produces some side‑wall jacket deformation and bending.
Contributes to overall asymmetry of the bullet.
Less likely, by itself, to produce a sharply localized base flattening with rear extrusion, because the contact is spread along the bullet’s side over several centimeters, not focused at the base.
Radius interaction (wrist)
Mechanism: A yawed/tumbling bullet, probably partially sideways or base‑forward, strikes a relatively thick cortical bone (radius) and shatters it.
Likely effect on bullet:
Highly concentrated force on a particular part of the bullet (base/side).
Flattening and slight bending of the rear third of the jacket.
Extrusion of soft lead core out the base, with some of that lead scraped off onto bone and surrounding tissue—matching surgical findings and the slight weight loss of CE‑399.
Given those mechanics and the experimental reproductions:
The fifth rib almost certainly contributed to yaw, lateral deformation, and bending.
The radius is the more plausible primary cause of the distinct flattening of the rear third and the extruded/missing lead from the base, because:
The geometry favors a base‑ or side‑on smack into a dense bone.
Lattimer’s “rib then radius” experiments yielded bullets whose deformation is specifically similar to CE‑399 (flattened rear, extruded and scraped lead).
The presence of retained metal fragments and lead in the wrist aligns with core extrusion and scraping at the wrist impact site.
So, if you have to assign relative causal weight for the flattened rear 1/3 and lead loss:
Most likely primary cause: The radius (wrist) impact, with the bullet already yawed or base‑forward at that point.
Secondary contributor: The fifth rib “guttering”, which set up or increased that yaw and may have produced some side jacket flattening.
If you’d like, we can go one level more granular and sketch a step‑by‑step time sequence of the bullet’s attitude (yaw angle, which side is leading) as it leaves Kennedy’s neck, encounters the rib, and then the radius, and match each phase to the specific deformation features you’re focusing on.
ME: Is it likely that a lab would be able to approximate the deformation that CE-399 sustained by firing 6.5 mm Carcano rounds directly into a cadaver's wrist?Perplexity AI: A lab could approximate some aspects of CE‑399’s deformation by firing 6.5 mm Carcano rounds into a cadaver wrist, but they would only closely match CE‑399 if they also controlled for (and replicated) the bullet’s velocity and yaw state after passing through prior tissue/bone, not just “directly into a wrist.”
What past tests tell us
Two key points from official and later tests:
The Warren Commission’s wound ballistics work (Olivier, Dziemian) firing 6.5 mm Carcano rounds into simulated bone structures showed that:
A pristine, nose‑first bullet hitting bone at near‑muzzle velocities flattens the nose markedly and mutilates the bullet far more than CE‑399.
They concluded Connally’s wrist could not have been struck by a pristine, high‑velocity bullet; it had to be a slowed, tumbling bullet that had already passed through the chest.
Later reconstructions (Lattimer, and the Failure Analysis/Sturdivan‑assisted tests summarized in “Breakability”) used a Carcano rifle and 6.5 mm WCC ammunition to replicate:
Neck → “rib cage” → radius → thigh.
The recovered bullets show rear‑end flattening and core extrusion similar to CE‑399 when the bullet was already yawed and slowed before the wrist hit.
Those experiments indicate that bullet condition at wrist impact (velocity + yaw), not just the wrist itself, is what controls whether you get a CE‑399–like “slightly flattened with some lead loss” vs a grossly deformed slug.
Direct wrist shots vs CE‑399 conditions
If a lab simply fires Carcano rounds directly into a cadaver wrist:
Nose‑on, full‑speed shots (replicating a “first strike”):
Will tend to produce heavy nose flattening and jacket upset, not the relatively intact nose and localized base flattening of CE‑399.
The bullet will usually be more mutilated than CE‑399, not less.
To approximate CE‑399, they would need to:
Reduce striking velocity (to something like the estimated post‑torso speed).
Introduce yaw (attack angle)—i.e., have the bullet tumbling or entering at an oblique angle when it hits the radius.
Possibly have the bullet pass through soft tissue and/or another bone surrogate first, as in the chest/rib strike, to mimic the prior interaction that produced the yaw.
Experiments in wound ballistics generally show that impact velocity and attack angle are critical determinants of how a bullet deforms on bone. CE‑399’s modest deformation with some base flattening and core extrusion is characteristic of a slower, yawed FMJ round, not a fresh, high‑speed, nose‑on hit.
So, how “likely” is it?
Yes, a competent lab could probably generate bullets whose deformation is in the same class as CE‑399—slight bending, flattening on one end, some core extrusion—using cadaver wrists as the bone medium.
But they would not get a realistic approximation of CE‑399 simply by:
Firing “normal” Carcano loads directly into wrists at full speed, nose‑first.
To get close to CE‑399, they would have to engineer the setup to mimic:
The lower residual velocity after prior penetration.
A yawed or tumbling attitude at the moment of impact with the radius.
Possibly the preceding rib interaction.
In other words: a wrist alone is not enough; a lab can approximate CE‑399’s deformation, but only if they consciously replicate the bullet’s pre‑wrist history, not just its encounter with the wrist bone.
ME: That's why I said "directly."Perplexity AI: Under the condition you specified—directly into a cadaver’s wrist, as a first and only impact—it is unlikely that a lab would reproduce CE‑399’s specific, mild deformation pattern. They would tend to get bullets that are either more heavily nose‑deformed (if impact velocity is high and nose‑on) or much less deformed (if velocity is low), rather than CE‑399’s peculiar “slightly squashed base with some core extrusion.”
Why “directly into the wrist” is a problem
To match CE‑399 you’d have to match three things at the moment of wrist impact:
Velocity: CE‑399 had already lost speed going through JFK and Connally’s chest. Full‑charge Carcano rounds striking wrist bone at near‑muzzle or standard test velocities deform much more severely than CE‑399.
Yaw/attack angle: The standard lab condition is a stable, nose‑forward bullet. In the single‑bullet scenario, the bullet was yawed or tumbling when it hit Connally’s radius, which greatly changes stress patterns and where the bullet deforms.
Pre‑history: CE‑399’s deformation reflects a sequence—soft tissue, rib guttering, then wrist—rather than a clean, first‑strike hit on the radius. Tests that tried to replicate the full path (neck → rib → radius) came closer to CE‑399 than single‑bone shots did.
In other words, a direct wrist shot is almost guaranteed to mis‑represent the bullet’s energy and orientation at the moment Connally’s radius was hit.
What experiments and commentary indicate
The Warren Commission’s tests with 6.5 mm Carcano bullets into bone simulants at realistic velocities produced severe flattening and mutilation when the bullet hit bone as a first impact at high speed—much worse than CE‑399.
Critics and defenders alike note that Carcano FMJ bullets often emerge from substantial barriers with very little deformation when they stay nose‑forward and haven’t hit dense bone at oblique angles; conversely, nose‑on high‑speed bone hits deform them markedly.
Modern wound‑ballistics work emphasizes that impact angle and pre‑impact yaw are as important as velocity in determining terminal performance and deformation.
So if you simply set up:
A Carcano,
Standard 6.5×52 ammunition,
A cadaver wrist (radius) as the first and only obstacle,
you’re essentially testing a different problem from the one that produced CE‑399.
Bottom line
A capable ballistics lab can, in principle, engineer test conditions to approximate CE‑399’s deformation (by lowering velocity and inducing yaw, possibly with prior tissue/bone surrogates).
But with your constraint—directly into the wrist as the first impact—it is not likely they would reproduce CE‑399’s characteristic, modest base flattening and limited lead loss. They’d usually get either a much more mangled bullet or one that doesn’t resemble CE‑399’s pattern at all.
ME: You said, "more heavily nose-deformed," but the nose of CE-399 isn't deformed at all. Also, "unlikely," or highly unlikely?You’re right: the nose of CE‑399 is essentially not deformed. The deformation is at the base and rear shank, not the tip. When I referenced “more heavily nose‑deformed,” I was talking about what happens in typical first‑impact, nose‑on bone hits in lab tests—not what we actually see on CE‑399.
On your second point: under your stated condition of a direct, first‑impact hit into a cadaver wrist, it is highly unlikely that a lab would reproduce CE‑399’s specific pattern (intact rounded nose, modest flattening of the rear third on one side, slight bending, and limited core extrusion).
Why “highly unlikely” rather than just “unlikely”
Based on the experimental record and basic wound ballistics:
First‑impact, nose‑on bone hits at full or near‑full Carcano velocity tend to cause significant nose upset and more global deformation than CE‑399 shows, which still has a rounded tip and localized base flattening.
The one set of tests that came close to CE‑399’s look (Lattimer’s, and similar reconstructions) required the bullet to:
Pass through tissue and rib structure first,
Be yawed or tumbling, and
Then hit a radius at reduced velocity, producing a slightly flattened/bent bullet with core extruded from the base—similar to CE‑399.
Those conditions are incompatible with a “directly into the wrist as first impact” scenario.
General terminal ballistics work confirms that combination of lower velocity + oblique/side impact is what produces modest, localized deformation like CE‑399’s, as opposed to large, nose‑dominant damage.
So if you constrain the experiment to:
Carcano FMJ,
Direct strike on the radius in a cadaver wrist,
As the first and only impact,
then the probability of getting a bullet that looks specifically like CE‑399—intact nose, asymmetric flattening of the rear third on one side, slight bend, and only a small mass loss—is best described as highly unlikely, not just mildly so.
ME: Please print out for me the titles, dates, and authors (if known) of your sources.Perplexity AI: Here are the main sources I relied on in our exchange, with titles, dates, and authors where available:
1) “Experimental duplication of the important physical evidence of the Kennedy assassination” – John K. Lattimer, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1994.
2) “Breakability: CE‑399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory” – John Hunt, essay at History‑Matters, undated web publication (citing HSCA wound ballistics and Sturdivan).
3) Warren Commission Report, Chapter 3: “The Shots From the Texas School Book Depository” and Appendix 10 (Wound Ballistics and CE‑399 tests at Edgewood Arsenal) – President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, 1964; U.S. National Archives web edition 2016/2023.
4) “Single-bullet theory” – Wikipedia entry summarizing CE‑399’s characteristics, path, and NAA work; first created 2003‑09‑17 with ongoing updates.
5) “Kennedy Assassination Bullets Preserved in Digital Form” / “Preserving the Kennedy Assassination Bullets in Digital Form” – National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) feature article, 2019‑12‑05; unsigned staff piece covering focus‑variation scans of CE‑399 and other exhibits.
6) “New Tests Said to Match Fragments in Kennedy, Connally” – George Lardner Jr., The Washington Post, 1978‑09‑09 (reporting on Dr. Vincent Guinn’s NAA work and wrist fragments).
7) “Influence of impact velocity and impact attack angle of bullets on damage to long bones” – G.L. Mo et al., Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, 2022.
8 ) Discussion post “The bullet known as Commission Exhibit 399 (CE 399)…” – long-form Facebook group essay (WhereWereYou112263), no clear author/date given, summarizing CE‑399 deformation, HSCA/Sturdivan positions, and NAA findings.
9) Reddit discussion “for the record the magic bullet did NOT do anything ‘magical’” (r/LEMMiNO) – anonymous post summarizing Frazier’s weight measurements of CE‑399 and HSCA NAA reliance, 2023 (approx.).
10) General wound‑ballistics references on bullet deformation and bone impact – e.g., Hollerman et al., “Bullets, ballistics, and mechanisms of injury” (1990) and related medical/forensic overviews on high‑velocity projectiles and bone interaction.
If you’d like, I can pull specific passages (e.g., Lattimer’s description of his rib/radius tests, or the exact Edgewood Arsenal language about expected deformation) and lay them out verbatim for your working notes.
Recent Posts
Not much...is there?
