I like how they included notable events surrounding the assassination along with the poll numbers. The latest numbers show a uptick - from ~60% to ~65% - with most of the increase driven by self-identified Republican voters. It appears to be the "the Deep State got JFK like they tried to get Trump" view. Silly.

I hadn't seen the 2023 poll until now. The latest one I can remember was taken sometime in the previous decade. I think you might be right that the uptick in conspiracy belief is driven largely by Republicans. I know one of the most vociferous believers in conspiracy is Fox News host Jesse Watters. He is convinced it was the CIA that took out JFK. There are conspiracy believers all across the political spectrum. The only difference between the left and the right seems to be whom they want to blame.

In the early days/weeks after the assassination the majority of Americans polled believed there was a conspiracy. This is before any investigation other than the DPD was done.

People simply want to believe - or have to - that it was more. Great events need a great cause and one man with a rifle can't be it.

I think what drove conspiracy belief in the early days more than anything was Jack Ruby's killing of Oswald. That just seemed too convenient to many people and it is quite understandable why that would have made people assume it was part of a conspiracy to silence Oswald. The JFKA happened 6 days before my 12th birthday and it was the first time I remember hearing the word conspiracy. It didn't matter that no evidence ever emerged that Jack Ruby was part of a conspiracy. People already had that mindset so it was quite easy for them to be convinced that their early beliefs were in fact correct. I think conspiracy theories would have still emerged but I'm not sure they would have taken hold as much as they did.

It's probably out of the question that any of them could have named Peter Best.

Or Stu Sutcliffe.

I can name all the Kinks, so I'm at the nutcase end of the spectrum.

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.

In the early days/weeks after the assassination the majority of Americans polled believed there was a conspiracy. This is before any investigation other than the DPD was done.

People simply want to believe - or have to - that it was more. Great events need a great cause and one man with a rifle can't be it.

That’s an interesting graph. It’s over 10-years old now. The last part of if showed the two lines converging. I wonder if they continued to converge over the most recent 10-year period.