The Fundamental Problem

[Oscar Navarro]

Nothing inherently. Though I?m referring to an excessive and unhealthy variant directed solely at one?s opposition. The question of conspiracy is interesting to debate, though it is absolutely the case most CT claims are nonsense (e.g. the shallow back wound isn?t even physically possible).     

Hear, hear!! I would say 99% of the CTers claims are nonsense. The two that deserve some scrutiny are James T. Tague and Silvia Odio, with Tague being the most worthy of serious debate. I just can't figure out how in the heck Tague received a wound to his cheek from so far away.

[Royell Storing]

Nothing inherently. Though I?m referring to an excessive and unhealthy variant directed solely at one?s opposition. The question of conspiracy is interesting to debate, though it is absolutely the case most CT claims are nonsense (e.g. the shallow back wound isn?t even physically possible).     

     How did you arrive at "the shallow back wound isn't even physically possible"?

[Walt Cakebread]

Nothing inherently. Though I?m referring to an excessive and unhealthy variant directed solely at one?s opposition. The question of conspiracy is interesting to debate, though it is absolutely the case most CT claims are nonsense (e.g. the shallow back wound isn?t even physically possible).     

most CT claims are nonsense (e.g. the shallow back wound isn?t even physically possible). 

IOW...Mr Dillon you believe a 6.5mm diameter bullet traveling at the velocity of around 2000 feet per second  would not be arrested and stopped completely by a mere two inches of flesh.    If that's what you intended to say you are absolutely right....   They idea  that JFK was struck in the back by a 6.5mm bullet   flying at 2000 fps but the bullet was arrested after just a couple of inches  is simply insane......

[Dillon Rankine]

     How did you arrive at "the shallow back wound isn't even physically possible"?

To answer both you and Walt, impact velocity is inversely related to chance of perforation (so lower velocity is associated with increased chance of going straight through). This is because the higher the velocity at which a missile travels, the greater chance it has of fragmenting (it?s kinetic energy surpasses what its own mass can take). The lower the velocity, the lower this likelihood. Even at half impact velocity, the 6.5 bullet would?ve still gone clean through Kennedy?s torso.

Walt?s suggestion that some alternative missile resulted the injury doesn?t stack up as we?d need to find something weak enough to only go through less than finger?s length of relatively soft muscle tissue, but somehow strong enough to leave ordinary bullet holes (in the back and clothing) and not be taken out by the wind.     

[Dillon Rankine]

Hear, hear!! I would say 99% of the CTers claims are nonsense. The two that deserve some scrutiny are James T. Tague and Silvia Odio, with Tague being the most worthy of serious debate. I just can't figure out how in the heck Tague received a wound to his cheek from so far away.

For what it?s worth I think the most plausible explanation for the Tague hit is a fragment from the headshot.

[Royell Storing]

To answer both you and Walt, impact velocity is inversely related to chance of perforation (so lower velocity is associated with increased chance of going straight through). This is because the higher the velocity at which a missile travels, the greater chance it has of fragmenting (it?s kinetic energy surpasses what its own mass can take). The lower the velocity, the lower this likelihood. Even at half impact velocity, the 6.5 bullet would?ve still gone clean through Kennedy?s torso.

Walt?s suggestion that some alternative missile resulted the injury doesn?t stack up as we?d need to find something weak enough to only go through less than finger?s length of relatively soft muscle tissue, but somehow strong enough to leave ordinary bullet holes (in the back and clothing) and not be taken out by the wind.   

       Your assumption being the wound was caused by an intact 6.5 bullet.

[Royell Storing]

For what it?s worth I think the most plausible explanation for the Tague hit is a fragment from the headshot.

     Please think it through and thoroughly explain. A "Fragment" of what?

[Dillon Rankine]

       Your assumption being the wound was caused by an intact 6.5 bullet.

The above argument applies to other types of ammunition. Again, what sort of ammo could survive a fight with the wind, clothing and tissue but only go through a kunckle?s length?