At 11:31 AM 8/16/01 -0400, KLR650Pilot@... wrote:
>All you need to do is watch the film footage of the President's
motorcade. When Kennedy was shot his head jerked backward and a
large >portion of his brain came out of his head and landed on the trunk of
the car. The First Lady was observed climbing onto the back of the car
to >retrieve a portion of her husbands cranium and brain tissue.
>Now, I am not a Seal, Ranger, or any other type of highly skilled
shootists, but, I have shot enough cans, melons, water jugs, etc., and I
am >confident in my eyes, my experience, and my beliefs. John F. Kennedy
was shot from the front. That is how the cranium piece and brain >tissue
ended up on the rear trunk lid of the car.
I really don't care what anyone says about it anymore, because, you are not
going to be given the truth. In my mind, JKF was killed by a sniper placed
on the grassy knoll or in the rain gutter access on the side of the road.
That second one has been dealt with. Unless he was 3' 3" tall and had no
arms, he could not have fit in there. Unless he fired a VERY high velocity
handgun using his teeth, that is.
>When something is shot, the wound does not usually explode towards the
direction the bullet came from.
This is not the case with high velocity rifle bullets. This high-velocity
jetting phenomena ( sometimes in the direction of the firer) has been
documented as far back as US Army testing with the then-new .30-06
cartridge in the Philippines prior to the First World War. Discarded Army
mules that were shot in the head by rifles projected bone fragments and
gray matter back onto the firers from a number of yards away. This
phenomena has also been documented in tests using simulated skulls filled
with simulated brain tissue many times. This jet may or may not move in
the direction of the firer depending on a number of factors, as will be
discussed below.
>When a bullet strikes an object that is fairly soft, the material
explodes and flies in the inertial direction of the bullets path.
Again, this is not true with high velocity projectiles. Even a cursory
examination of the literature in the field of wound ballistics will
demonstrate this fact. This is true to a very minor degree with handgun
projectiles, perhaps, owing to their tyically blunt configuration, but with
rifle projectiles the displacement of soft tissue occurs *radially* from
the bullets path though the tissue, as a wake does from the bow of a boat.
In a confined space such as a skull (which is essentially a bone box
stuffed with a sopping wet sponge), the effects seen are different than
with, say muscle tissue, which is displaced and bruised but mostly snaps
back into position intact, leasing behind a rather small permanent wound
channel, or something like liver tissue, which suffers extensive and highly
destructive tearing.
In the skull, the brain tissue is displaced to a degree, but the hard
confines of the skull limits the displacement, which results in a massive,
momentary hydraulic overpressure bearing more-or-less evenly throughout the
interior of the skull. Then, the weakest part of the skull fails under the
load. In this case it is much of the right hemisphere that fails, owing to
the extensive shattering of that side of the skull resulting from the
somewhat shallow angle which the bullet entered and fragments of which
exited near the right temple. The pressure is then violently relieved in
the form of a high velocity jet of blood,gray matter and bone fragments in
a forward and rightward direction, yawing the skull leftward and pitching
and rolling it up and to the rear.
Had the bullet struck him squarely in the back of the skull and
disintegrated, leaving no exit wound, the jet may have exited the back of
the skull towards the firer and propelled the head forward in that instance
(or indeed, the entire skull may have been blown apart, if a higher
velocity cartridge had been used). If he had been centerpunched in the
back of the head and it had penetrated all the way through and out of his
face intact, then the head might have actually been propelled to the rear
(owing to the typical occurrence of a larger exit wound that entrance
wound, resulting in a larger mass of ejected material forward), but this
motion would be at a different angle, more straight back than the violent
pivoting, rising yaw we see in the Zapruter film. This effect is largely
independent of the bullets path and is dependant more on the location and
size of the hole(s) and the amount of overpressure produced. This effect
has also been reproduced in the lab and in fact can be seen sometimes in
shooting plastic milk jugs filled with water (a 110 HP M1 carbine bullet
out of a .30-06 at about 3,300 fps often does this...assuming it does not
disintegrate in flight).
Welcome to the wonderful, wacky and decidedly nonlinear world of high
velocity terminal ballistics. Sadly, intuition or experience in tagging
things with handguns buys you nothing in this arena.
>Therefore, JFK was shot in the head from the front.
Nope. The evidence is in fact most consistent with the shot coming from
the rear, given the precise nature of the wounds and the evidence presented.
Now ask me about CE399. Please.
>As for why? I would suggest that LBJ had something to do with it. Since
moving to Texas I have begun to learn how much of an a*&hole he >was. In
fact, Ladybird Johnson owned a controlling amount of stock in a heavy
equipment manufacturer. Who got the machinery? The US >military and other
southern Asian countries.
If I though there was a conspiracy, LBJ would be my bet, too, he being the
major league crook and mental case that he was. But I don't particularly
belive there was. Any conspiracy would necessarily have to involve Oswald,
who was a widely-known fruitcake and would be too unstable to any sane
group of conspirators to piddle with. When he defected to the USSR, KGB
sized him up as an utter fool in very short order and had him dispatched as
far out of harms way as they could.
>I honor the memories of the brave women and men that we lost over there.
Yet, it also makes me angry that they died for coal, money, and >oil.
Oil may well have been an issue in our involvement in Vietnam. Any
connection between that fact and the JFK assassination is tenuous at best,
however. Incidentally, last time I checked, our economy ran on stuff like
oil and coal. My job depends on oil and coal. I like oil and coal. And
unless you push your KLR everywhere you go, you should at least have a
grudging respect for the stuff yourself.
>That campaign wasn't even given the honor of bring called a war. For
what? To make some people rich. Same thing with Desert Storm >except we
annihilated what troops would fight back against us.
Isn't that the nature of war?
-Tom