Some Considerations regard `Single Bullet Theory`

At first, is physically possible for the same rifle bullet to penetrate two men? Yes, certainly - if we take a look on wound shapes of Soviet-Russian 7,62x39mm bullet, fired from AK-47 assault rifle at muzzle velocity @ 720 m/s, we se that such bullet can penetrate almost 70 cm of living tissue, what is quite enough to shoot through to persons.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/RussianWP.jpg

Could the 6,5mm Mannlicher-Carcano do the same, travelling with muzzle velocity slightly greater than 600 m/s, did the same penetration? Theoretically yes, however, there is one very essential factor. This factor is steel core. Traditionally, all Soviet rifle bullets were produced not only in tip-point FMJ version, but rather had a steel core for increasing penetration abvility. Bullets, specially designed as armour-piercing, had core from even tougher material (such as tungsten or wolfram). Because of steel core, Soviet rifle ammo have high performance regarding armour (and cover) piercing, so bullet fired from AK-47, easily penetrates:
- about 15 cm of concrete;
- 40...50 cm of brick wall (if those are clay, not silicate bricks);
- 6 mm or armour steel from 300 meters;
- Steel helmet from more than 1000 meters.

I have certain doubts is 6,5mm Mannlicher-Carcano capable of something similar (mainly due to lack of steel core).

Hard and tough core made such bullet most likely to keep its shape when struck in such soft target as human tissue, so if alleged TSBD sniper was using Soviet produced rifle and ammo, there won't be no questions on `magic bullet`. However, Mannlicher-Carcano bullet, having only copper jacket and round nose, most likely should deform, like all soft bullets do, especially when struck sturdy and hard obstacles such as bones.

Moreover, bullets just do no drop out of wounds. So, to make `single bullet theory` more credible, CE399 should be found in the thigh of Mr. Conally, or on the limo floor between driver and jump seats. But no, CE399 appears only on stretchers in hospital.

So, my answer on question `is it possible that the same bullet penetrated both JFK and governor Conally?` will be `yes, it is quite possible, if bullet is FMJ with steel core or similar armour-piercing element`. Problem is that Mannlicher-Carcano 6,5mm do not match such conditions, it has no hard core and can be considered as `soft` bullet.

However, I am not firearms and ammo expert, all my knowledge comes from literature. All these are only subjective considerations.

I think this is interesting information. When discussing the single bullshit (I mean bullet) theory, we should keep in mind that the President's back wound measured 7 by 4mm, whereas the diameter of MC bullets is 6.8 mm. So how the heck does a MC bullet create an Oval shaped wound with the smallest diameter as 4mm???

Although bullet holes do shrink due to the characteristic elasticity of the skin, how can it be explained that a). The bullet hole shrunk 2.8 mm, b). The orginal size of the 7mm diameter was 9.8 mm?

There is good reason to believe that the back wound was created by a fragment from a missed shot. Firstly, consider that the wound was Oval shaped and of a small size. Secondly, consider that the wound had an upwards abrasion collar. Thirdly, although the Sibert and O'Neill report quotes James Humes as saying that the bullet entered at a 45 to 60 degree downward angle, it is quite likely that it actually entered at an upward angle.

If it was a fragment wound, it would explain why the wound was at a steep 45 to 60 degree angle. Let's also keep in mind that the back wound was probed; with no exit being discovered. Finally, Pat Speer has demonstrated on his website that the shot(s) at Circa Zapruder frame 224 to Governor Connally, was fired by a rifle equipped with a silencer!

Hasan Yusuf wrote:I think this is interesting information. When discussing the single bullshit (I mean bullet) theory, we should keep in mind that the President's back wound measured 7 by 4mm, whereas the diameter of MC bullets is 6.8 mm. So how the heck does a MC bullet create an Oval shaped wound with the smallest diameter as 4mm???

Although bullet holes do shrink due to the characteristic elasticity of the skin, how can it be explained that a). The bullet hole shrunk 2.8 mm, b). The orginal size of the 7mm diameter was 9.8 mm?

There is good reason to believe that the back wound was created by a fragment from a missed shot. Firstly, consider that the wound was Oval shaped and of a small size. Secondly, consider that the wound had an upwards abrasion collar. Thirdly, although the Sibert and O'Neill report quotes James Humes as saying that the bullet entered at a 45 to 60 degree downward angle, it is quite likely that it actually entered at an upward angle.

If it was a fragment wound, it would explain why the wound was at a steep 45 to 60 degree angle. Let's also keep in mind that the back wound was probed; with no exit being discovered. Finally, Pat Speer has demonstrated on his website that the shot(s) at Circa Zapruder frame 224 to Governor Connally, was fired by a rifle equipped with a silencer!

Even just a cursory look at the literature tells me the nature of gunshot wounds is a complex area. There are certain issues though, that I have yet to see discussed... one being how soft tissue shrinks from such wounds -- that is to say, it does shrink, but does it necessarily shrink uniformly?

It also seems to be the case that reloads will have some shrinkage depending on alloys used and other variables.
http://www.lasc.us/castbulletnotes.htm
As I understand it, there is a faint possibility that the bullets were reloads:
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1-ray-acker-and-the-mc-ammo

Not saying that either of these things must explain the seemingly large differences in circumference - just possible additional considerations.

Thanks for taking the time to look into this issue, Greg. I honestly don't know why researchers avoid looking into it. Perhaps it's due to them focusing more on the trajectory of the magic bullet; which has created a blind spot in which they cannot see that the size of the wound was too small for a MC bullet. I hope that makes sense.

I also find it odd that the longest dimension (7mm) is horizontal, with the smallest (4mm) being vertical. Yet, the supposed angle of descent of the bullet from the Sniper's nest was greater than the horizontal angle. So how is it that the longest dimension of the "bullet" hole is horizontal? It doesn't make sense.

BTW, I think a good research tip is to find out if JFK's addisons disease had caused loss of elasticity of his skin. If this turns out to be the case, then it undermines the notion that the "bullet" hole shrunk down to 4mm due elasticity. It might be a long shot (no pun intended), but it's worth the effort, IMO.

Furthermore, if the back wound was indeed from a fragment, then the fragment could have worked its way out of the wound from the cardiac message given to JFK at parkland hospital during the attempt to save his life. The fragment could easily have been overlooked by the doctors and nurses due to its small size.

Guys,

On page 6 of the link below, you’ll find information from a Navy Petty Officer named Chester H. Boyers, who claimed that “An army general Curtis?” was present during JFK’s autopsy. I’m not aware of any army general by that name being present at the autopsy, but as we all know, Air force general Curtis Lemay was supposedly there. So I think Boyers was referring to him.

He also says that they tried to find the exit for the back wound using metal probes, but he says “I do not believe the actual passage was proven to have exited, at the site of the tracheotomy i.e., By probing – due probably to deflection by bone structure.”

Another interesting thing he says (on page 4) is that he recalls preparing 8 sections of JFK’s brain on December 2nd, taken from areas of the brain which the bullet traversed. He also says that he turned these sections over to James Humes.

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/9828/rec/75

To be honest, I’m not sure what to make of Boyers’ claim of sectioning JFK’s brain.