From: sdevries@fys.ruu.nl (Sjoerd de Vries)
Subject: Re: PBS special
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:44:13 GMT

In <schuck.722153210@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

>sdevries@fys.ruu.nl (Sjoerd de Vries) writes:

>>Lately, I have been reading "Mortal Error"  written by Bonar Menninger,
>>based on the theories of Donahue. This book
>>succeeds in making me feel the single bullet theory is not
>>as totally impossible as I originally thought.

>Actually, this was the weakest part of the Menninger book. They almost
>lost me there. It gets better.

>>What are the main arguments against the single bullet theory?

>>1. the time between Kennedy's and Connally's first reactions
>>   to their wounds, set by critics at before z225 and at z237
>>   resp. So at least 12 frames, that is 0.7 sec, but possible
>>   1.6 sec or more.
>>2. the zig zag track of the bullet
>>3. the fact that the bullet was nearly pristine after passing through
>>   two bodies and braking some bones

>>What are Donahue's answers to these arguments?

>>1. At z-225 Kennedy reacts to a ricochet shot, the one that missed
>>   the car. The debris of this shot hit bystander James Tague
>>   and  some landed in the car, and were found there later, free
>>   of blood and tissue.
>>   At z-236 both Kennedy and Conally are hit. So we don't have any
>>   timing problem.

>Two big problems with this explanation.
>a) Zapruder saw JFK react to his throat wound before JFK went behind
>the street sign. That means it happened before 210. There is a lot of
>evidence that the shot actually occurred at 189. That leaves a *big*
>gap. The idea that JFK reacts to a shot starting at 225 is hard to
>believe because he only becomes visible at 225 and he's
>*already* moved his hands very close to his throat. I think he is
>still reacting to a shot at 190. Thats only two seconds, and he
>probably had spinal cord damage at the time, making a 2 second delay
>for grabbing at or near his throat realistic. To claim he reacted to a
>shot at 225 and got his hands near his throat *instantaneously* is not
>believable.

Ah, I'm sorry, I misrepresented Menninger words. What I meant to say is that
at z-225 JFK is seen to react to a ricochet shot, NOT that he was shot at
that moment.

>b) Tague is almost 500 feet away from JFK at this time.
>The only direct path from the TSBD to Tague is 30 feet over JFK's
>head and 20 feet to his right. If a bullet hit the street behind JFK
>it would have had to leap a curb, curve to the right, and travel 500
>feet, and arc down to strike another curb, and bounce off that curb,
>up to Tague about 20 feet from the last curb. Many people don't
>realize that Tague wasn't even on Elm street. He was between Main and
>Commerce and almost under the Triple underpass. The FBI estimated that
>a straight line from the TSBD to Tague only happened at the equivalent
>of Zapruder frame 410, over 100 frames after JFK's head shot.
>There is *no* way a bullet could have hit the street behind JFK and
>then gone on to wound Tague.

I agree with you that if you assume that the bullet continues in a
straight line after hitting the road behind JFK then Tague's wounds
argue against Donahues theory. BUT, if I understand Donahue right,
in fact he does assume that the debris isn't continuing in a straight
line. How else could part of it fall in the car? Again, I agree with you
that it sounds highly unlikely that Tague is hit after TWO bounces. But
after all I'm not a ballistics expert and Donahue is (at least, he
claims he is. I'm not sure whether owning a gun shop and shooting some
ducks now and then can be considered as sufficient qualification for a ballistic
expert).
Donahue's arguments to call this shot a ricochet are:
1. No blood and tissue on the remainders
2. Sharp edges on them, typical for impact on very hard material
3. Some metal visible on the X-rays on the OUTSIDE of the skull
4. One (or more, I don't recall) bystander(s) saw the impact behind
   JFK.

>>2. In fact, there is no zig zag movement. Conally was seated on a
>>   jumpseat that was clearly to JFK's left (a photograph of the
>>   empty car in the book shows this very well). Donahue claims
>>   the displacement is about one feet (if I'm not mistaken, it may be
>>   more).
>>   At z-236 all wounds line up.

>It is possible for them to line up on the horizontal plane. However,
>it is impossible for them to line up on the vertical plane at that
>time. The angle down through Connally was almost 40 degrees, while the
>TSBD to JFK angle was only 21 degrees at frame 210 and 19 degrees at
>235 [WC Exhibit 884] Plus, the JFK back wound was actually lower than
>his throat wound. On the Nova special, the computer simulation had JFK
>leaning unrealisitically forward, and Connally leaning way back to
>account for the vertical angle difference. This positioning was nver
>seen by anybody, it certainly was not visible on the Z film at 237,
>and could only have occurred at 210-225, when they were behind the
>Stemmons Freeway Sign. However, it is impossible to believe they
>performed this maneuver in 15 frames, especially since it isn't
>visible on any any film taken that day.

If you look at the photograph in "Mortal Error" of the empty car,
you'll see that the jump seats are much lower than JFK's seat.
In fact, it looks like these seats are almost on the floor of the
limousine. So Conally wasn't on the same level as JFK was. 
Couldn't that explain the angle? Perhaps the bullet deflected somewhat
after hitting JFK's spine?

>>3. The bullet is not pristine; it is flattened at the base, with some
>>   lead extruding and it is bent. Donahue argues that only at high
>>   velocities the bullets will show the mushroom effect. Before the
>>   bullet hit Conally's rib it had slowed down considerably. I believe
>>   this is the same argument Mitchell used before. I haven't heard of
>>   a proof of the contrary.

>Well, there is a picture in the HSCA report that Cyril Wecht submitted
>to the HSCA. It shows the 'magic' bullet beside a 6.5mm
>Mannlicher-Carcano round that had been fired into cotton for test
>purposes. The cotton bullet is bent more and has more lead extruded
>from the base than the magic bullet. This proves to me, it was
>probably fired into something softer than cotton, probably a water
>tank.
>Don't forget, the 'magic' bullet also had no blood on it, and considering
>the number of wounds it caused, this is unrealistic. 
>Also, the considered opinion of Connallys Surgeons is that the wrist
>wound was caused by a bullet that had completely mushroomed, which the
>'magic' bullet had not.
>One of the ballistics experts also testified that at 2000 feet per
>second, a bullet impact should leave an imprint of the material a
>bullet hits on the bullet. Copper isn't that hard. He was of the
>opinion, the weave of JFK's jacket, or Connally's should have been
>microscopically visible. It wasn't. There was no imprint of anything
>on the bullet. It probably never hit anything harder than water.

A few months ago I read something about FMJ bullets being fired through
a couple of feet of wood and coming out pristine. I'm not sure whether I
should believe this, but if it is true, than it appears that these
bullets can do really unexpected things.

>>   
>>What's your opinion about this, guys?

>I think the fatal head shot is *much* better researched by Donahue in
>Mortal Error, and the chapter on the 'magic' bullet should be skipped.

>-- 
>......

Actually, I'm curious what you think about Donahue's main thesis, that
the final shot was fired accidentily by SS agent Hickey. Though it sounds
ridiculous, Donahue's analysis clearly points in this direction. He even
has some witnesses who claim to have heard the shot from this direction
and a whole car of SS agents who refuse to give any comment.
As I don't have a scale map of Dealy plaza I'm not sure about this, but
could Donohue's analysis indicate that the head shot came from the
DalTex building or the county records building, passing closely above or
to Hicky's left/right? Donahue clearly shows that this shot was quite
different from the previous ones, that it was a frangible bullet.


-- 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sjoerd C. de Vries                            | If all else fails |
| Utrecht Biophysics Research Institute         | we can whip the   |
| Dept. of Medical and Physiological Physics    | horses' eyes      |