From: eidetics@nic.cerf.net (Eidetics Int'l)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Connally's Wound
Date: 12 Jan 1993 03:40:55 GMT
Organization: CERFnet Dial n' CERF Customer Group
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: nic.cerf.net

From Jon Volkoff, mail address eidetics@cerf.net

yarvin-norman@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin @ Yale Computer Science Department)
writes:

>"Jon Volkoff, mail address eidetics@cerf.net" writes:
>>Now quoting from Audio Letter #3, Topic #1:
>>
>>   Based on the appearance of the blast in the Zapruder film,
>>it's possible that the murder weapon was essentially an extremely
>>sawed off shotgun, hidden in the seat upholstery ahead of him. 
>>But it appears much more likely that the blast was produced by
>>what is known as a shaped charge in a special mounting.  A shaped
>>charge is a specially configurated explosive device which
>>essentially produces a focused explosion--that is, an explosion
>>that mostly aims in one direction instead of going in all
>>directions like a stick of dynamite.  A shaped charge is what
>>enables a bazooka to blast a Sherman Tank out of action
>
>Beter's description of a shaped charge contains, strictly speaking,
>no factual errors.  However it is very misleading.  It will be
>clearer what a shaped charge is and does, if I draw a picture of one:
>
>
>			
>	Cross-sectional view:
>
>		     metal liner
>		      |
>		      |
>	       %\     |	 /%
>	      %%%\    V /%%%
>	     %%%%%\    /%%%%%
>	     %%%%%%\  /%%%%%%
>	      %%%%%%\/%%%%%% <---------high explosive
>	       %%%%%%%%%%%%
>		%%%%%%%%%%
>		 %%%%%%%%
>	           %%%%
>		    || 
>		    || <---------detonator
>
>
>When the detonator is triggered, it sets off the high explosive.
>The explosive then slams the metal liner together producing an
>extremely high-velocity jet of metal going straight up.  Speeds of
>tens of thousands of feet per second can be produced.
>
>The jet of metal could easily kill someone.  However the explosion
>would not be concealable.  To conceal it you would need very thick
>armor plate, with a large and thick-walled pipe leading down to the
>bottom of the limo to vent gases.  And even then you would have to
>leave a hole for the jet of metal to escape; there would have been a
>huge gout of flame coming out of that hole.

Well, maybe and maybe not.  If it was a small shaped charge the explosion
could be reduced.  In any event, there is a blast of some sort shown on
the Zapruder tape coming from within the car, from downward and in front
of the President, at the moment of the fatal shot which has never been
explained or commented on by anyone.  I noticed it myself on the film
when I watched it.

>The basic problem is that to propel a piece of metal with a shaped
>charge, you need much more explosive than you would use if you were
>to propel the same amount of metal with a gun.  And it has to be
>high explosive; gunpowder will not do.  The effect of this
>explosive, if no armor were used, would be like that of a concussion
>grenade.  It would produce a large flash, and a bang loud enough to
>make nearby ears bleed.
>
>Thus a shaped charge would be much less concealable than a gun.  To
>suggest that a shaped charge was used because it would be more
>concealable than a gun is complete bullshit; Beter is obviously
>addressing his letters to ignoramuses.

I think you are misquoting Dr. Beter here.  He said that an advantage of
a shaped charge would be that it would not produce any bullet or buckshot
which might be found later.  He did not say that it was more concealable
than a gun; in fact, he mentions the noise generated by (even a small)
shaped charge as being a disadvantage.

That being said, let me make a general comment.  From my postings of the
Audio Letters, I have noticed that invariably the most vociferous opponents
of them have come from the scientific/technical establishment in the US and
some other Western countries.  Rare has been the case when I received a civil,
thoughtful, objective reply addressing the matters at hand while taking care
not to misquote or take things out of context.  Apparently many of them feel
that after they learn a little something about a subject, they are all-knowing
experts on many things who then extrapolate false conclusions on them, and it
is impossible to tell them anything that conflicts with their holy dogma.
There seems to be an epidemic among these people of "foot-in-mouth" disease
where they speak before doing the proper research.  Anyway, as a result,
I want you guys in the sci/tech group that I mentioned above to know that I
have lost a great deal of respect for you collectively, from whom I expected
better.  I'm sure this doesn't speak for all of you, but I think it speaks for
a great portion nonetheless.  I think there are other places in this world
which would provide a more open-minded and informed audience, and I for one
don't want to waste any more time with you, if I can possibly help it.