From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: PBS Special
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:20:39 GMT

grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant) writes:


>In <92324.021738U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> Alan Rogers writes:




>	Perhaps for brevity's sake you leave out the fact that
>	the dictabelt tape tells us nothing at all about the
>	timing of the shots since it was not recorded at the
>	time of the assassination and it was not recorded at
>	Dealy Plaza.  

The dictabelt contains recordings of gunshots recorded at Dealey
Plaza. 

>|And there is some evidence to show that the fragment that hit Tague
>|came from a bullet striking the curb only a few feet away from him.
>|This would destroy a scenario that only places one shooter at the
>|6th floor window.  The pro-WC arguments against this always avoids
>|this by trying to place the bullet strike further away.

>	This does not "destroy" the single shooter, 6th floor TSBD
>	scenario.  Read Shaneyfelt's testimony; he didn't believe
>	the pavement was hit by a whole bullet because the 
>	nick on the curb was too small.  It certainly wasn't
>	a FMJ bullet that hit the curb as no traces of copper
>	showed up in the spectrographic analysis.  

The curb sat out in the weather until the summer of 1964, when they
finally gave in to the pestering of James Tague. They knew about it
the day after the assassination. Who knows what might have turned up
if it had been analyzed immediately?

>       Given the fact
>	that a fragmenting bullet by definition deflects from it's
>	"true" course, Tague's position is consistent with a 
>	pavement strike from the largest, unrecovered fragment
>	from the head shot.

The windshield of the Limo was between JFK and Tague. 


>|   And while I'm at it, I would not be distracted by the "delayed
>|reaction" WC argument.  Of course, people have tales to tell of when
>|they were hit by a bullet and didn't realize it.  But looking closer
>|at these tales, we can generally put them into two categories: 1)
>|those whose tension and awareness were so hightened by their situations
>|that their attention was focused away from their wound such as in war
>|or in a violent street scene; or 2) their wounds were so superficial
>|that they weren't immediately noticed; no collapsed lungs or
>|shattered bones in the bunch.  Neither of these conditions were
>|present in that presidential limo.

>	Wound ballistics experts and army surgeons would disagree
>	with you but I feel the point is moot.  Connally's reaction
>	to the passage of CE399 is instantaneous with respect to
>	his involuntary movements, and delayed less than a half
>	a second with respect to semi-voluntary movements.  The
>	gross external reaction of his upper trunk is caused by
>	his reaction to the pneumothorax; his lung would not
>	have collapsed until he tried to take his first breath.
>	It is at this point that he cries out in pain.  Compare
>	with Kennedy's wound reaction, which was instantaneous
>	because it involved a severe neurological trauma to the
>	area of the sixth cervical vertebra.  

Connallys surgeon stated that a bullet striking a bone such as
Connallys 5th rib [10cm pulverized] would cause an instantaneous
reaction.

Besides, JFK was hit at 189-190, well before Connally.



>	The flattening has been reproduced experimentally and when
>	flattened precisely like CE399 approximately 2 grains of
>	lead protrude from the base of the bullet.  

You really keep using Lattimers vise experiment? Ha!
What has a vise have to do with a bullet hitting a bone at 1900 feet
per second?

>       CE399 is also
>	slightly bent on the long axis.  It has lost that 2 grains
>	of extruding lead; where do you think it went?  Come to
>	think of it, where do you think CE399 came from?  Do you
>	really think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that
>	someone (one of THEM) planted it on Connally's stretcher
>	at Parkland?  

It wasn't found on Connally's stretcher, and the orderly says the
bullet he found was pointed and was not CE399.

>	The SBT does not say that CE399 hit Connally's arm sideways.
>	It says the bullet was tumbling and hit the top of his
>	wrist while traveling mostly backwards.  That's why it left
>	the lead in the wrist.  The entrance wound here is *larger*
>	than the exit wound.  How do you explain that, if not by
>	a tumbling bullet?  The wound in the thigh is quite 
>	punctate, indicating that the bullet ended up butt-end
>	first.

How fast do you think bullets tumble? Even at 1000 fps, it would only
take 1/4000 of a second to pass through Connallys wrist. To do a
quarter turn it would have to be rotating at 1000 revolutions per
second. Thats not tumbling, thats spinning at a ridiculous rate.


>|I must state that I don't feel that the factors presented in this
>|post are the weakest part of the case against the SBT.  It is the
>|determination of whether LHO could have fired fast enough to have
>|separately shot JFK and Connally with two separate shots that I find
>|has strong enough weight to it to merit further probing.
>|This factor comes to us mainly from Lattimer by way of Joel Grant's
>|keyboard but is mentioned from sources other than these two.
>|It is ironic that we can all (us anti-WC) discount so much of what
>|the FBI presented us and not question its findings that 2.3 seconds
>|was the absolute minimum firing time between shots as if it was
>|gospel.

>	The FBI firing tests have been validated by other testers.
>	They are based upon the use of the scope.  The HSCA
>	found that it took only 1.66 sec between shots if the
>	shooter used iron sights.  But even if we could demonstrate
>	that Oswald or anyone else could have fired the rifle 
>	twice in the amount of time you postulate for the wounds
>	to JFK and Connally, I would find it very difficult to
>	believe that Connally was hit by a pristine bullet.

>	Connally's wounds just are not consistent with being
>	struck by a stable bullet moving in the area of 2,000 fps.
>	This isn't just my opinion.  This is a demonstrated 
>	experimental result.  The scar on his back is fully two
>	inches (about 5 cm) long, consistent with Shaw's immediate
>	post-operative statement.  

Quit using that 5cm crap Joel. Shaw testified to the WC that the 5cm
wound was caused by the excising of flesh. The hole in Connallys shirt
was only 1cm, very consistent with a 6.5mm bullet passing downwards into
Connally. Shaws statement to the HSCA also makes it clear that
Connally was struck by a non-tumbling bullet. Shaw concluded that the
fragments found on the limo floor, wrongly attributed to the head
wound, were more consistent with Connallys wounds, especially the
ragged wrist wound.


-- 
......

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk