[heavyarms]

I used to buy into some of this JFK stuff when I was a X-Files watching teenager. What really burst the bubble for me was a documentary I watched where a team of snipers and forensic scientists re-created the exact shot with mannequins with bones and ballistic gel. They didn't even have to try that hard. Using the same rifle and ammo, the first shot they tried resulted in almost the same exact trajectory. I can't find a clip of that exact documentary (circa 2004-2006), but there are others who have done the same. You don't have to look hard to find very comprehensive and scientific explanations for the exact trajectory of that specific shot. But you do have to look very hard to find an actual explanation for why it is impossible that is beyond the level of "golly gee folks, I done shot lots of guns in my life and let me tell you, it ain't possible."

https://youtu.be/Q7ERXm9OwuE?t=250

[giantrobot]

Just in terms of ballistics, the 6.5mm round nose bullet fired by Oswald is not necessarily going to behave like a tapered point 5.56mm or .22LR. Even if I've put a million rounds of .22LR down range into paper targets I'm not magically a forensics expert on a larger bullet's trajectory bouncing around a metal car and through bodies.

[bm3719]

I own a 6.5 Carcano and can confirm that the this chambering does exhibit non-standard terminal ballistics when using the old bottle-nosed, flat-base surplus bullets. Also, a lot of these late-19th century surplus rifles (including my 1891 Truppe Speciali) have less than stellar bores, having seen hard use in two world wars. Mine was shot out pretty bad when in service and often keyholes rounds, for example. All kinds of weird things could be possible at impact in that case. That said, it's still a remarkably well-designed cartridge with many features considered modern now, so can be flat-shooting and very accurate. Some detailed analysis of Oswald's Carcano could lend some insight into whether this is relevant.

[TheRealDunkirk]

All I see on that link is them talking about proving that it was possible. When I search, I can't find the actual test, or demonstrating that they can pass a bullet through one block of gel, and then bounce it off 2 "bones" in another block of gel, at 45-degree angles, and cause more wounds, and stay in one piece. If veterans were to comment and say, "Yeah, this kind of thing happens all the time," I might be more sympathetic. But I can't find their actual demonstration, so I don't know.

I do see them quoted as saying "these were not hard shots to make," but no expert riflemen at the FBI could get off 3 accurate shots in the 6.5 seconds it would take to make the Commission's report true.

I've seen "experts" try to tell me that shooting a melon makes it recoil in the direction of the shooter, to attempt disprove the fatal headshot from the front. Again, this flies directly in the face of experience with anyone who has shot guns for fun. This just does not happen. So was it faked? Was it a one time thing? Who knows! It was an "expert," but it sure as heck doesn't square with my experience. And it sure as hell doesn't explain Jackie picking up pieces of John's skull from the trunk lid.

But this really gets to the heart of why we can't agree on anything any more: you can always find an expert who tells you what you think should be true.

If you want to believe that the magic bullet caused several wounds in 2 people, bouncing off bones at sharp angles, then exit the second victim -- it wasn't recovered in Connelly -- and wind up on the gurney of the FIRST victim, in almost pristine form, without even being covered in blood, then I can't help you. It doesn't require credentialed expertise in firearms or ballistics to know that's horse puckey.

Myself, I think Occam's Razor applies here, but not in the way you do. I find it far MORE believable that there was a conspiracy, with multiple shooters, than I do the AMAZING number of ballistical miracles it would take to make the lone gunman story work.

[rascul]

> but no expert riflemen at the FBI could get off 3 accurate shots in the 6.5 seconds it would take to make the Commission's report true.

Why would an expert rifleman not be able to get off three accurate shots in 6.5 seconds? What am I missing?