Moderators: Bob, Phil Dragoo, Dealey Joe, kenmurray, dankbaar
There are no bullets less than 20 millimeters that actually explode. Twenty millimeter is the smallest you can put a fuse assembly in. The Germans came up with the first one. Hydroshock rounds were developed in the last 20 years. It's a hydraulic function that turns it into a frangible bullet. They want the bullet to penetrate and then explode. Another procedure involves boring out a hole in the bullet, then the same exact weight of the lead that was removed is replaced with solder. Then a little brass plug is put in it. As that sucker is traveling through the air, it's getting hotter and hotter. The solder is melting. It melts at the back of the slug before it melts at the front. When that copper jacket hits anything that gives resistance, the little brass nut starts traveling forward and a hydraulic action occurs. It starts mushrooming and splitting the bullet. The bullet has started to stop, but that little brass plug in the rear of the bullet wants to keep on going. There's nothing to stop it but the liquid. This is squeezing the liquid. You can't compress liquids, and it transfers a foot pound energy throughout that liquid. If the f*cker hits metal, it will explode like a f*cking firecracker into many fragments. If it hits skin, it will only explode probably after it's penetrated three or four inches. Then it starts coming apart into a lot of small pieces. You'll recover solder, copper and lead. The solder melts. It becomes black speckles. It won't even seem metallic."
JDThomas wrote:The late Gerry Hemming provided an interesting alternative to the mercury round scenario:There are no bullets less than 20 millimeters that actually explode. Twenty millimeter is the smallest you can put a fuse assembly in. The Germans came up with the first one. Hydroshock rounds were developed in the last 20 years. It's a hydraulic function that turns it into a frangible bullet. They want the bullet to penetrate and then explode. Another procedure involves boring out a hole in the bullet, then the same exact weight of the lead that was removed is replaced with solder. Then a little brass plug is put in it. As that sucker is traveling through the air, it's getting hotter and hotter. The solder is melting. It melts at the back of the slug before it melts at the front. When that copper jacket hits anything that gives resistance, the little brass nut starts traveling forward and a hydraulic action occurs. It starts mushrooming and splitting the bullet. The bullet has started to stop, but that little brass plug in the rear of the bullet wants to keep on going. There's nothing to stop it but the liquid. This is squeezing the liquid. You can't compress liquids, and it transfers a foot pound energy throughout that liquid. If the f*cker hits metal, it will explode like a f*cking firecracker into many fragments. If it hits skin, it will only explode probably after it's penetrated three or four inches. Then it starts coming apart into a lot of small pieces. You'll recover solder, copper and lead. The solder melts. It becomes black speckles. It won't even seem metallic."
Let's not forget that Hemming's HSCA testimony remains sealed and it is also claimed that the HSCA uncovered an internal CIA memo which admitted that Hemming trained a shooter team for Dallas 22 November 1963. Hemming's version was that he was offered the hit, but turned it down, but also stated that if the FBI and Police had done their job properly, he should have been arrested in the aftermath of the assassination.
JDThomas wrote:Robert, the most intriguing bit for me is what the HSCA discovered about the CIA memo. Unless the CIA 'planted' the memo on themselves to blow smoke, this would clearly put Hemming in the frame for involvement to conspire, even if the training he provided came to nought.
As for his statement on exploding rounds, I defer to your expertise. Hemming did make specific claims however and I find it interesting that on many of them, nobody, expert or otherwise, called him out when he was alive and there was ample opportunity. There were plenty of people on both sides of the LN/CT argument who would have had vested interests to discredit Hemming and their prior silence speak volumes to me.
Return to Who shot JFK, and why?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests