Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Back Wound


Recommended Posts

OK...

Appears to be logical to this point, Tom.

Please continue.

Unfortunately, logic can often lead us astray as well.

Therefore, if one relies strictly on the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical evidence, they are much more likely to arrive at a correct solution.

a. The back entry wound of JFK measured 4mm X 7mm which is the exact same measurement as the base of the recovered bullet. (CE399)

b. A normal wound of entry of a wcc 6.5mm carcano bullet does not create a punch-type wound of entry with relatively clean cut edges.

Whereas, a flat-nosed bullet does create such a wound.

Since CE399 has only one flat end, it takes little imagination to resolve which end it struck with.

c. A forensic fact is that a normal entrance wound through clothing does not/will not remove materials from the fabric and thereafter carry this fabric down into the wound.

Whereas, the coat and shirt of JFK demonstrate considerable fabric as having been removed and the autopsy surgeon (Dr. Boswell) has clearly stated that the back wound of JFK had fabric and fibers from the coat and shirt carried into the wound.

d. A paper punch "punches" out a perfect circular hole of paper and removes, carries it into the catch basin for the residue.

Much in the same way that the flat-base of CE399 "punched" out the cloth from the coat and shirt of JFK and carried it into the wound of entry.

e. All initial reports indicated that the back entry wound of JFK went in only a short distance and then stopped with no exit.

One must therefore question exactly what would cause a normal 2,000 fps bullet to only penetrate a short distance.

The "dud"/short round has been fully disputed by the actual bullet as well as the casing from which it was fired.

Other than that, this leaves some interference with the bullet from the time that it left the barrell of the rifle until impact.

f. The only item which is known to have had the possibility to have interferred with the bullet flight are those tree limbs and the pidgeons.

Whereas there were no dead pidgeons found, this breaks down to the tree limbs.

g. The ballistic anomalies of CE399 are for all practical purposes identical to what is achieved when a wcc 6.5mm Carcano bullet is fired through a small live oak tree limb.

h. Firing a wcc 6.5mm Carcano bullet through a small live oak tree limb cause the bullet to lose it's spin, thereby losing it's stability in flight and therefore it begins to tumble in flight.

i. This "tumbling" in flight gives the bullet an end-over-end inertia that even though the bullet may strike an object in an almost perfectly base first attitude, the inertia will continue to drive the base of the bullet downward at an increased angle of entry. Which, could easily create a 45-degree to 60-degree downward penetration as reported by the autopsy surgeons.

j. Penetration of a wcc 6.5mm Carcano bullet through a small live oak tree limb causes the bullet to extrude a small portion of the lead core out the 4.5mm opening at the base of the bullet.

k. The only portion of CE399 which is missing as a result of it having been fired is that portion of the bullet which was left within the rifle barrell as a result of firing and a small portion of the lead core from the bullet base.

l. JFK had a fractured and fragmented right transverse process of the C7 vertebra with what appears as small minute metallic fragments present.

Since none of the bullet nose could account for this damage and metallic fragments, this leaves the base of the bullet to account for it.

j. A small metallic fragment which weighed .9 grains was found in the rear floorboard of the Presidential Limousine. For all practical purposes, this fragment has the flat-base which is similar to an extrusion out the base of a squeezed/flattened 6.5mm Carcano bullet, as well as having a tapering/cone shape with scratch marks running with the length of the fragment.

k. The Parkland Dr's and Nurses reported an anterior neck wound in JFK which appeared to be 3 to 5mm in size.

The extrusion out the base of a squeezed/flattened 6.5mm Carcano bullet measures 4.5mm in width.

l. The "non-irregular" fragment of CE840, which for all practical examinations had to have come from the base of CE399, disappeared while in the FBI/WC custody.

m. X-ray examination of the tie of JFK revealed metallic residue embedded in the '"abraised area of the tie", yet, we are told by the WC that no metallic residue was there, and that a "nick" is on the tie with actual fabric missing.

There is actually little that is difficult in resolving the issues of CE399, as well as the other issues of the actual assassination.

Provided of course that one is not chasing multiple assassins and body kidnappers.

When one systematically evaluates the known and absolute physical evidence, it answers virtually all of those questions related to how the assassination actually occurred.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Tom,

If I understand you correctly, CE399 entered JFK's back and did not exit his body, except for a fragment which exited his throat and caused all of Connally's wounds. Is this correct?

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

If I understand you correctly, CE399 entered JFK's back and did not exit his body, except for a fragment which exited his throat and caused all of Connally's wounds. Is this correct?

Ron

I seem to recall having repeatedly stated that the third/last/final shot, which was not Z-313 is responsible for the majority of the wounds suffered by JBC.

(excluding the wrist wound which was created by a fragment from the Z-313 head shot)

CE399 did only that damage shown in the drawing.

Back injury wound to JFK

Fractured and fragmented vertebra

Bruise over the apex of the lung

Small anterior throat wound created by the exiting fragment sheared from the base of the bullet, which ended up in the rear floorboard.

Therein lies the physical damage created by CE399

CE399 created no injuries to anyone other than those minor injuries sustained by JFK.

And even the minor throat injury created by the exiting fragment was obviously of so little significance that JFK could yell "My God, I'm hit".

Which Kellerman clearly stated during testimony to the WC.

There is in fact a "Magic" bullet.

It is the third shot, which disappeared from our view in the Z-film, created entry and exit wounds through the head of JFK; entered the back/shoulder of JBC, penetrating his chest to exit into the leg, and there after disappear.

Whereas CE399 did not disappear, I personally would not refer to it as having been a "magic" bullet.

Tom

"Politicians, not unlike magicians, can make things disappear"

Nevertheless, "There is No Magic"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3.  The "boy is Tom out on a limb" school:

Which states that the WC was an intentional lie; that there was only a single assassin; and that another reason other than conspiracy to assassinate has to do with the reasons for the WC misrepresentation of the evidence.

So what were the reasons? What is your theory?

I also have a question on the back wound. If I understand what you've said, the bullet that you say lodged in JFK and didn't exit (except for the fragment out the front of the throat) was CE399. How can that be when no bullet was found in the body, and CE399 was received separate from the body after being found at Parkland?

There is little difficulty in a bullet which penetrates to less than one-half the length of the little finger to work itself out of the entry wound.

Especially with the "wrestling" of JFK out of the car by the SS Agents and then placement of JFK on the stretcher.

The "which pod has the pea" game of Arlen Specter is another of those slight of hand episodes in which Specter somewhat "over acted" and "over proved" his point in attempting to prove absolutely that CE399 came from JBC's stretcher.

Which we now know was as much of a misrepresentation of the facts as was most of the other aspects related to the "facts of the assassination".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, I've been with you up to this point...but I think you lost me when you contended that the 3rd [head] shot, well after Z-313, is the one which caused Connally's wounds.

Please explain why it would appear that Connally was struck prior to Z-313, if it was indeed the third shot that caused all his wounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, I've been with you up to this point...but I think you lost me when you contended that the 3rd [head] shot, well after Z-313, is the one which caused Connally's wounds.

Please explain why it would appear that Connally was struck prior to Z-313, if it was indeed the third shot that caused all his wounds.

Have you ever been shot at?

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK...

Appears to be logical to this point, Tom.

Please continue.

Unfortunately, logic can often lead us astray as well.

Therefore, if one relies strictly on the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical evidence, they are much more likely to arrive at a correct solution.

Tom,

I have a passing interest in the back wound which I, after Lifton planted the seed in my mind, still consider to be made post mortem.

I am deeply suspicious of the ballistic & physical evidence that you are using to come to your conclusions. I do not use them to form my own opinions on "the way it happened" & so I am forced to use my logic, common sense & imagination to create a possible truth that I'm happy with.

I'd like to concentrate on the back wound exclusively but just so you know, my common sense tells me that the sixth floor of a building so close to the target, would not be used by anyone trying to get away with this type of crime.

I consider the Dallas doctors observations of the wounds to be the best evidence & that their "theory" that one bullet entered the throat & excited the back of the head to be closer to the truth of what happened in the Plaza than anything that was seen by the pathologists later on that day.

So basically, the throat shot & the head shot both came from the front & the evidence of this was totally obliterated before Humes got a look at the body, that is what I believe at the moment & I'm just letting you know in advance.

So what I am hoping for, is something about the visual characteristics of this back wound that could dispel my opinion that it was made by a cold blunt instrument.

Am I wrong in thinking that a speeding bullet would burn those small portions of flesh seen around the edge of the wound away & wouldn't the same thing happen to this fabric from the clothing?

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK...

Appears to be logical to this point, Tom.

Please continue.

Unfortunately, logic can often lead us astray as well.

Therefore, if one relies strictly on the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical evidence, they are much more likely to arrive at a correct solution.

Tom,

I have a passing interest in the back wound which I, after Lifton planted the seed in my mind, still consider to be made post mortem.

I am deeply suspicious of the ballistic & physical evidence that you are using to come to your conclusions. I do not use them to form my own opinions on "the way it happened" & so I am forced to use my logic, common sense & imagination to create a possible truth that I'm happy with.

I'd like to concentrate on the back wound exclusively but just so you know, my common sense tells me that the sixth floor of a building so close to the target, would not be used by anyone trying to get away with this type of crime.

I consider the Dallas doctors observations of the wounds to be the best evidence & that their "theory" that one bullet entered the throat & excited the back of the head to be closer to the truth of what happened in the Plaza than anything that was seen by the pathologists later on that day.

So basically, the throat shot & the head shot both came from the front & the evidence of this was totally obliterated before Humes got a look at the body, that is what I believe at the moment & I'm just letting you know in advance.

So what I am hoping for, is something about the visual characteristics of this back wound that could dispel my opinion that it was made by a cold blunt instrument.

Am I wrong in thinking that a speeding bullet would burn those small portions of flesh seen around the edge of the wound away & wouldn't the same thing happen to this fabric from the clothing?

Alan

Let me first state that David's book is the single best source of information to exist which demonstrated the apparant conflicts of the medical evidence of JFK.

Should he decide to eliminate all reference to "body kidnapping" and republish, he should get a pulitzer.

Once he entered the realm of altered wounds, etc; he crossed the line into an area which is beyond all hope of eithe having accomplished or kept quiet.

It was in fact David's description of the back wound that got my interest. As you may recall, he stated something to the effect that it appeared as if a piece of rebar had been "punched" into it.

With this, and my first look at the backwound, I knew that if created by a bullet, this wound was created by either a wadcutter bullet or the flat base of a bullet striking in a base first attitude.

Now, exactly how was it that these body kidnappers, etc; wound alterers knew to hold some cloth over the wound when they "jabbed" this back wound?

And, since it is a complete forensic fact that a normal entry does not carry fabric down into the wound, exactly why would they even dream up this part of the alteration scenario.

Secondly, exactly why would these genius covert operators make a wound in the back of JFk which was a completely "atypical" wound of entry.

Even Dr. Boswell recognized and stated that part.

Seem to me that this would indicate another major fallacy of this genious altering plan that we are going to make a back wound which does not even favor a normal bullet entry wound.

Third, exactly how was it that these genius wound alteration specialists knew to make this "atypical" wound to match the exact deformed base of CE 399 in size.

Not to mention making similar "punch marks in the coat and shirt of JFK.

And, if recalled, there are now definitive witnesses who observed the back entry wound in JFK'sj back at Parkland Hospital.

Sort of shoots down the "altered wound of the back" in my book.

This can continue, with exactly how did they know to damage the right transverse process of the C7 vertebtrae, and thereafter gouge out the lead in the base of CE399 to make it match this, not to mention disposing of the small lead protrusion which ABSOLUTELY MUST squeeze out the base of the bullet any time the bullet is flattened or deformed in the manner in which it is.

And, exactly how was it that they knew to make a 3- 5mm wound in the anterior neck of JFK which would for all practical purposes match the 4.5mm diameter of the lead extrusion which comes out the base of the bullet, and thereafter place this extrusion from CE399 in the floorboard of the Presidential Limousine.

David Lifton's theory is also based on the "planted bullet" theory, when in fact every single piece of evidence demonstrates fully how CE 399 came to exist and what wounds in JFK it is actually responsible for.

So, David, not unlike many others, has to admit that either this mess is too complicated for me to figure out and resolve, or else I am just stupid, or else the body was kidnapped and altered.

When was the last time that anyone admitted that this was just to jumbled and confused that they could not resolve the issue?

When was the last time that anyone admitted to being to stupid to understand the factual evidence.

Ergo: Body Kidnappers and multiple assassins.

This could go on forever as to exactly why there is absolutely no physical evidence to support anything but shots from the rear.

Tom

P.S. JFK is not grabbing his throat.

He has the lapel/collar of each side of the coat grasped in his hands and is making an attempt to get out of the coat as he now has a hot bullet lodged in his back, no doubt burning him.

PPS. The photos presented were made with full speed carcano bullets and photographed just as the wound was created. There is no evidence of any burning of flesh in either, and neither are there any such indications in the two areas of the coat and shirts through which these bullets were fired.

Might I recommend you take the information which I have provide you with to qualified persons in the fields of Ballistics Science as well as Forensic Pathologists,

(both of which I long ago did) and have them review the information.

You, and anyone else just may be suprised at the anwer you receive.

Rest assured, if I am smart enough to figure out the altered evidence and other manipulations of the evidence by the wc, this same talent would know whether there was any body kidnappings; altered bodies; or multiple assassins.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thomas H. Purvis Posted Today, 12:50 AM

  QUOTE(Alan Healy @ Aug 9 2005, 12:41 AM)

QUOTE(Thomas H. Purvis @ Aug 8 2005, 04:05 PM)

QUOTE(Mark Knight @ Aug 8 2005, 04:49 AM)

OK...

Appears to be logical to this point, Tom.

Please continue.

Unfortunately, logic can often lead us astray as well.

Therefore, if one relies strictly on the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical evidence, they are much more likely to arrive at a correct solution.

Tom,

I have a passing interest in the back wound which I, after Lifton planted the seed in my mind, still consider to be made post mortem.

I am deeply suspicious of the ballistic & physical evidence that you are using to come to your conclusions. I do not use them to form my own opinions on "the way it happened" & so I am forced to use my logic, common sense & imagination to create a possible truth that I'm happy with.

I'd like to concentrate on the back wound exclusively but just so you know, my common sense tells me that the sixth floor of a building so close to the target, would not be used by anyone trying to get away with this type of crime.

I consider the Dallas doctors observations of the wounds to be the best evidence & that their "theory" that one bullet entered the throat & excited the back of the head to be closer to the truth of what happened in the Plaza than anything that was seen by the pathologists later on that day.

So basically, the throat shot & the head shot both came from the front & the evidence of this was totally obliterated before Humes got a look at the body, that is what I believe at the moment & I'm just letting you know in advance.

So what I am hoping for, is something about the visual characteristics of this back wound that could dispel my opinion that it was made by a cold blunt instrument.

Am I wrong in thinking that a speeding bullet would burn those small portions of flesh seen around the edge of the wound away & wouldn't the same thing happen to this fabric from the clothing?

Alan

Let me first state that David's book is the single best source of information to exist which demonstrated the apparant conflicts of the medical evidence of JFK.

Should he decide to eliminate all reference to "body kidnapping" and republish, he should get a pulitzer.

Once he entered the realm of altered wounds, etc; he crossed the line into an area which is beyond all hope of eithe having accomplished or kept quiet.

It was in fact David's description of the back wound that got my interest. As you may recall, he stated something to the effect that it appeared as if a piece of rebar had been "punched" into it.

With this, and my first look at the backwound, I knew that if created by a bullet, this wound was created by either a wadcutter bullet or the flat base of a bullet striking in a base first attitude.

Now, exactly how was it that these body kidnappers, etc; wound alterers knew to hold some cloth over the wound when they "jabbed" this back wound?

And, since it is a complete forensic fact that a normal entry does not carry fabric down into the wound, exactly why would they even dream up this part of the alteration scenario.

Secondly, exactly why would these genius covert operators make a wound in the back of JFk which was a completely "atypical" wound of entry.

Even Dr. Boswell recognized and stated that part.

Seem to me that this would indicate another major fallacy of this genious altering plan that we are going to make a back wound which does not even favor a normal bullet entry wound.

Third, exactly how was it that these genius wound alteration specialists knew to make this "atypical" wound to match the exact deformed base of CE 399 in size.

Not to mention making similar "punch marks in the coat and shirt of JFK.

And, if recalled, there are now definitive witnesses who observed the back entry wound in JFK'sj back at Parkland Hospital.

Sort of shoots down the "altered wound of the back" in my book.

This can continue, with exactly how did they know to damage the right transverse process of the C7 vertebtrae, and thereafter gouge out the lead in the base of CE399 to make it match this, not to mention disposing of the small lead protrusion which ABSOLUTELY MUST squeeze out the base of the bullet any time the bullet is flattened or deformed in the manner in which it is.

And, exactly how was it that they knew to make a 3- 5mm wound in the anterior neck of JFK which would for all practical purposes match the 4.5mm diameter of the lead extrusion which comes out the base of the bullet, and thereafter place this extrusion from CE399 in the floorboard of the Presidential Limousine.

David Lifton's theory is also based on the "planted bullet" theory, when in fact every single piece of evidence demonstrates fully how CE 399 came to exist and what wounds in JFK it is actually responsible for.

So, David, not unlike many others, has to admit that either this mess is too complicated for me to figure out and resolve, or else I am just stupid, or else the body was kidnapped and altered.

When was the last time that anyone admitted that this was just to jumbled and confused that they could not resolve the issue?

When was the last time that anyone admitted to being to stupid to understand the factual evidence.

Ergo: Body Kidnappers and multiple assassins.

This could go on forever as to exactly why there is absolutely no physical evidence to support anything but shots from the rear.

Tom

P.S. JFK is not grabbing his throat.

He has the lapel/collar of each side of the coat grasped in his hands and is making an attempt to get out of the coat as he now has a hot bullet lodged in his back, no doubt burning him.

PPS. The photos presented were made with full speed carcano bullets and photographed just as the wound was created. There is no evidence of any burning of flesh in either, and neither are there any such indications in the two areas of the coat and shirts through which these bullets were fired.

Might I recommend you take the information which I have provide you with to qualified persons in the fields of Ballistics Science as well as Forensic Pathologists,

(both of which I long ago did) and have them review the information.

You, and anyone else just may be suprised at the anwer you receive.

Rest assured, if I am smart enough to figure out the altered evidence and other manipulations of the evidence by the wc, this same talent would know whether there was any body kidnappings; altered bodies; or multiple assassins.

Tom

P.S. JFK is not grabbing his throat.

He has the lapel/collar of each side of the coat grasped in his hands and is making an attempt to get out of the coat as he now has a hot bullet lodged in his back, no doubt burning him.

---------------------

Hi Tom,

Interesting presentations so far. You certainly have given this case a lot of thought and done some considerable research.

I do however disagree with your conclusion above, regarding the grabbing of the throat. As seen in the Zapruder film, JFK is clearly grabbing his throat, the entry point of a bullet, in my opinion. Among other things related to the case, I believe in multiple shooters.

I reached my opinion on 1) viewing the Zapruder film 2) reading statements by Parkland Doctors 3) viewing drawings of the neck entry wound prior to the tracheotomy incision.

Additionally, I have problems in visualizing a gunshot victim grabbing or reacting to an exit wound. Even if the entry wound were in an awkward position (such as the back of the neck), I think the victim would primarily react to the entry wound. In this case we do not see a reaction to an entry to the back of the neck, but rather, quite clearly a reaction to the entry of a bullet at the front of the neck.

Too bad that Dr. Rose wasn't allowed to perform the autopsy in Dallas. I believe many unanswered questions would be answered regarding the wounds, the probable number of bullets, and their points of entry and exit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thomas H. Purvis Posted Today, 12:50 AM

  QUOTE(Alan Healy @ Aug 9 2005, 12:41 AM)

QUOTE(Thomas H. Purvis @ Aug 8 2005, 04:05 PM)

QUOTE(Mark Knight @ Aug 8 2005, 04:49 AM)

OK...

Appears to be logical to this point, Tom.

Please continue.

Unfortunately, logic can often lead us astray as well.

Therefore, if one relies strictly on the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical evidence, they are much more likely to arrive at a correct solution.

Tom,

I have a passing interest in the back wound which I, after Lifton planted the seed in my mind, still consider to be made post mortem.

I am deeply suspicious of the ballistic & physical evidence that you are using to come to your conclusions. I do not use them to form my own opinions on "the way it happened" & so I am forced to use my logic, common sense & imagination to create a possible truth that I'm happy with.

I'd like to concentrate on the back wound exclusively but just so you know, my common sense tells me that the sixth floor of a building so close to the target, would not be used by anyone trying to get away with this type of crime.

I consider the Dallas doctors observations of the wounds to be the best evidence & that their "theory" that one bullet entered the throat & excited the back of the head to be closer to the truth of what happened in the Plaza than anything that was seen by the pathologists later on that day.

So basically, the throat shot & the head shot both came from the front & the evidence of this was totally obliterated before Humes got a look at the body, that is what I believe at the moment & I'm just letting you know in advance.

So what I am hoping for, is something about the visual characteristics of this back wound that could dispel my opinion that it was made by a cold blunt instrument.

Am I wrong in thinking that a speeding bullet would burn those small portions of flesh seen around the edge of the wound away & wouldn't the same thing happen to this fabric from the clothing?

Alan

Let me first state that David's book is the single best source of information to exist which demonstrated the apparant conflicts of the medical evidence of JFK.

Should he decide to eliminate all reference to "body kidnapping" and republish, he should get a pulitzer.

Once he entered the realm of altered wounds, etc; he crossed the line into an area which is beyond all hope of eithe having accomplished or kept quiet.

It was in fact David's description of the back wound that got my interest. As you may recall, he stated something to the effect that it appeared as if a piece of rebar had been "punched" into it.

With this, and my first look at the backwound, I knew that if created by a bullet, this wound was created by either a wadcutter bullet or the flat base of a bullet striking in a base first attitude.

Now, exactly how was it that these body kidnappers, etc; wound alterers knew to hold some cloth over the wound when they "jabbed" this back wound?

And, since it is a complete forensic fact that a normal entry does not carry fabric down into the wound, exactly why would they even dream up this part of the alteration scenario.

Secondly, exactly why would these genius covert operators make a wound in the back of JFk which was a completely "atypical" wound of entry.

Even Dr. Boswell recognized and stated that part.

Seem to me that this would indicate another major fallacy of this genious altering plan that we are going to make a back wound which does not even favor a normal bullet entry wound.

Third, exactly how was it that these genius wound alteration specialists knew to make this "atypical" wound to match the exact deformed base of CE 399 in size.

Not to mention making similar "punch marks in the coat and shirt of JFK.

And, if recalled, there are now definitive witnesses who observed the back entry wound in JFK'sj back at Parkland Hospital.

Sort of shoots down the "altered wound of the back" in my book.

This can continue, with exactly how did they know to damage the right transverse process of the C7 vertebtrae, and thereafter gouge out the lead in the base of CE399 to make it match this, not to mention disposing of the small lead protrusion which ABSOLUTELY MUST squeeze out the base of the bullet any time the bullet is flattened or deformed in the manner in which it is.

And, exactly how was it that they knew to make a 3- 5mm wound in the anterior neck of JFK which would for all practical purposes match the 4.5mm diameter of the lead extrusion which comes out the base of the bullet, and thereafter place this extrusion from CE399 in the floorboard of the Presidential Limousine.

David Lifton's theory is also based on the "planted bullet" theory, when in fact every single piece of evidence demonstrates fully how CE 399 came to exist and what wounds in JFK it is actually responsible for.

So, David, not unlike many others, has to admit that either this mess is too complicated for me to figure out and resolve, or else I am just stupid, or else the body was kidnapped and altered.

When was the last time that anyone admitted that this was just to jumbled and confused that they could not resolve the issue?

When was the last time that anyone admitted to being to stupid to understand the factual evidence.

Ergo: Body Kidnappers and multiple assassins.

This could go on forever as to exactly why there is absolutely no physical evidence to support anything but shots from the rear.

Tom

P.S. JFK is not grabbing his throat.

He has the lapel/collar of each side of the coat grasped in his hands and is making an attempt to get out of the coat as he now has a hot bullet lodged in his back, no doubt burning him.

PPS. The photos presented were made with full speed carcano bullets and photographed just as the wound was created. There is no evidence of any burning of flesh in either, and neither are there any such indications in the two areas of the coat and shirts through which these bullets were fired.

Might I recommend you take the information which I have provide you with to qualified persons in the fields of Ballistics Science as well as Forensic Pathologists,

(both of which I long ago did) and have them review the information.

You, and anyone else just may be suprised at the anwer you receive.

Rest assured, if I am smart enough to figure out the altered evidence and other manipulations of the evidence by the wc, this same talent would know whether there was any body kidnappings; altered bodies; or multiple assassins.

Tom

P.S. JFK is not grabbing his throat.

He has the lapel/collar of each side of the coat grasped in his hands and is making an attempt to get out of the coat as he now has a hot bullet lodged in his back, no doubt burning him.

---------------------

Hi Tom,

Interesting presentations so far. You certainly have given this case a lot of thought and done some considerable research.

I do however disagree with your conclusion above, regarding the grabbing of the throat. As seen in the Zapruder film, JFK is clearly grabbing his throat, the entry point of a bullet, in my opinion. Among other things related to the case, I believe in multiple shooters.

I reached my opinion on 1) viewing the Zapruder film 2) reading statements by Parkland Doctors 3) viewing drawings of the neck entry wound prior to the tracheotomy incision.

Additionally, I have problems in visualizing a gunshot victim grabbing or reacting to an exit wound. Even if the entry wound were in an awkward position (such as the back of the neck), I think the victim would primarily react to the entry wound. In this case we do not see a reaction to an entry to the back of the neck, but rather, quite clearly a reaction to the entry of a bullet at the front of the neck.

Too bad that Dr. Rose wasn't allowed to perform the autopsy in Dallas. I believe many unanswered questions would be answered regarding the wounds, the probable number of bullets, and their points of entry and exit.

Ever seen anyone reach for his throat with his fist closed?

A good look at an enlarged version of the Altgens photo taken at apprximately Z-255 demonstrates this fairly well.

Then of course there is always:

"At frame 225 his hand is down, his right hand that was waving is down, and has been brought down as though it were reaching for his lapel or his throat. The other hand, his left hand is on his lapel but rather high, as though it were coming up, and he is beginning to go into a hunched position."

"You see the President reaching for his coat lapels and going into a hunched position"

WC testimony of FBI Agent Lyndal Shaneyfelt

"I immediately, upon hearing the supposed firecracker, looked at the Boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder"

Handwritten notes of SS Agent Glen Bennett which were written onboard the return flight from Dallas to DC.

At the time that Agent Bennett wrote this (these are handwritten notes), no one was even aware that JFK had a bullet entrance hole in his back. Not to mention the fact that Bennett almost exactly placed the location of the entrance wound.

All of which somewhat tends to discredit the "altered back wound" scenario of David Lifton and others who have not bothered to read and review, or at least present to the readers, all of the statements and facts regarding the issue.

Of course, were I to want you to accept that the back wound was an imaginary/altered wound, neither would I tell you that there was a SS Agent who reported having observed the shot strike JFK in this location.

Neither would I inform you that at least one of those persons at the Parkland ER also observed the back wound.

Those of us who have been on the receiving end of bullets, as well as having observed many others in the same situation, frequently have a somewhat better insight into how one reacts when hit by a bullet.

Long before I found Shaneyfelt's statements, it was obvious what JFK was doing in his reaction to the first shot.

It is quite unfortunate that you, as well as many others have been "imprinted" by the pure garbage as relates to the JFK assassination.

Unfortunately for the true facts, there has been no cessation to this continued flow of misinformation.

Therefore, even the most simple basic facts become consumed and lost in this refuse pile.

Tom

Tom

P.S. Had a bullet entered the front neck of JFK and struck the vertebral column, the force of this bullet would have blown the vertebral column to pieces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom Purvis:

Ever seen anyone reach for his throat with his fist closed?

A good look at an enlarged version of the Altgens photo taken at apprximately Z-255 demonstrates this fairly well.

Then of course there is always:

"At frame 225 his hand is down, his right hand that was waving is down, and has been brought down as though it were reaching for his lapel or his throat. The other hand, his left hand is on his lapel but rather high, as though it were coming up, and he is beginning to go into a hunched position."

"You see the President reaching for his coat lapels and going into a hunched position"

WC testimony of FBI Agent Lyndal Shaneyfelt

"I immediately, upon hearing the supposed firecracker, looked at the Boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder"

Handwritten notes of SS Agent Glen Bennett which were written onboard the return flight from Dallas to DC.

At the time that Agent Bennett wrote this (these are handwritten notes), no one was even aware that JFK had a bullet entrance hole in his back. Not to mention the fact that Bennett almost exactly placed the location of the entrance wound.

All of which somewhat tends to discredit the "altered back wound" scenario of David Lifton and others who have not bothered to read and review, or at least present to the readers, all of the statements and facts regarding the issue.

Of course, were I to want you to accept that the back wound was an imaginary/altered wound, neither would I tell you that there was a SS Agent who reported having observed the shot strike JFK in this location.

Neither would I inform you that at least one of those persons at the Parkland ER also observed the back wound.

Those of us who have been on the receiving end of bullets, as well as having observed many others in the same situation, frequently have a somewhat better insight into how one reacts when hit by a bullet.

Long before I found Shaneyfelt's statements, it was obvious what JFK was doing in his reaction to the first shot.

It is quite unfortunate that you, as well as many others have been "imprinted" by the pure garbage as relates to the JFK assassination.

Unfortunately for the true facts, there has been no cessation to this continued flow of misinformation.

Therefore, even the most simple basic facts become consumed and lost in this refuse pile.

Tom

Tom

P.S. Had a bullet entered the front neck of JFK and struck the vertebral column, the force of this bullet would have blown the vertebral column to pieces.

Tom,

Thanks for your response. Here are my comments to the sections from your posting earlier (the sections in bold are repeated below).

Tom Purvis: Ever seen anyone reach for his throat with his fist closed?

No, I haven't. At the same note, I haven't seen anyone being shot in the throat either. Perhaps he was in such pain, that his toes were curled too.

Tom Purvis: WC testimony of FBI Agent Lyndal Shaneyfelt

"I immediately, upon hearing the supposed firecracker, looked at the Boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder"

I fully agree, there was a shot to the back. This has been demonstrated by many witnesses and autopsy photos. Yes, the loation was below the shoulder blade.

My argument here is that neither the back wound nor the throat wound were examined carefully enough, to properly determine where they entered and where they exited. My opinion is that these are two separate ENTRY wounds, which did not go through the body for one reason or another.

Tom Purvis: Those of us who have been on the receiving end of bullets, as well as having observed many others in the same situation, frequently have a somewhat better insight into how one reacts when hit by a bullet.

Sure, I fully agree.

Tom Purvis: P.S. Had a bullet entered the front neck of JFK and struck the vertebral column, the force of this bullet would have blown the vertebral column to pieces.

Unless, the speed of the bullet had considerably decreased during it's flight path. After all, the assassin had probably aimed at JFK's head, but hit his throat, some 8-10 inches lower. Perhaps because the bullet slowed down?

I can't say I know what weapon was used for this particular shot, I doubt a Carcano.

TOm Purvis: It is quite unfortunate that you, as well as many others have been "imprinted" by the pure garbage as relates to the JFK assassination.

Unfortunately for the true facts, there has been no cessation to this continued flow of misinformation.

Therefore, even the most simple basic facts become consumed and lost in this refuse pile.

What may appear self-evident or as "fact" to one person, may not appear so to the other. Wouldn't the world be boring if we all thought alike and never disagreed on anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

h.  Firing a wcc 6.5mm Carcano bullet through a small live oak tree limb cause the bullet to lose it's spin, thereby losing it's stability in flight and therefore it begins to tumble in flight.

i. This "tumbling" in flight gives the bullet an end-over-end inertia that even though the bullet may strike an object in an almost perfectly base first attitude, the inertia will continue to drive the base of the bullet downward at an increased angle of entry.  Which, could easily create a 45-degree to 60-degree downward penetration as reported by the autopsy surgeons.

Hi Tom

I find your analyses interesting and very comprehensible; also the way you pose them. I do have a question concerning the “tumbling” of bullets.

When I was in the army, practicing on the shooting range, the targets were mainly made of wood like body silhouettes, we often found bullet entries that did not show the usual round hole, what you would expect, but holes that looked as if the bullets had hit sideways. These bullets have a lead core as well, so could this"tumbling” also be caused by production failure, that due to missing lead in the core, meaning not properly filled or something, the balance of the bullet could have been affected?

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PPS. The photos presented were made with full speed carcano bullets and photographed just as the wound was created. There is no evidence of any burning of flesh in either, and neither are there any such indications in the two areas of the coat and shirts through which these bullets were fired.

Tom,

any chance you can re-post these photos please?

I didn't get a chance to see them.

What I keep hearing from descriptions of this wound is that it had an abrasion collar or "halo".

There is none seen in the blow-up that Robin posted earier. Do you see one?

In the same photo that clearly shows a ragged wound there are small "slithers" of flesh or skin all around the border.

Isn't this completely unheard of on a wound made by a bullet?

Surely the heat of the bullet would burn them doen to nothing no?

Alan

PS.

I don't believe Bennett saw a bullet hit JFK in the back & if I am persuaded that this wound really was on the body at Parkland, I certainly wouldn't use his handwritten notes allegedly written on the night of the 22nd to convince others.

It is almost amusing how the only evidence the Chief of the Secret Service could come up with to convince Spector that this wound was genuine is these notes of Bennetts.

Was the look of this wound really that unconvincing?

The evidence that points towards a false wound far outways the notes of a man who worked as in administrator for the very agency who are at the very heart of critics "body altering" accusations.

Humes was so convinced this wound wasn't created by a bullet he had no choice but to ask Perry if he did it.

There were no witnesses to this wound at Parkland.

The nurse I think you're refering to was asked about it for the first time almost 25 years later, hardly what you'd call reliable. It is curious how she says nothing about it when Spector gave her the chance, while her memory was fresh & uncloaded by other sources of imformation about the wounds.

I mean let's face it, she may of seen & heard about this back wound over a hundred times after that day through various media.

Maybe Arlen had his own reasons for not asking the staff who washed the body the direct question "did you see anything on the back?" & it would of had little to do with leading the witnesses IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

h.  Firing a wcc 6.5mm Carcano bullet through a small live oak tree limb cause the bullet to lose it's spin, thereby losing it's stability in flight and therefore it begins to tumble in flight.

i. This "tumbling" in flight gives the bullet an end-over-end inertia that even though the bullet may strike an object in an almost perfectly base first attitude, the inertia will continue to drive the base of the bullet downward at an increased angle of entry.  Which, could easily create a 45-degree to 60-degree downward penetration as reported by the autopsy surgeons.

Hi Tom

I find your analyses interesting and very comprehensible; also the way you pose them. I do have a question concerning the “tumbling” of bullets.

When I was in the army, practicing on the shooting range, the targets were mainly made of wood like body silhouettes, we often found bullet entries that did not show the usual round hole, what you would expect, but holes that looked as if the bullets had hit sideways. These bullets have a lead core as well, so could this"tumbling” also be caused by production failure, that due to missing lead in the core, meaning not properly filled or something, the balance of the bullet could have been affected?

George

1. In regards to the tumbling, at any time a bullet such as the wcc 6.5mm Carcano loses it's rotational spin as a result of striking an object, the bullet loses it's stability in flight and will begin to tumble.

In test firing of bullets through limbs, I had bullets that had completed a full 360-degree tumble in less than 12 feet after having exited the limb.

And, all bullets fired through the limb lost stability and began to tumble.

2. In regards to your experience with military firing, it would require much more information to evaluate the "why" of such elongated strikes.

As many may be aware, the M-16 bullet was reported by those who knew no better that the bullet "tumbled" in flight.

This was not hardly true as no tumbling bullet could have accuracy.

However, the M-16, due to it's increased speed and light weight of the round, actually was virtually on the edge of instability.

Therefore, when striking an object, it immediately lost this stability and could do some strange things.

All of the old/larger rounds such as the M-1 Garand, and even the M-14 had considerably more "tail wag" then the smaller faster rounds such as the M-16.

However, this was quite small and would not account for any tremendous increase in penetration hole size.

The primary answer that comes to mind is that the targets may not have been exactly perpendicular, which will always create an elongated entry, just as did those bullets which struck JFK in the head.

Or, perhaps not like LHO reported did, maybe someone across the range was side shooting targets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...