Why Humes Thought the Back Missile Hit at a Sharp Angle -- a Hypothesis

[James R Gordon]

Sandy,

That Xray was taken before the autopsy began. For me the importance is the collapse of the neck to the right. Whatever caused this, it was not Humes. He had yet to carry out the autopsy procedures.

There is another - close up - which was taken after Finck arrived. I believe it was he who suggested another set of X-rays.

The second set were taken after the organs had been removed.

James.

[Michael Walton]

I'll let these images tell my post here.

https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxZERPRWlhXzBWMTQ

https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxcmwzUDZWZjhmZ0U

https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxSG51OXF1eXZJdUk

Cliff - Expanding on that right-there-in-the-historical-record Scenario I can buy the first shot to the throat as a paralytic, the shot to the back a toxin. The shot to the throat wasn't a kill shot -- the second hit, to the back, had to be a kill shot. IMO.

Really Cliff? Is it possible that you've read one too many spy and cloak and dagger novels? It never fails to amaze me why the research community always seems to suspect poison darts, stun bullets, and the like. There was simply no need to go through such an elaborate and possibly faulty spy weapons when some simple bullets would do the job.

[Cliff Varnell]

I'll let these images tell my post here.

https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxZERPRWlhXzBWMTQ

https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxcmwzUDZWZjhmZ0U

https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxSG51OXF1eXZJdUk

Cliff - Expanding on that right-there-in-the-historical-record Scenario I can buy the first shot to the throat as a paralytic, the shot to the back a toxin. The shot to the throat wasn't a kill shot -- the second hit, to the back, had to be a kill shot. IMO.

Really Cliff? Is it possible that you've read one too many spy and cloak and dagger novels?

No, I actually read the evidence. Give it a try, sometime.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

<quote on>

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

<quote off>

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCAt:

<quote on>

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

<quote off>

It never fails to amaze me why the research community always seems to suspect poison darts, stun bullets, and the like.

It never fails to amaze me how Pet Theorists disregard the historical record.

It was the autopsists who thought JFK may have been hit with a high tech weapon.

It was the FBI men who took the scenario seriously.

Who gives a quad-x what you think?

There was simply no need to go through such an elaborate and possibly faulty spy weapons when some simple bullets would do the job.

Not if the first shot resulted in a non-fatal wounding, or a miss, allowing the target to duck down.

First-shot-kill-shot was not a 100% guarantee.

Edited August 14, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Robert Prudhomme]

I'll let these images tell my post here.

https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxZERPRWlhXzBWMTQ

https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxcmwzUDZWZjhmZ0U

https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxSG51OXF1eXZJdUk

Cliff - Expanding on that right-there-in-the-historical-record Scenario I can buy the first shot to the throat as a paralytic, the shot to the back a toxin. The shot to the throat wasn't a kill shot -- the second hit, to the back, had to be a kill shot. IMO.

Really Cliff? Is it possible that you've read one too many spy and cloak and dagger novels?

No, I actually read the evidence. Give it a try, sometime.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

<quote on>

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

<quote off>

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCAt:

<quote on>

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

<quote off>

It never fails to amaze me why the research community always seems to suspect poison darts, stun bullets, and the like.

It never fails to amaze me how Pet Theorists disregard the historical record.

It was the autopsists who thought JFK may have been hit with a high tech weapon.

It was the FBI men who took the scenario seriously.

Who gives a quad-x what you think?

There was simply no need to go through such an elaborate and possibly faulty spy weapons when some simple bullets would do the job.

Not if the first shot resulted in a non-fatal wounding, or a miss, allowing the target to duck down.

First-shot-kill-shot was not a 100% guarantee.

Hi Cliff

Going over the words you quoted from Sibert and O'Neill, I began to look at them in a new light.

Why would the bullet that struck JFK's back be viewed as everything from a soft point bullet to one that would "fragmentize" completely, if a great deal of corresponding internal damage was not discovered in JFK's thoracic cavity?

And then there was the autopsists' theory that the bullet was deflected in the body after striking bone. Would they be discussing this if they opened JFK's chest, and found his right lung in pristine condition? I have seen many animals shot through the lung(s) and there is NO mistaking whether or not a bullet has passed through the lung(s).

[Michael Walton]

CLIFF - No, I actually read the evidence. Give it a try, sometime.

Yes, Cliff, I'm fully aware of the evidence of the case, having read just about any book, article, or story I've been able to get my hands on in the past 30 years, as well as statements in the WR. But that is another interesting phenomena I've found on this forum. That is, researchers have taken bits and pieces of the written record from witnesses, doctors, nurses, government officials and hold it up as gospel. I'm not saying that every single thing EVER said in the record is not correct. However, people do make mistakes.

Didn't these two FBI agents also say during their viewing of the autopsy that they saw "surgery to the top of the skull" or some such statement? And didn't these few words from two government officials, who had no medico experience to speak of, start an entire cottage industry in the JFK case, perhaps reaching its pinnacle when David Lifton wrote his "body alteration" book (which, when I read it at 18 years old I believed it but since then, I think it's way too outlandish for it to have happened)?

And elsewhere, I can't understand why researchers find a single sentence on page 30, another on page 459, and a third on page 234, stitch them together and say, "See, here's the proof." Just because these agents were in the room mere yards away from the body did not make them experts at what they were observing. A torn piece of skin, for example, with a pretty clean tear, does not mean someone whisked away the body from the plane and cut it open making alterations.

The same goes for the "dissolving" or "plastic" bullet statement. Possible? Yes, anything is possible. Is that how it happened just because two agents said so in the record? No.

As for your toxins theory, no one can predict how a body is going to react when bullets enter into it. For research purposes, I've viewed dozens and dozens of video clips of people being shot in the back of the head, the front, in the chest, back, and so on. It's absolutely nothing like we see in Hollywood movies with arms flailing and bodies flying around. As a matter of fact, I've yet to see anyone take a shot to the chest or back and go into arms flailing and convulsing mode.

President Kennedy seemed to react in a pretty typical manner. His hands went up to his throat from that shot, the back shot hit, and then he was probably more stunned than anything after seeing nothing but smiling, waving, cheering crowds for the past two days. Even Jackie looks "frozen" after the initial shots. Was some kind of toxin sprayed onto her, too, causing her not to push her husband down onto the floor?

Then there's Connally, who also pretty much reacted like I've seen elsewhere - a grunt, a moan, no flailing arms, and then his wife grabs him.

Even Oswald yelled out and just collapsed from Ruby's shot, and as far as I know, Ruby's bullets had no toxins on them.

Which brings me back to this thread topic - the steep angle of the back wound. I'll let the graphic below tell my thoughts on that one:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxc1VxMlE2WEQtRVk

As I mentioned above, I just don't think any the Bad Guys would have done any firing from that building. It was there simply as a way to reveal the so-called - and faulty - evidence against Oswald. There were too many other far better and more hidden locations to position shooters and do the shooting from there to take the risk of firing from the TSBD.

This is just like the MLK case, where they tried to make the bathroom window as the shooting "scene" where they could easily position a shooter in the tall, thick bushes closer to the balcony, and which were cut down the very next day.

[James R Gordon]

Michael Walton said:-

Didn't these two FBI agents also say during their viewing of the autopsy that they saw "surgery to the top of the skull" or some such statement? And didn't these few words from two government officials, who had no medico experience to speak of, start an entire cottage industry in the JFK case, perhaps reaching its pinnacle when David Lifton wrote his "body alteration" book (which, when I read it at 18 years old I believed it but since then, I think it's way too outlandish for it to have happened)?

Just because these agents were in the room mere yards away from the body did not make them experts at what they were observing.

Michael you appear to misunderstand the role of Sibbert and O'Neill. They did not see “surgery to the top of the skull.” What they wrote down was a comment from Humes. He was the one who identified that - in his opinion - there had been surgery of the skull. All Sibbert and O'Neill did was record what was said, what happened and who was present. Nor is this a small issue. Parkland are adamant that there was no surgery while JFK was at Parkland. Whatever deficiencies members may feel about the competence of Humes - some of the criticism I feel to be unfair - it was he who recognised someone had worked on the body before he started the autopsy. What is not clear is what is meant by that statement. We have no idea what that statement means but one thing is clear something happened between Parkland and Bethesda.

As regards David Lifton we will have to agree to disagree. DSL's view that what happened at Parkland and Bethesda - and remember he has extensively interviewed nearly every medical personnel involved. All he said was that - in his opinion - the evidence left him with only one option: something had to have taken place between these two hospitals. Remember this theory was devised back in the 1980's. I suspect when his new book comes out we will be presented with a much more sophisticated explanation. Though I find his work useful, I do not share Doug Horne's description of what happened in Bethesda or his characterisation of Humes.

Finally Sibbert and O'Neill do not need to be “experts” all they needed to do - which is what they did do - was record what they saw and heard. It is for others to interpret what that meant. Sibbert and O'Neill have been interviewed a number of times through the years and one point they are definite happened is that Humes commented that he was sure he was seeing surgery had been done to the head. No one in that room said exactly what it was they were seeing, but Humes was clear that what he was seeing was that someone had tampered with the head.

James.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I don't think any of you quite get it.

Sibert, O'Neill and others at the autopsy discussed a soft point bullet, a plastic or ice dissolving bullet and a bullet that would completely "fragmentize" in a wound.

If Humes opened JFK up and found nothing but pristine untouched chest and abdominal organs, and no bullet hole in the outer pleural lining, how did anyone arrive at any of the above conclusions?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Why Humes Thought the Back Missile Hit at a Sharp Angle -- a Hypothesis

Dr. Humes was reported to have said during the autopsy that the bullet entered JFK's back at a 45 to 60 degree angle. For example, FBI agent Francis O'Neill reported this in his 1978 HSCA affidavit. How could a bullet have entered at such a steep angle?

The first thing to ask is, what made Humes think the bullet entered at that angle. Given that Humes apparently found no missile track other than the wound running through JFK's flesh (skin and shallow muscle), I would think that at some point during the autopsy he probed the wound. Probably not with his finger -- it being too large to fit -- but probably with a metal probe. At which time Humes found the angle of that track to be 45 to 60 degrees... quite a steep angle that cannot easily be explained.

Groundwork

Before presenting my hypothesis, I need to lay a little groundwork. (Please be patient. If you don't want to read the groundwork, jump ahead to the hypothesis.)

Many of you know that I -- having studied Robert Prudhomme's case for a frangible bullet being the explanation for this disappearing bullet -- am quite convinced that a frangible bullet was used on the back shot. Since reading Robert's descriptions of these bullets, I've done some reading about them on my own. Here are a few things I've learned from Robert and elsewhere:

• Due to the fact that frangible bullets break up into numerous particles upon hitting a substance of sufficient hardness and resistance, each particle will contain just a small fraction of the whole bullet's kinetic energy.

• The energy per unit surface area will decrease greatly upon fragmentation. This means the penetration depth will be greatly diminished.

• The finer the powder comprising the bullet, the more diminished the penetration will be, and the broader the spread.

• Frangible bullets can be designed to fragment more or less easily. Even so, there can be great variation from bullet-to-bullet as to what it takes to fragment the bullet.

One thing I set out to find for this presentation was how a bone would react to being hit be an already-fragmented frangible bullet. Unfortunately I couldn't find anything specific to that topic. I did, however find some related materials that I feel confirmed what I already thought about this. It is my contention that a fragmented bullet would be much less likely to shatter a bone than would be a whole bullet of the same mass.

I will give an analogy to demonstrate this.

Suppose we have a pane of glass, and that this represents a bone. A one pound rock represents a whole bullet. A pound of pebbles represents a fragmented frangible bullet. And a pound of sand represents a fragmented ultra-frangible bullet.

First we "shoot the bone" by throwing the rock at the glass with all our might. The glass breaks. Just like a whole bullet would break a bone.

Next we throw the pebbles at the glass. (A new pane of glass.) The glass flexes and gets pitted, but does not break... this time. Maybe it will break next time.

Finally we throw the sand at the window. Very little happens to the glass. The grains of sand merely bounce off. Despite the fact that they carried the same amount of energy as the rock did.

I hope you will now agree with me that a bone will be far less affected by a fragmented frangible bullet than by a whole bullet.

But before leaving this analogy, let's try one more thing. Let's throw the sand at the glass, but this time at a slight angle. What will the sand do? Analyzing this situation can be very daunting, as several factors would need to be taken into account. For example, the fact that early reflected particles could collide with later oncoming ones, depending upon the diameter of the spray. Also, the degree to which each of the many collisions are elastic. ("Elastic" and "inelastic" are technical terms used in physics to classify and describe collisions.) After studying this for some time, I decided that another approach was necessary.

Suppose we dropped a rock on a sidewalk. Would it bounce, or would it stay on the sidwalk upon impact? If the collision were a perfectly elastic one, the rock would bounce up to the same height from which it was dropped. If it were perfectly inelastic, the rock would drop to the ground without bouncing.

I can tell you one thing from experience... a rock won't bounce very high. And it's not just because of gravity. If you've ever played with a Super Ball, you know what a good elastic collision is. And a rock landing on concrete ain't one of them. (Wikipedia describes a Super Ball as "an extremely elastic ball made of Zechron.) But a rock does bounce a little. The reason a rock doesn't bounce high like a Super Ball is because it loses a lot of its kinetic energy when impacting the concrete.

Now, suppose you threw the rock at the concrete at a slight angle. What would it do? It would bounce a little, as before. But this time it would travel in the direction you threw it, till its kinetic energy was depleted. If it were thrown at a smooth surface it would travel quite far. Ever skipped a rock on calm water?

Okay, having gone through that thought experiment, I want to determine what would happen if you threw sand instead of a rock at concrete, again at a small angle. I can't remember every throwing sand at a sidewalk, but I imagine it would behave in a way similar to a single rock. I am confident it wouldn't bounce much at all.... I think even less so than a rock. I'm equally confident that it would move across the surface in the direction thrown, especially if the surface is smooth.

Okay, now it's time to translate this back to bullets and bone. One major difference between the two is that bone is more flexible than concrete, is less rigid, and is surrounded by muscle. The effect of these factors is that the bone would absorb a lot more energy than concrete does. So any collision with bone would be a lot less elastic than with concrete. That is to say, the projectile would bounce much less.

I readily admit that I haven't proven what I'm about to say. But I contend that if a fragmented frangible bullet hits a bone at an angle, the particles will tend to skim along the surface of the bone. The particles won't all be in contact with the bone, but will travel near the surface of the bone, perpendicular to its surface.

Hypothesis

Here is what I envision happened:

The frangible bullet hit Kennedy's back and began to fragment immediately after hitting the surface of the skin. That it fragmented so near the surface may have been by design, or may have been a fluke.

The angle of the shot was, of course, downward... on the order of 20 degrees. The bulk of the particles hit the bottom portion of a rib and skimmed along its surface toward Kennedy's butt. But the bottom portion of the particle spray passed below the rib and punctured the lung.

The particles that were deflected downward, and those that passed below the rib, created a channel that Humes found with a probe. The angle of the channel was estimated by Humes to be 45 to 60 degrees.

You can see this in the following illustrations.

Related Images

Following are photos, x-rays, and CT scans of a pig's hind leg that has been shot with a frangible bullet. Note that this bullet fragmented immediately after striking the skin. The bullet used was a so-call "hyper-frangible." Due to its small particle size and low velocity (~500 fps), penetration was very shallow.

It would have been useful for this presentation had the bullet been aimed at the bone and been of greater velocity.

This is a CT scan of the leg. It is a cross-sectional view. The white circle is the bone.

(Source for images: Forensic and clinical issues in the use of frangible projectilea.)

Hi Sandy

This is a very interesting post you have written, and it opens up all kinds of possibilities. I'd like to respond to it but I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment. Hopefully I can write something tonight.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Sandy,

There is a couple of points I ought to make,

a) the Connally wound was down the outside of his rib. From what I remember the direction of the bullet traveled down the right side of his body in a straight line. The position of Connally - at that moment - as well as the position of the car at Z 230 made that possible.

( b ) Whereas Connally's wound entered just under his arm pit, the Kennedy wound is a few centimetres right of his spine. A missile entering that point from the west window will be moving in a right to left direction. That may have an impact on your calculations.

c) Moving the car up to the position of the Stemmons sign will certainly affect to what degree any shooter could hit that point on Kennedy's back. Down at Z 230 the car is forward of the west window. At Z 220 - or thereabouts - the car is still forward of the East window, but I am not sure what it's location would be with regard to the West window.

Just some thoughts for you.

James.

Thanks James.

Your point ( b ) makes me realize that a shot from the west TSBD window may well have missed the right lung altogether. That is to say, particles from the frangible bullet may have missed. They may have gone into the mediastinum.

I've long doubted that any shots were taken from the "Oswald" window. But that's just a hunch of mine. The shot may have taken place from there. Or from the Dal-Tex building.

Hi Sandy

It is impossible for a shot to the back, at the level we are discussing, to enter to the right of the vertebrae without penetrating the right lung.

This diagram clearly shows the margin of the right lung up against the vertebrae. To reach the mediastinum, from an entrance wound 1.5-2 inches to the right of the spinal midline, a bullet would have to pass through the right lung.

Edited August 14, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Sandy Larsen]

Hi Cliff

Going over the words you quoted from Sibert and O'Neill, I began to look at them in a new light.

Why would the bullet that struck JFK's back be viewed as everything from a soft point bullet to one that would "fragmentize" completely, if a great deal of corresponding internal damage was not discovered in JFK's thoracic cavity?

And then there was the autopsists' theory that the bullet was deflected in the body after striking bone. Would they be discussing this if they opened JFK's chest, and found his right lung in pristine condition? I have seen many animals shot through the lung(s) and there is NO mistaking whether or not a bullet has passed through the lung(s).

What you ask here is one of the reasons I'm seriously considering the hypothesis presented in this thread. I'm convinced that Kennedy experienced pneumothorax, and yet the autopsists behave as though nothing much was wrong with the lung. [NOTE: Oops! I misread your post!]

Another reason is because I'd read reports of radio-opaque particles appearing on the lung x-rays which were officially identified as dust specks. I was thinking that maybe Kennedy's lung was hit by a small number of fragmented particles, thus causing minimal damage, yet enough to result in pneumothorax. Unfortunately I don't see these particles in the x-ray, now that I look for them myself. But then, I'm no radiologist.

I was reading Ebersole's HSCA testimony yesterday regarding the particles that show on the x-ray. The questioner asked about some particular particles that seemed to form a coherent patterns. (Not just random dust.) I looked for those patterns on the x-ray and had no luck finding them. It made me wonder if the extant x-ray we're looking at is the same as what Ebersole was looking at. James said the x-ray we have here is the one taken before removal of the organs. But maybe it has been intentionally mischaracterized as that.

Edited August 14, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

I don't think any of you quite get it.

Sibert, O'Neill and others at the autopsy discussed a soft point bullet, a plastic or ice dissolving bullet and a bullet that would completely "fragmentize" in a wound.

If Humes opened JFK up and found nothing but pristine untouched chest and abdominal organs, and no bullet hole in the outer pleural lining, how did anyone arrive at any of the above conclusions?

Oh, I see. You're saying that they did see a lot of damage, but no bullet. So therefore they had the come up with ways the bullet could have disappeared. I.e. plastic, fragmenting, etc.

In my mind I was thinking that they were looking for a way a bullet could disappear because they had a bullet entry wound, but no bullet.

I'm not sure if what you are saying (assuming I got it right here) is any more valid than what I'm saying. I'll give it some thought.

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy,

There is a couple of points I ought to make,

a) the Connally wound was down the outside of his rib. From what I remember the direction of the bullet traveled down the right side of his body in a straight line. The position of Connally - at that moment - as well as the position of the car at Z 230 made that possible.

( b ) Whereas Connally's wound entered just under his arm pit, the Kennedy wound is a few centimetres right of his spine. A missile entering that point from the west window will be moving in a right to left direction. That may have an impact on your calculations.

c) Moving the car up to the position of the Stemmons sign will certainly affect to what degree any shooter could hit that point on Kennedy's back. Down at Z 230 the car is forward of the west window. At Z 220 - or thereabouts - the car is still forward of the East window, but I am not sure what it's location would be with regard to the West window.

Just some thoughts for you.

James.

Thanks James.

Your point ( b ) makes me realize that a shot from the west TSBD window may well have missed the right lung altogether. That is to say, particles from the frangible bullet may have missed. They may have gone into the mediastinum.

I've long doubted that any shots were taken from the "Oswald" window. But that's just a hunch of mine. The shot may have taken place from there. Or from the Dal-Tex building.

Hi Sandy

It is impossible for a shot to the back, at the level we are discussing, to enter to the right of the vertebrae without penetrating the right lung.

This diagram clearly shows the margin of the right lung up against the vertebrae. To reach the mediastinum, from an entrance wound 1.5-2 inches to the right of the spinal midline, a bullet would have to pass through the right lung.

Thanks Bob,

Yes, you are right. The lousy diagram I looked at showed a much wider mediastinum.

Of course, if the right-to-left angle of the trajectory were sharp enough, the bullet could hit the spinal column by the time it has passed through fat and muscle. (I have no idea how thick the muscle is where the bullet hit.)

[Robert Prudhomme]

I don't think any of you quite get it.

Sibert, O'Neill and others at the autopsy discussed a soft point bullet, a plastic or ice dissolving bullet and a bullet that would completely "fragmentize" in a wound.

If Humes opened JFK up and found nothing but pristine untouched chest and abdominal organs, and no bullet hole in the outer pleural lining, how did anyone arrive at any of the above conclusions?

Oh, I see. You're saying that they did see a lot of damage, but no bullet. So therefore they had the come up with ways the bullet could have disappeared. I.e. plastic, fragmenting, etc.

In my mind I was thinking that they were looking for a way a bullet could disappear because they had a bullet entry wound, but no bullet.

I'm not sure if what you are saying (assuming I got it right here) is any more valid than what I'm saying. I'll give it some thought.

Ok, let's look at it from strictly the perspective of a bullet that would "fragmentize" in a wound, as O'Neill put it. There is no report from Humes about this bullet fragmenting completely in the shallow entrance wound in JFK's back. If it did, it would be a simple matter for Humes to recover the fragments from this entrance wound with a pair of tweezers, as the thickness of the back at this point from outside chest to pleural lining is only about an inch. They would also show up on an x-ray of the back or chest.

According to Humes, though, he did not find any fragments in this entrance wound. If the bullet "fragmentized", just where did it do so? Humes reported the pleural lining of the ribcage to be intact, with no bullet hole (or fragment holes) in it.

Do you see now how Humes painted himself into a corner?

Edited August 14, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Cliff Varnell]

I don't think any of you quite get it.

Sibert, O'Neill and others at the autopsy discussed a soft point bullet, a plastic or ice dissolving bullet and a bullet that would completely "fragmentize" in a wound.

If Humes opened JFK up and found nothing but pristine untouched chest and abdominal organs, and no bullet hole in the outer pleural lining, how did anyone arrive at any of the above conclusions?

Oh, I see. You're saying that they did see a lot of damage, but no bullet. So therefore they had the come up with ways the bullet could have disappeared. I.e. plastic, fragmenting, etc.

In my mind I was thinking that they were looking for a way a bullet could disappear because they had a bullet entry wound, but no bullet.

I'm not sure if what you are saying (assuming I got it right here) is any more valid than what I'm saying. I'll give it some thought.

Ok, let's look at it from strictly the perspective of a bullet that would "fragmentize" in a wound, as O'Neill put it. There is no report from Humes about this bullet fragmenting completely in the shallow entrance wound in JFK's back. If it did, it would be a simple matter for Humes to recover the fragments from this entrance wound with a pair of tweezers,

He wasn't talking about metal fragments which would show up on x-ray.

He was talking about a round which would not show up on x-ray -- "dissolve completely after contact."

They were obviously struggling with the nomenclature.

The FBI report on the autopsy said they were at a loss to explain how there could be a wound of entrance, no exit, and no trace of a bullet.

Those are the root facts of the case -- a wound of entrance in the back, no exit, no bullet or metal fragments found during the autopsy.

A wound of entrance in the throat, no exit, no bullet or metal fragments found in the autopsy.

They asked the FBI men if high tech weaponry existed that would "dissolve after contact.".

The FBI agent Sibert made a legitimate investigative move -- the only one in the entire case! -- and called the FBI Lab.

The answer to the question was yes, such technology existed.

as the thickness of the back at this point from outside chest to pleural lining is only about an inch. They would also show up on an x-ray of the back or chest.

According to Humes, though, he did not find any fragments in this entrance wound. If the bullet "fragmentized", just where did it do so?

A bit over an inch to the right of T3, shallow wound.

Humes reported the pleural lining of the ribcage to be intact, with no bullet hole (or fragment holes) in it.

The dart wouldn't leave fragment holes.

The round that entered the throat left an air pocket overlaying the right C7/T1 transverse processes.

What kind of round leaves an air pocket and no bullet?

Do you see now how Humes painted himself into a corner?

Edited August 15, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

The same goes for the "dissolving" or "plastic" bullet statement. Possible? Yes, anything is possible. Is that how it happened just because two agents said so in the record? No.

That's not what happened.

The doctors "were at a loss" to explain how there could be a wound of entrance, no exit, and no bullet.

They asked the FBI men if there was such a thing as a bullet which would "dissolve after contact" -- not show up in the autopsy, nor on the x-ray.

FBI Special Agent James Sibert called the FBI Lab and got a snow job about the magic bullet.

There is considerable evidence consistent with the conclusion JFK was struck with a high tech weapon, starting with the neck x-ray which shows broken blood vessels, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and an air pocket overlaying the right C7/T1 transverse processes.

What kind of bullet leaves an air pocket, no bullet?

The Zapruder film shows JFK acting in a manner consistent with paralysis at roughly Z230.

Occam's Razor -- what is the simplest explanation for someone acting paralyzed?

They are paralyzed.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Cliff Varnell