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.
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?
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.
Dr. Boswell has fully stated that the back wound was "atypical"! Meaning NOT TYPICAL.
At lease they were aware that it did not favor a normal wound of entry.
Bennett wrote his notes on the flight back from Dallas.
Those who wish to criticize this have jumped on the bandwagon that he COULD NOT have observed a 2,000 to 2,200 fps bullet pass through the air and strike JFK.
To this , most would have to agree.
However, a tumbling bullet which covers more visible space, and which is possibly only moving at 500 fps, is another story.
Personally, I would not attempt to discredit the man as he wrote that he saw it strike.
The question being, If the bullet was travelling at 2000 fps, then he obviously did not.
If the bullet was tumbling end over end at approximately 500 fps, then he certainly could have seen/observed it.
The answers to all of these contradictory statements are as simple as a bullet striking in a base first attitude at a reduced velocity, and rotating end over end as a result of loss of stability from penetration of a tree limb.
Just because David Lifton can not explain or reconcile the physical evidence, is not evidence of body kidnapping and wound alteration.
The phyisical evidence answers the questions.
As regards the photo's from my ballistic testing, they have been placed away with other of the stuff that I have, and were not posted.
Don't really know exactly where they are right now. Some box, some where.
In the event I can locate them then I will post them.
Nevertheless, the enty hole in the back of JFK does not come close to matching a normal wound of entry.
Which, as stated, should be elongated vertically if at all.
The correlation of the exact dimension of the wound, with it's "wadcutter" immage, along with the facts of the fabric from the coat and shirt carried into the wound, along with the large amounts of fabric removed from the coat and shirt, are all fully indicative that CE 399, and only CE399 struck JFK in a base first attitude.
If you, or for that matter any others, prefer to chase non-existent body kidnappers and wound creaters, it is likely that 40-years from now, this subject will be exactly where it lies today.