Jump to content
The Education Forum

10 Conclusions (of Pat Speer)


Recommended Posts

Hi Ron

If a FMJ bullet travelling at 2000 fps (1367 mph) has the ability to pass right through a man's chest and out the other side, and still retain enough velocity to do some serious damage on the other side, what velocity would a so called "bad round" be travelling at to only penetrate the flesh of JFK's back a mere inch or so?

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 338
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Ron

If a FMJ bullet travelling at 2000 fps (1367 mph) has the ability to pass right through a man's chest and out the other side, and still retain enough velocity to do some serious damage on the other side, what velocity would a so called "bad round" be travelling at to only penetrate the flesh of JFK's back a mere inch or so?

I have no idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ron

If a FMJ bullet travelling at 2000 fps (1367 mph) has the ability to pass right through a man's chest and out the other side, and still retain enough velocity to do some serious damage on the other side, what velocity would a so called "bad round" be travelling at to only penetrate the flesh of JFK's back a mere inch or so?

I have no idea.

Well, I can tell you, the bullet would be moving at little more than a crawl.

For comparison, the .38 Special "Colt Cobra" revolver that Jack Ruby used to shoot LHO had a muzzle velocity of between 800 and 900 fps, depending on the weight of the bullets. This bullet entered the left side of LHO's abdomen and almost managed to exit the right side before it came to a halt, passing through several organs and blood vessels on the way through. With this in mind, we know 800 fps would not be the velocity of the bullet that struck JFK's back, as this bullet would likely have been found in the forward part of JFK's chest cavity.

Realistically, I believe a bullet would have to be travelling around 300 fps (204 mph) in order to only penetrate the flesh of JFK's back a mere inch.

While this might be feasible if the rifle muzzle was a few inches from JFK's back, a whole new set of problems arises when we try to get the bullet from the 6th floor to JFK's back as he is behind the Stemmons sign.

1. Bullet drop. If the rifle is sighted in to hit a target at 100 yards (or whatever range you choose) firing bullets with a muzzle velocity of 2200 fps, the shooter will have no idea he has chambered a "bad round" and will aim as if he is shooting a normal cartridge. At such a reduced velocity, the bullet will not have enough energy to reach its target or, for that matter, anywhere close to it. In fact, at such a low velocity, the bullet will have dropped so much, it is more likely to hit the back end of the limo than anything else.

2. Bullet stability. The spiral riflings inside a rifle barrel impart a high speed spin to a bullet that gyroscopically stabilizes the bullet in flight. Without this spin, the bullet will tumble in flight, end over end. Not only will this prevent the bullet from making a neat entrance wound as seen on JFK's back, the tumbling bullet presents an un-aerodynamic surface that will quickly rob the bullet of velocity; making it go even slower and causing it to impact even further back from the limo.

3. Barrel blockage. Will a bullet travelling this slow have enough energy to even make it out of the barrel?

In summation, I believe the "shallow" back wound caused by a "bad round" to be a fabrication, and further evidence of a well contrived conspiracy that involved the autopsy doctors at Bethesda. Unfortunately, JFK researchers were taken in by this ruse, for the sole reason it served the purpose of discrediting the Single Bullet Theory. I believe there is ample evidence the bullet that entered JFK's back also entered the top of his right lung and disintegrated there.

I believe the reason for the fabrication of the shallow back wound story was the need to conceal the type of bullets that were fired at JFK that day. These were such exotic bullets that, if their existence became known, it would immediately disqualify LHO as the shooter, unless he had close ties to the CIA or other agencies with the technical know how to make these bullets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the reason for the fabrication of the shallow back wound story was the need to conceal the type of bullets that were fired at JFK that day. These were such exotic bullets that, if their existence became known, it would immediately disqualify LHO as the shooter, unless he had close ties to the CIA or other agencies with the technical know how to make these bullets.

If it was a fabrication, then Humes certainly fabricated early on, by probing the wound with his finger and claiming it didn't go anywhere. This would make Humes much more of a conspirator than he is generally given credit for, as he would have known virtually from the outset to conceal the use of exotic bullets.

I'm not saying that's not the case. I think the bottom line is that the back wound is something of a mystery, whatever the explanation may be, and that its only real value to researchers is its location and not how it got there or where the bullet went. Its location is evidence of conspiracy.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the reason for the fabrication of the shallow back wound story was the need to conceal the type of bullets that were fired at JFK that day. These were such exotic bullets that, if their existence became known, it would immediately disqualify LHO as the shooter, unless he had close ties to the CIA or other agencies with the technical know how to make these bullets.

If it was a fabrication, then Humes certainly fabricated early on, by probing the wound with his finger and claiming it didn't go anywhere. This would make Humes much more of a conspirator than he is generally given credit for, as he would have known virtually from the outset to conceal the use of exotic bullets.

I'm not saying that's not the case. I think the bottom line is that the back wound is something of a mystery, whatever the explanation may be, and that its only real value to researchers is its location and not how it got there or where the bullet went. Its location is evidence of conspiracy.

Two things to consider.

1. A 6.5mm bullet is just a shade over 1/4" in diameter. My baby finger is almost 3/4" wide at the first knuckle. Unless Humes had fingers like a four year old girl, did he really think he could probe a bullet wound with a finger? Skin has a little eleasticity, but not that much.

2. Jerrol Custer, the x-ray technician at the autopsy, testified to the ARRB that JFK's chest organs (lungs, heart) were removed prior to the taking of x-rays of JFK's chest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2. Jerrol Custer, the x-ray technician at the autopsy, testified to the ARRB that JFK's chest organs (lungs, heart) were removed prior to the taking of x-rays of JFK's chest.

Since I'm neither an x-ray technician nor ballistics expert, I have to ask: Is there any reason to x-ray an empty chest? Did Custer also tell the ARRB that he felt like a fool doing it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine he did feel like a fool x-raying an empty chest cavity, as any evidence of a bullet would have been removed with the lung.

" I think the bottom line is that the back wound is something of a mystery, whatever the explanation may be, and that its only real value to researchers is its location and not how it got there or where the bullet went. Its location is evidence of conspiracy. "

I cannot state strongly enough the incorrectness of this thinking, and that this line of thought is precisely what those feeding us this disinformation wanted to produce in our minds.

Think of it for a second. JFK was shot in the back with a 162 grain full metal jacket bullet, travelling roughly 2000 fps (1363 mph) when it struck him. The only things that stood between this bullet and the space in front of JFK were two fragile ribs (assuming the bullet did not pass between ribs) and the top of a lung. With the weight of this bullet, and its velocity, it had enough energy to pass through Connally, as well, and still injure Kellerman.

This back wound is indeed a mystery, a bullet entering but not exiting. But, when one considers that the exact same bullet that entered JFK's right lung also caused the damage to JFK's head, the mystery begins to clear up a little.

Frangible bullets are made from powdered lead (or other metals) that is compressed or glued together into the shape of a bullet. They will disintegrate into dust if they come into contact with steel or concrete, but will easily penetrate brittle skull bone. If of the proper hollow point design, these bullets will disintegrate in a wound as they pass through soft, wet tissue, such as brain or lung. This disintegration into dust makes frangible bullets the most lethal bullets on the market today.

It was necessary to mask the nature of the back wound in order to maintain the myth that JFK was shot in the head with a FMJ bullet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, Cliff. You keep saying that T-1 is just below the bottom of the neck. Evidently, you fell for McAdams' and Zimmerman's nonsense, in which they insisted the wound entered at C7/T1, instead of T-1, and said this was well above the throat wound. They even claimed that the entrance proposed by Robert Artwohl was at T-1. They weren't telling the truth. I exposed this as a hoax years ago.

thenutterprof2.jpg

zimvzim.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am confused and perhaps uneducated about the back wound. As I recall, Humes probed the wound with his finger and it was a shallow wound that didn't go anywhere. I've always assumed that they later concluded that it was in fact a through-wound (despite Humes' lying finger) because it HAD to be in order to account for the throat wound.

Spot on, Ron.

Finck probed the back wound with a metal rod and declared no lane of transit (according to the WC testimony of Roy Kellerman.)

If it was indeed a shallow wound about a finger's length deep, I don't understand the speculation about some high tech weaponry.

The speculation was by the doctors with the body in front of them.

It's part of the historical record, not some idle speculation by Pet Theorists.

The Zap shows JFK appearing to seize up paralyzed in a couple of seconds-- consistent with a strike by a blood soluble paralytic.

It would likely have been a regular bullet that was a bad round.

Okay, let's game this out.

First shot was a bad round that missed the head -- hit him in the throat instead.

Second shot was another defective round that missed his head -- struck him in the back instead.

So in the first two shots of this military-style ambush we have two short loads and two misses in the first two shots!

Keystone Kop Konspirators!

And the question of what happened to the bullet should thus be easily answered. At some point the bullet simply fell out of the shallow wound.

That isn't how bullets behave, according to my understanding.

And I recall a naval officer at the autopsy telling LIfton that in fact a bullet fell out of the body and rolled on the autopsy table.

Got any corroboration?

To sum up, according to the First-Shot/Kill-Shot scenario we have two defective rounds, two misses, and two bullets self-deporting themselves out of JFK's body...

Okay...how does any of this lessen the possibility JFK was hit with high tech weaponry??

Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine he did feel like a fool x-raying an empty chest cavity, as any evidence of a bullet would have been removed with the lung.

" I think the bottom line is that the back wound is something of a mystery, whatever the explanation may be, and that its only real value to researchers is its location and not how it got there or where the bullet went. Its location is evidence of conspiracy. "

I cannot state strongly enough the incorrectness of this thinking, and that this line of thought is precisely what those feeding us this disinformation wanted to produce in our minds.

Think of it for a second. JFK was shot in the back with a 162 grain full metal jacket bullet, travelling roughly 2000 fps (1363 mph) when it struck him. The only things that stood between this bullet and the space in front of JFK were two fragile ribs (assuming the bullet did not pass between ribs) and the top of a lung. With the weight of this bullet, and its velocity, it had enough energy to pass through Connally, as well, and still injure Kellerman.

This back wound is indeed a mystery, a bullet entering but not exiting. But, when one considers that the exact same bullet that entered JFK's right lung also caused the damage to JFK's head, the mystery begins to clear up a little.

Frangible bullets are made from powdered lead (or other metals) that is compressed or glued together into the shape of a bullet. They will disintegrate into dust if they come into contact with steel or concrete, but will easily penetrate brittle skull bone. If of the proper hollow point design, these bullets will disintegrate in a wound as they pass through soft, wet tissue, such as brain or lung. This disintegration into dust makes frangible bullets the most lethal bullets on the market today.

It was necessary to mask the nature of the back wound in order to maintain the myth that JFK was shot in the head with a FMJ bullet.

Geez, Robert. The bullet or fragment creating the back wound did not enter the body. This was not a story made up after the autopsy. This was confirmed by the FBI agents watching the autopsy, and by autopsy assistant James Curtis Jenkins, in numerous interviews. The doctors' failure to find an entrance into the body, moreover, was considered so problematic for the single-assassin conclusion that Arlen Specter chose to lie about it, and made up a story (that the bullet slid between some imaginary strap muscles on the back of the neck) that he told in the Warren Report and continued to tell until his death. So, yes, a story was created to hide what happened. But you're looking in the wrong direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, Cliff. You keep saying that T-1 is just below the bottom of the neck.

The quarter-inch difference between C7/T1 and T1 is insignificant.

Your T1 isn't 4 inches below the bottom of your collars, Pat, it just isn't.

Evidently, you fell for McAdams' and Zimmerman's nonsense, in which they insisted the wound entered at C7/T1, instead of T-1, and said this was well above the throat wound. They even claimed that the entrance proposed by Robert Artwohl was at T-1. They weren't telling the truth.

You're not telling the truth about the back wound, Pat.

You claim the top of the collars align with the mastoid?

So tell us how JFK's jacket dropped into an elevated position.

Absurd!

I exposed this as a hoax years ago.

thenutterprof2.jpg

zimvzim.jpg

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the reason for the fabrication of the shallow back wound story was the need to conceal the type of bullets that were fired at JFK that day. These were such exotic bullets that, if their existence became known, it would immediately disqualify LHO as the shooter, unless he had close ties to the CIA or other agencies with the technical know how to make these bullets.

If it was a fabrication, then Humes certainly fabricated early on, by probing the wound with his finger and claiming it didn't go anywhere. This would make Humes much more of a conspirator than he is generally given credit for, as he would have known virtually from the outset to conceal the use of exotic bullets.

I'm not saying that's not the case. I think the bottom line is that the back wound is something of a mystery, whatever the explanation may be, and that its only real value to researchers is its location and not how it got there or where the bullet went. Its location is evidence of conspiracy.

The autopsists took the idea of a high tech weapon strike seriously.

The FBI men took the idea of a high tech weapon strike seriously -- they called the FBI Lab to investigate.

We can see JFK in the Zap react in a manner inconsistent with a First-Strike/Kill-Strike hit, but totally consistent with a paralytic strike.

So we're gonna summarily dismiss the high tech weapon scenario in favor of a scenario loaded with defective rounds and incompetent shooters?

I don't get it. (Actually, I do. I don't think many people born before 1970 are capable of taking this high tech weapon scenario seriously.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that all of Pat's photos are lateral views.

I suggest the following experiment:

Get a hand held mirror; stand in front of a wall mirror with your shoulders perpendicular so that you have a reflection of a lateral view.

Glance over and notice that the top of your shirt collar appears to be a little under the level of your ear lobes.

Now turn your back to the wall mirror and hold up the hand mirror so that it reflects a posterior view of the back of your head.

The top of your shirt collar will appear to have dropped a couple of inches!

That's because the lateral view Pat must use is an optical illusion.

I called John Hunt out for this garbage back in '99...Zombie Pet Theories...

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites

We are talking about wounds that received no legitimate autopsy. The procedure at Bethesda was a disgraceful charade, or does anyone disagree? So what do we know about JFK's wounds? Only what we know from eyewitnesses at Parkland and Bethesda who had no reason to lie or fabricate. There was a back wound with no way to know where the bullet went, absent a real and credible autopsy. There was a throat wound that the doctors who attended JFK took to be an entry wound. Again, no way to tell where the bullet went. There was a gaping wound in the back of JFK's head, characteristic of an exit wound, i.e. a shot from the front. There were other head wounds seen at Bethesda that were not seen at Parkland, which suggests exactly what Humes uttered as heard by the FBI agents, surgery to the head area, which can only mean alteration of the body prior to the so-called autopsy. That is basically what we know IMO, which means a conspiracy. What the government shows us with its photos and x-rays and its final "autopsy" report (after the first one I believe was burned) is worthless, one photo being an obvious fake and thus none of them being trustworthy. We can argue forever, to the delight and amusement of the conspirators, about the exact nature of the wounds and type of weapons used. We know enough to know there was a conspiracy, but little else with respect to medical evidence due to the theft of the body from Dallas, after which any hope of knowing more died.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not done a lot of reading on the back wound. I don't think it will ultimately get anyone very much closer to something we don't already know.

but - are ya'll saying that the jacket hole was misaligned from the wound by only 1/8"?

--

Again: bullet hole in the shirt is 4 inches even below the bottom of the collar.

The hole in the jacket is 4 & 1/8 inches below the bottom of the collar.

The jacket rode up an eighth of an inch.

The shirt didn't ride up at all.

Anyone can verifiy this: glance down on your right shoulder-line, casually wave your right arm, observe the fabric of your shirt INDENT.

This slight, insignificant displacement of jacket fabric must show up in the Dealey photos, and indeed it does.

Let's say that's true. What difference does it make?

Good question.

The low location of the bullet holes in the clothes establishes the following:

JFK was shot in the back at T3.

doesn't the hole in his back establish that? I've seen a photo with a hole at T3, seems as if that supersedes the evidence of the shirt.

You've seen this photo where?

In what universe does a photograph "supersede" hard, physical evidence?

This location is too low to have been associated with the damage seen in the neck x-ray at C7/T1.

I haven't seen a photo with a shot into his back at T1.

The BOH Fox 5 photo shows a wound at T1.

This establishes the wound in the throat as an entrance.

Though I'm sure the throat wound was an entrance wound, the shirt or jacket do not establish that.

Yes, they do, in spite of any contentless naysaying otherwise.

Since the wound in the back was too low to have been associated with the throat wound, the wound in the throat had no exit.

It was, ergo, a wound of entrance.

Since there was no rounds recovered from either the back or throat wounds during he autopsy, the central question is raised:

All that establishes is that there were no rounds recovered.

What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?

Good question

So your comment about the uselessness of the clothing evidence is inoperative.

Does it prove who pulled the trigger on the rifle that fired the shot?

It may very well do exactly that.

Strong maybe, in my book.

In answer to the question what happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds, the autopsists the night of the autopsy -- with Kennedy's body in front of them -- asked the FBI men if there were rounds designed not to show up in an autopsy.

The theory that he may have been shot with a round designed not to show up in an autopsy does not prove that actually happened. It's only speculation.

It was speculation by the doctors with the body in front of them.

It is speculation straight out of the historical record, instead of straight out of a Pet Theorist hind end...Hi Pat.

FBI SA James Sibert called the FBI Lab to inquire as to the existence of such high tech weaponry.

An honest answer was not forthcoming from the FBI Lab that night.

The answer was: Yes

If the question; does the US possess an Atomic Bomb had been asked, the answer would have been 'yes' but it would not be proof that one was used on JFK.

What aspects of JFK's murder are consistent with a nuke strike?

Please explain...

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf

I can't think of anything it tells us except that there was a shooter behind the limo. That's all I can deduce from it.

Cliff your argument is basically a "no it's not, Yes it is" argument. I said a hole in the shirt doesn't prove he was shot, you say it does. Okay, have you ever had a shirt with a hole in it and where were you shot? I've had several shirts with holes in them in my lifetime and don't recall ever having been shot.

For example:

"""The answer was: Yes

If the question; does the US possess an Atomic Bomb had been asked, the answer would have been 'yes' but it would not be proof that one was used on JFK.

What aspects of JFK's murder are consistent with a nuke strike?"""

What aspects of of JFK's murder is consistent with a 'secret weapon'. I'd bet he was shot in the throat with a small caliber weapon and the bullet was not found because no one looked for it.

I guess we could conclude, based on that, that all of the shooters were all equipped with various 'magic bullets' so we could have a lot of 'magic bullet theories'.

Link to post
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...