Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Robert Prudhomme

Appendix IX of the WCR: The Autopsy Report

Recommended Posts

I don't necessarily pick one theory and kick all the others to the curb. The throat wound could just as easily have been caused by a frontal shot as from one striking the EOP. Without access to any real evidence, we are all just making educated guesses.

Agreed. I make it a point to regularly remind myself that all evidence and testimony in this case is suspect or missing.

However, for a bullet or fragment to strike the cervical vertebrae and then go into the right lung requires it to make an almost 90° turn downward. With all the indications that the back wound was at the level of thoracic vertebra T3, I believe the back wound was the more likely source of the pneumothorax, as this diagram demonstrates:

Note that a bullet entering at the level of T3, between the spine and the right scapula, would go directly into the apex of the right lung.

To summarize my previous post, I've reached the conclusion that the stronger the case for a tension pneumothorax of the right lung, the stronger the case for an actual back wound. I do believe the lung/pleura was damaged and an entry wound in the upper back that does not exit the chest could not be inflicted by a Carcano FMJ bullet. Thus, any lung damage would reveal that the back wound was caused by a frangible bullet.

Sure would like to see a good chest x-ray...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert Prudhomme:- Post 12

Are we looking at damage from a bullet at C6/C7, or are we looking at bone deterioration from osteoporosis?

I am not able to argue with your description of JFK’s medical condition, however the state of JFK’s necks described by the Xray makes clear this was something that happened either during or post assassination. With his lower neck in this condition there is now way JFK could have revealed to Dallas - let alone make a procession through the city without this condition not being visible for all to see.

Robert Prudhomme:- Post 15

Note that a bullet entering at the level of T3, between the spine and the right scapula, would go directly into the apex of the right lung.

There is no evidence the bullet entered the lung in any way. What Humes describes in the quote I referenced:

Commander HUMES. “The bruise here, photographs are far superior to my humble verbal description, but if I let my hand in cup shaped fashion represent the apical parietal pleura, it was an area approximately 5 cm. in greatest diameter of purplish blue discoloration of the parietal pleura. Corresponding exactly with it, with the lung sitting below it, was a roughly pyramid-shaped bruise with its base toward the surface of the upper portion of the lung, and the apex down into the lung tissue, and the whole thing measured about 5 cm., which is a little - 2 inches in extent, sir.” H2 369

I believe Humes is referring to damage to the flesh of the Lung. I do not believe he is referring to damage to the lung as a consequence of a bullet entering the lung. My best guess - at this point - is that a bullet lay on top of the lung - as opposed to entering it. For me, such a situation could well cause the damage Humes refers to,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Humes is referring to damage to the flesh of the Lung. I do not believe he is referring to damage to the lung as a consequence of a bullet entering the lung. My best guess - at this point - is that a bullet lay on top of the lung - as opposed to entering it. For me, such a situation could well cause the damage Humes refers to,

James,

Do you think a bullet entering through the throat or through the back could end up on top of the lung with its velocity spent? IMO, an FMJ would have punched right through the body from either entrance.

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Tom,

There is real logic to what you say.

That said I believe that some kind of missile entered through JFK's throat. It passed through the Trachea and slammed into the spine at the area of C6 C7. It was this missile that caused the damage we see in the X-rays. My thinking is that as a consequence of this strike the missile was diverted downwards and landed on the apex of the lung. And it was the heat of this missile that caused the damage to the Apex of the lung.

I detailed my thinking in a document. Below is a link to the relevant pages:-

https://www.transferbigfiles.com/25939347-cde9-49c0-8058-c39f8fd63524/2FweA5gO1nenuc2BVPKUUw2

Further Thoughts:-

I know the WC and all its apologists will argue that the shot entered from the back and exited through the neck. It is anatomically impossible without causing immense damage to the spine. I have seen Robert often talk on this issue. Basically there is no direct route from entrance to exit without passing through the spine. Such a path would cut the spinal cord and smash the spine. As I have commented before the missile did not have satilite navigation. And that is before you consider the point of height. The entrance is much lower than the exit. And this problem is further aggravated by a bullet entering the body on a downward trajectory.

As regards an entrance shot to the throat the moment of impact would need to be a moment when JFK is facing forwards - and that limits when the shot could have occurred. I reckoned somewhere around Z 2004. DVP often asks "well if there was a shot from the front. where is the bullet?" It is both a good as well as important question. There are only two answers.

a) It was discovered during the autopsy but never registered.

B) It was at a point before the autopsy by persons unknown.

I tend to believe "b", but I have never totally discounted "a".

James.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James,

Good catch regarding the "bruise" extending down into the lung tissue. When I read that paragraph I took it as stating the apex of the (upside-down) "pyramid" extended down the surface of the lung, not into the lung itself.

But I'm having a hard time accepting that a high-speed bullet could hit a vertebrae without destroying it. Maybe a frangible bullet could have disintegrated upon hitting the vertebrae, and its particles deflected down into the apex of the lung as well as up to C3/C4 (as per Jerrol Custer).

Now would be a good time for Robert Prudhomme to weigh in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy,

Yes, I agree the idea of a high powered bullet not passing through the body is a serious problem. I believe Gary Murr is writing a book on the ammunition that was used during the 50's and early 60's. He was happy to share his work on John Connally with me but he was more secretive about this book. He always felt this book was better that the Connally book. I have most of the Connally book and I know how remarkable it is so I know the depth and detail of his work.

So where is this going. From hints - and that is all Gary has ever said to me - I think we are in for a surprise about the condition and age of the ammunition that was used and the condition of that ammunition.

I was really impressed with the Haag's work on Case Cold. The power of that the Carcano gun was astonishing. A single bullet went through 46 slats of pine. I know Gary was in conversation with them. And I believe that the Haag's used modern ammunition not the ammunition available in 1963. I believe there was only one or two manufacturers of Carcano and I got the impression the ammunition was not 60's but much earlier.

Next to David Lifton's book "Forgotten" is the book I am most eager to be published.

What I am getting at is that modern understanding and expectations what this ammunition ought to accomplish may well be wrong. Gary has spent years looking at an issue we researchers have ignored. What was 1963's ammunition like? Who made it? What age was it? What condition was it in - and so on? I am not aware any other researcher has looked into this. And I feel we are in fora real awakening what this book is finally published.

So although we would expect a high powered bullet to pass through the body, we may be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James,

Thanks for your comments.

I'm not sure why we're talking old bullets here, but I always keep an open mind and will consider any new information that is presented. (It seems highly unlikely that a professional assassin would use anything but the best available ammo. And it seems highly unlikely that the assassins weren't professionals.)

Do you have any idea when Murr's book will be completed? Is that the one that you refer to as "Forgotten?"

I'm also anxious to see Lifton's book come out. But I've seen posts as old as (I believe) 2005 commenting on the coming release of the book. So I'm not holding my breath. (I'm behind on book reading anyway, so I'm in no big rush.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy,

I agree with the logic of your position, however we have two wounds that are difficult to explain. The book I was talking about is "Forgotten". If the Oswald rifle was indeed used that day I am not sure there was up-to-date ammunition available. Something clear went wrong Assuming the back and throat shots were deliberate shots something strange happened. And maybe that "something" was that the ammunition was not sound.

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy,

I agree with the logic of your position, however we have two wounds that are difficult to explain. The book I was talking about is "Forgotten". If the Oswald rifle was indeed used that day I am not sure there was up-to-date ammunition available. Something clear went wrong Assuming the back and throat shots were deliberate shots something strange happened. And maybe that "something" was that the ammunition was not sound.

James

Ah, I see. You leave open the possibility that the assassins weren't (all) necessarily professionals. Or perhaps that the Carcano was fired, if only to create evidence that it had been.

BTW it seems that there was no evidence the Carcano was fired that day. If there was such evidence, I've not seen any mention of it.

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the conversations I have had with Gary Murr, he was quite adamant that the 6.5mm Carcano ammunition, found in Oswald's rifle, was manufactured in 1954 by the Western Cartridge Company of the USA, despite my protestations that this ammo was made by the WCC prior to 1944.

Either way, this makes the WCC 6.5mm ammo either nine or nineteen years old in 1963; hardly what could be called "aged" ammunition, if the ammo was well manufactured and the cartridges were well sealed.

Regardless, though, of claims of cartridge deterioration, it must be understood the degree to which a cartridge, normally capable of propelling a bullet at 2200 fps, would have to deteriorate to propel a bullet at a low enough velocity (<300 fps) in order to make only a shallow flesh wound at a range of 50 yards. This is an astonishingly low velocity for this rifle, and a bullet leaving this rifle at this velocity would likely be so unstable it would be tumbling end over end on its way to JFK's back, and would make an oblong entrance wound in JFK's back instead of a round wound. Tumbling bullets are also more prone to air drag, and if this bullet were tumbling it would be slowed down much quicker.

As I have been pointing out in another thread, a shooter would not be expecting such a defective cartridge, and would be aiming in a normal fashion. If he did so, the bullet would land far short of the target, as this graph below illustrates:

320px-Mplwp_ballistic_trajectories_veloc

Trajectories of a projectile with air drag and varying initial velocities

Edited by Robert Prudhomme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert,

There are two issues that bother me. First is the damage to the Lung. The second is the damage to the spine.

Xray taken before the autopsy:-

X-AUT-9.png

I have added lines to show the clear slope of the neck. Clearly there has been damage to the spine. This image and close up taken around 8:30pm and after the organs have been removed makes clear something has been damaged. the position of the damage is around C7.
X_AUT_8.png
The question is this. Did a bullet enter through the throat hit and damage the spine around C7 and land on the lung thereby creating the damage to the lung? Something caused that damage to the spine. The kind of damage needs explaining. And the only explanation I have is that the spine was damaged by a bullet entering through the throat. I wonder whether this same bullet did not also cause the damage to the lung.

Just out of curiosity, James, is it your opinion there is serious damage at C7, or have you had these x-rays examined by a radiologist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the conversations I have had with Gary Murr, he was quite adamant that the 6.5mm Carcano ammunition, found in Oswald's rifle, was manufactured in 1954 by the Western Cartridge Company of the USA, despite my protestations that this ammo was made by the WCC prior to 1944.

Either way, this makes the WCC 6.5mm ammo either nine or nineteen years old in 1963; hardly what could be called "aged" ammunition, if the ammo was well manufactured and the cartridges were well sealed.

Regardless, though, of claims of cartridge deterioration, it must be understood the degree to which a cartridge, normally capable of propelling a bullet at 2200 fps, would have to deteriorate to propel a bullet at a low enough velocity (<300 fps) in order to make only a shallow flesh wound at a range of 50 yards. This is an astonishingly low velocity for this rifle, and a bullet leaving this rifle at this velocity would likely be so unstable it would be tumbling end over end on its way to JFK's back, and would make an oblong entrance wound in JFK's back instead of a round wound. Tumbling bullets are also more prone to air drag, and if this bullet were tumbling it would be slowed down much quicker.

As I have been pointing out in another thread, a shooter would not be expecting such a defective cartridge, and would be aiming in a normal fashion. If he did so, the bullet would land far short of the target, as this graph below illustrates:

320px-Mplwp_ballistic_trajectories_veloc

Trajectories of a projectile with air drag and varying initial velocities

Robert,

I am very busy at the moment but I will get round to your question as soon as I can. I am planning soon to return to this thread that - since I posted it - I have done little with.

I am aware that Gary Murr has argued that the 6.5mm Carcano ammunition was very old and suspect. Gary does not make a statement unless he knows that point to be also a point of fact. His knowledge of the ammunition used in the assassination - and here I do not intend to be rude - is light years away from everyone else. The book from which this information comes from from is the product of 15 - 20 years of study.

From what I understand, there is no-one who has either undertaken a study of this nature OR who has accumulated the factual history on the ammunition used in the early 1960's that he has.

James.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2016 at 1:13 AM, Robert Prudhomme said:

After receiving assistance from "two Daves", I have found a way to get around my inability to c/p material from JFK's autopsy report, found in Appendix IX of the Warren Commission Report. I was stymied by this appendix being placed in a pdf file

Robert, pdfs are a snap to convert to other formats - .docx, .doc (Word) - as long as you can download the pdf. FWIW, just lettin' you know.

If you have other such issues, holler at me, or at anyone with Adobe Acrobat Pro.

Share this post


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

×