Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Much appreciated Micah. The big problem with making sense of the information from the autopsists that the wound in the back could not be probed through-and-through to any exit and was shallow, is what kind of firearm would cause only ca. 2" penetration into JFK's back?--not a very lethal hit.



Sibert and O'Neill would say that, prior to their call to Agent Killion informing them of the bullet's discovery at Parkland, there was some speculation that a high-tech ammunition could have disintegrated after entering the back. When O'Neill was interviewed on 1/10/1978 by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, he reportedly said "...some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A "general feeling" existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. In reference to the back wound, there was discussion that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" bullet (dissolves after contact). There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were caused by the same kind of bullet" (ARRB MD 86 [text]). The report on Sibert's 8/25/1977 HSCA interview reads "Sibert said the doctors were discussing the amount of fragmentation of the bullet and the fact that they couldn't find a large piece. They were wondering if it was a kind of bullet which "fragmentizes" completely. That is why Sibert left the room to call the lab, to find out about that type of bullet", "Sibert remembered that in his call to Killion he had asked about some discussion the doctors were having about a possible deflection of the bullet through the body caused by striking bone. He said he thought this might have accounted for the extensive fragmentization" (ARRB MD 86 [text]). Sibert stated in his 10/24/1978 affidavit to the HSCA "...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. In connection with a possible deflection of the bullet entering the back, some discussion ensued regarding X-Rays of the lower body and the femur areas", "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 Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that would almost completely fragmentize" (ARRB MD 46 [text]). O'Neill's 11/8/1978 affidavit to the HSCA reads "When the autopsy doctor appeared to have no idea of where the bullet entering the back may have gone, the doctors began discussing other possible outlets for the bullet", "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" bullet, one which dissolves after contact. There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were caused by the same kind of bullet" (ARRB MD 47 [text]). When O'Neill was interviewed by researcher Harrison Livingstone on 5/20/1991, he said "...Jim Sibert went out and asked- called up the Laboratory to find out if, you know, if there's such a thing as an ice bullet, or a bullet that could disintegrate". When O'Neill appeared on a 4/2/1992 panel discussion at the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, New Hampshire, he said "...all of a sudden we’re starting to say, “Is it a magic bullet? Is it an ice bullet? Is there some type of a particular bullet which could occur—go in and melt? What happened to it?” Don’t know! Jim Sibert leaves at that time and says, “I’ll go out and make a telephone call to our laboratory and find out what the situation was". When Sibert gave his deposition to the Assassination Records Review Board on 9/11/1997, he said "...So, that’s when I called and thought maybe there was some type of bullet that would disintegrate. There just was no bullet that could be located", "When I talked with Killion that night, "Chuck," I said, “is there any kind of a bullet that would completely fragmentize? Maybe hit a bone and go down in the lower extremity of the body?". O'Neill said during his 9/12/1997 ARRB Deposition "...We thought it might have been an ice bullet. We thought it might have been a wax bullet, a plastic bullet..." ([audio]). Sibert told researcher William Law "...So, I said, "Well, let me go and call over at the lab, see if there is any kind of an ice bullet that might have fragmentized completely" (Law, In the Eye of History, 2004). When O'Neill was interviewed on 4/6/2005 by Brian R. Hollstein from the Society of Former Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (SFSAFBI), he said "One of us decided that Jim would be the one to call the Bureau and he called the Bureau, the laboratory, and he said, “Look, we are here, we have a body and a bullet hole, but there’s no bullet. Could it be an ice bullet like Dick Tracy?". When Sibert talked to the SFSAFBI's Jack O'Flatherty on 6/30/2005, he said "They were thinking more x-rays. I said, “Well, let me go and call over at the Bureau Headquarters and I’ll find out if there’s any kind of a bullet that can fragmentize that they wouldn’t pick up... or the x-rays wouldn’t see.” I think they’d already x-rayed part of the back" ([audio]).


By all accounts, after the pathologists were told of a bullet found on a gurney at Parkland, they expressed the suspicion that a bullet lodged in Kennedy's back and proceeded squeeze out of it's own entry wound and fall onto the gurney which he was laying on.


Autopsy witness Paul O'Connor seemed to recall speculation about an undercharged round piercing Kennedy's back. When interviewed by William Law, O'Connor said "...And another thing, we found out, while the autopsy was proceeding, that he was shot from a high building, which meant the bullet had to be traveling in a downward trajectory and we also realized that this bullet—that hit him in the back—is what we called in the military a "short shot," which means that the powder in the bullet was defective so it didn't have the power to push the projectile—the bullet—clear through the body. If it had been a full shot at the angle he was shot, it would have come out through his heart and through his sternum", "...As I said before, this shows a short shot, which didn't get a clean burn or have enough punch to send the bullet completely into the body" (Law, In the Eye of History, 2004).

Edited by Micah Mileto
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Much appreciated Micah. The big problem with making sense of the information from the autopsists that the wound in the back could not be probed through-and-through to any exit and was shallow, is what kind of firearm would cause only ca. 2" penetration into JFK's back?--not a very lethal hit.

I do not know whether this has been previously suggested as a possible connection to the problem of the JFK back wound, but there was a police report of a find of a snub-nosed .38 Smith & Wesson in a paper sack found lying near a curb about 8 blocks north of Dealey Plaza, early in the morning of Sat Dec. 23, 1963. Who leaves a snub-nosed revolver in a paper bag in a street by mistake? Nobody does by mistake. It is someone ditching a weapon on purpose that has been used. Who is ditching a weapon sometime before the morning of Dec 23? Maybe someone making a getaway. Why is it found Dec 23? Could it be related to the JFK assassination at Dealey Plaza of Dec 22? 

"On 11/23/63, Patrolman J. Raz brought into the Homicide and Robbery Bureau, Dallas PD, a brown paper sack which contained a snub-nosed .38 caliber Smith & Wesson, SN 893265 ... had been found ... near the curb at the corner of Ross and Lamar Streets and was turned in by one Willie Flat ..." (quoting from report to FBI Dallas Field Office SAC, Nov. 25, 1963)

From what I read on firearms sites, a bullet fired from a snub-nosed .38 Smith & Wesson may have a velocity of only ca. 700-800 fps and a criticism of their use in self-defense is poor terminal ballistics, that is poor penetration. The advantage is the revolver is so easy to conceal. Normally anticipated to be used on targets at ca. 0 to 15 feet range in self-defense, they can reach 50 or more yards within several inches accuracy, though the snub-nosed due to its shorter gunsight is said to be harder to aim accurately but can be by those who practice.

On the one hand, there is this unaccounted, to my knowledge never otherwise explained, very odd finding of someone abandoning a snub-nosed .38 after the JFK assassination not too far from Dealey Plaza. And there is the odd back wound of JFK which--if one accepts the shallow penetration of ca. 2" of the autopsists probing--is not easily explained but could it be accounted for as from a snub-nosed .38 at 70 yards?

But why would anyone fire a snub-nosed .38 at JFK's back at 70 yards, which would not be a kill shot? All it would do would be to make noise and call attention to the location of the shooter ... but maybe that was the whole point?

On the hypothesis that Oswald was framed, and was not the shooter nor involved with the shooting, a scenario could be imagined in which a team of two are on the sixth floor. One holds the rifle to be planted and points it out the window so as to be seen, pretending to fire but not firing. The second person, also on the 6th floor firing through an open window but unseen by those outside, fires the snub-nosed .38 at the presidential limousine and JFK at the appropriate moment. This is the "firecracker" sound that so many witnesses heard sounding somewhat different in sound than the following shots, which were intended kill shots. All heads turn toward the sound of the first shot and a man is seen pointing a rifle out the window of the 6th floor as if he is firing. The actual shot came from the .38 aimed by the second man back from the window enough so as not to be seen. The shot hits JFK in the upper back and the bullet does not penetrate very far. JFK raising his elbows and arms is in response to this being hit nonfatally in the back. Back at the TSBD in the aftermath of the shooting, an appropriate number of shell casings are left at the scene, and the rifle linked to LHO is left at the scene also to be found. Following the shooting the two men descend the stairway assumed by those who see them to be Secret Service and exit the building. The snub-nosed .38 which fired the first shot of the JFK assassination also leaves the TSBD, concealed on the person of one of the two. The .38 is carried a little distance away from Dealey Plaza and abandoned, about 8 blocks north of the TSBD. The news reported around the world is that the shots were fired from a rifle from the 6th floor TSBD--witnesses saw a man in that window shooting a rifle out the window--and the rifle is pegged to LHO of the TSBD with his links to the Soviet Union and/or Cuba, who is himself quickly killed.

The bullet from the .38 entered JFK's back and remains there with JFK as JFK is taken into Parkland. Wheeled into the emergency trauma room JFK is lying on his back as the doctors work on him, and through gravity, or perhaps the attempts at heart massage manipulation or both, the bullet works itself out and falls out accidentally. That stretcher of JFK is taken to an adjoining room and from there moved into the hallway near the elevator, where the bullet is noticed and found as the original "stretcher bullet", seen by those who found it as an intact bullet but pointed, unlike C399 which is intact but not pointed. C399 linked to the rifle identified with Oswald is secondarily substituted for the actual stretcher bullet, which came from JFK's back, not from Connally.

The suggestion is of a possible connection of the otherwise-unexplained snub-nosed .38 found abandoned a few blocks from Dealey Plaza the morning after the JFK assassination, with the separate puzzle of what could cause the shallow wound of JFK's back (for those who accept that wound was shallow in agreement with the reports of the findings of the autopsists). The scenario of the framing of Oswald is of course speculative. A key point is whether those who are firearms authorities or knowledgeable would assess a 2" penetration wound into JFK's back at 70 yards is consistent or compatible with or possible from a shot fired from a snub-nosed .38 Smith & Wesson from the 6th floor of the TSBD. 

You be trippin?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

You be trippin?

Not intentionally Ron Bulman. Would you mind being a little more specific on what you see of my speculation, identified as such, that strikes you as implausible or unlikely? Assuming you are open to the possibility that Oswald was framed, there would have to be some specific mechanism in how that was done. I don't mean to derail James DiEugenio's original inquiry which was concerned with the history of prior discussion on the ballistics questions.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

DSL NOTE TO READERS (10/7/20, 9 PM PDT):  In posting this edit, I am seeking to correct an important error.  As originally posted, I wrote that Dr. Perry called Dr. Humes and asked, "Did you make any wounds in the back?"  Pardon my error, but it was the "other way around"; i.e., it was Humes who called Perry, and asked that question, and (IMHO) that constitutes important evidence that the back wound was man-made. The source for this information was one of the two times that Perry testified.  See Best Evidence, Chapters 7 - 8, for further details.  Again, sorry for the error.

Hi Jim;

Re your post, NOW QUOTING: 

 I am doing an article that will include some work disputes between the early critics.

One aspect of that is Ray Marcus' idea about a slow bullet, referring I think to CE 399, and a fast fragment; this I think is referring to the Thompson idea of the throat wound being an exit from a skull fragment. 

But I am just speculating, as I do not really know what this means.  Perhaps David Lifton does? He worked with Marcus back then.   UNQUOTE

I met Ray Marcus around the fall of 1964, shortly after the  (Sept. 1964) release of the Warren Report (and then the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission). 

As I recall, Vincent Salandria was suspicious about the legitimacy of CE 399; further, he and Ray were in communication fairly early on, and Ray set out to "prove" that 399 had to be a plant.  I remember that one of the things Ray did was to actually call Tomlinson (who found the bullet) and have a detailed conversation with him about his reaction to finding such a bullet, in such a practically pristine (and "store-bought") condition.

The idea that the bullet was planted --back in those days--seemed radical, and  so Ray set out to prove that this "must be so" (my quotes). Ray set out to list all the possible trajectories that could possibly exist (to account for such a bullet).  i.e., Ray set out to actually list each one, and then use published testimony to logically explain why, in each case, none of the possible trajectories made any sense. 

The result of this kind of detailed discussion --listing all of the possible trajectories, and rejecting each one of them--led to his (privately published) monograph, titled "The Bastard Bullet.

Ray Marcus' work is entirely his own. I had nothing to do with its authorship.  I was simply a neophyte, and a frequent visitor to his home at the time he was doing his original research on the JFK case, and-- as I recall -- actually engaged in the writing of The Bastard Bullet.  Furthermore, when I met Stanley Sheinbaum (because of a referral by Ray) and was subsequently hired by RAMPARTS --as a temporary writer, at Ramparts--and co-wrote  "The Case for Three Assassins," (published in the Jan 1967 issue) with Ramparts staff writer David Welsh, we utilized Ray's concept; and attacked  the legitimacy of the bullet (and the manner in which the Warren Commission used it as the "instrument of injury" in the case of the Single Bullet Theory), referring to it as  "SUPERBULLET". 

One other point (and this is important, in relating my own development:  once I originated the basic idea of "body alteration' (Oct 1966) and developed the basic idea --by analogy to many situations in physics (which was my major at Cornell) -- that there was a "before" and "after" on the body (with the Dallas observations being the "before"), I then expanded on Ray's original thesis, as follows: I came to realize that the back-wound was man made (which is why Dr. Humes [the Bethesda autopsy doctor] called Dr. Perry, and asked him:  "Did you make any wounds in the back?" [See Ch. 7,- 8, Best Evidence ]). From there (and taking into account other data, e.g., that the Dallas and Bethesda wound observations were markedly different), I then developed the hypothesis that this was all part of a wider scheme of trajectory alteration (and fabrication]). (See Chapter 14 of B.E., titled "Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception"). In other words: via these alterations, JFK's body was made to tell a "false story" of the assassination. Furthermore:  these insights led to the concept that CE 399 (and its "match" to the back wound) was not the only "false fact" in the medical area of the JFK case. Specifically, I am referring to the situation of JFK's head wound(s); with the two major bullet fragments being found in the limo around 10 PM when the limo was parked in the White house Garage.  Then, in October 1966, came (IMHO) a major development: my Oct 1966 discovery that the report of FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, who attended the Bethesda autopsy, stated that at the outset of the autopsy, the two agents noted that it was "apparent" that  there had been --as in "already" had been-- "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."  That discovery became an important part of UCLA Prof. Liebeler's November 8, 1966 memorandum -- transmitted to both Chief Justice Earl Warren and Robert Kennedy -- alerting them to the possibility that (according to the report of the two agents who attended the Bethesda autopsy) JFK's body had been altered; i.e., that it (JFK's body) was a medical forgery at the time of the Bethesda autopsy. Years later-- this became the foundation for my book Best Evidence (1981).

BOTTOM LINE: the ballistic link between Oswald's rifle (CE 139, mail ordered to his Dallas PO Box, in March 1963) is a total fabrication; as are the trajectories (based on an altered body) that-- supposedly -- constitute the so-called definitive  "link" between the sniper's nest found at the SE corner of the Sixth Floor of the TSBD, and the crime that took place in the street below.  Bottom line (again):  the rifle that was ordered to LHO's PO  box (in March 1963)  is simply another facet of the faked  (and contrived) evidence that --taken seriously by the FBI and the Warren Commission-- leads to the incorrect perception of Oswald as "JFK's assassin."  A better way of describing all of this: This scheme (of altering the body to tell a false story) was at the core of a strategic deception designed to mask a transfer of power from Kennedy to Johnson, by making Oswald appear to be responsible for Kennedy's death; and thus, the transfer of the presidency from Kennedy to Johnson appear to have been a quirk of fate.


10/06/2020 -2:15 AM PDT; 



Edited by David Lifton
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...