The Back Wound

[Charles Black]

Alan

Do we know whether this was photo'd prior to or after being subjected to probes by both finger and metal probe?

If this were a defective (very low velocity) round, would burning be expected?

Also, the higher the velocity of a FMJ bullet, the closer to a puncture would a wound appear.

A low velocity bullet would punch its way thru as opposed to a high velocity round which would perform more like a drill. The low velocity would produce the less "neat" and more jagged hole.

Charlie Black

[Richard J. Smith]

Tom

I feel that you attempt, at times quite effctively, to distort both testimony and "facts".

In reading Bennet's testimony, I never considered the fantasy that he meant to imply that he saw a MachII bullet flying thru the air! I interpreted it in the manner that I feel that he meant it. He witnessed an impact!

He saw something impact the back at appx. 4 inches down from the shoulder. At the time that he wrote this report, how could he have known that a back wound would be found? Do you really feel that he wished to report to his chief that he was so gifted that he had the extraordinary  ability to see medium to high velocity bullets flying thru the air? Perhaps he could also leap high mountains!

Another point that I would like to make in reference to an earlier one of your posts. Yes I have been shot at. Yes I have seen people shot. Yes I think that Kennedy is responding to an anterior throat wound with a closed fist, but this is not the result of my witnessing a throat shot. This is the result of witnessing someone who had suddenly become choked and his reaction  was to bring both closed fists, palms outward, immediately to his throat...... "Exactly" in the manner in which Kennedy responds as depicted in the Z film.

One more thing that I would like to mention. At the close proximity of the theoretical oak limb to the rifle scope, a one inch diameter branch, which is quite large, would be so obvious an impediment when appearing in the reticle of his scope, that no shooter in their right mind would have squeezed the trigger at that exact instant. A sniper would know the potential instability of the round which he was firing. If he were a seasoned shooter and knew this, why not take a different shot..... only a millisecond sooner or later.

Tom, I find some of what you say quite credible. I find much of what you say to be absolute pure speculation. I truly feel that you are becoming a legend in your own mind.

I think you are often so far off base that it upsets me when I feel that I must respond. You have established youself thru your bio. to be such a firearms and ballistics expert, that the majority of people on this forum feel, I'm certain, that they do not have the credentials to challenge you and therefore acept your speculation and far out theory as fact. This only is why I have once again responded.

I am sure that you wont be heartbroken, but I intend for this to be my last response to anything that you post regarding those particular few seconds in Dallas.

Charlie Black

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Charlie,

I agree with your assessment. Mr Purvis refers to "logic" in his rambling, multi-post dissertation, but it contains none IMO. I also feel most of the respondants in this thread are being too polite, and perhaps they should say what they REALLY think as you did. Absolute pure speculation. JFK grabbing his lapels? Geez! Since this thread was so difficult to read(I also agree with Ron's post), I may have thought I read something that referred to JFK having a fractured vertebra, which caused the bullet to fragment. Where did this come from? And please, no more about the back wound being created by sinister forces(sorry Alan, there WAS a back wound).

So a shot from the TSBD struck a tree limb, but continued on it's original path, and struck JFK backwards(bullet base first), struck a vertebra, fractured, and a fragment came out the throat. And others find this well researched. Now I remember why I pretty much stay at the other forum.

RJS

[Alan Healy]

Charles, thank you.

That blow-up comes from the rear view of the body photo, the one where we see the ruler being held against the back(at least that is what I have assumed up to now) & I would guess that it was taken after some surgery had been done, based on the amount of blood seen on the gloves. I could be wrong however & quite honestly, I have no idea at which stage of the autopsy it was taken, or whether this wound had been probed yet.

It's a great question though but I have serious doubts whether the features of this or any wound could be changed this much from exploratory probing.

It could change the size a little, I guess.

The heat of a low velocity bullet & the efects on it's entry point is also something I can only guess at & your guess Charlie, would probably mean more than mine would.

I agree with you that, in theory, a low speed bullet should make a rougher looking wound but, I'd like to know for sure if it could be this rough & could it leave these slithers/spinters around it's edge.

I would guess that, these slithers could lead an expert to know exactly how this wound was made or if not then at least what didn't make it but where do I find one?

Anyone here know a public access medical forum where I could get an answer?

Also, Richard,

it is good to see you post here & I hope you can keep a sense of humour about my picking up on Liftons false wound theory since I know your convinced of it's legtimacy & with good reason.

I don't want to drag you into it if your unwilling but you surely must realise that the wound that Humes & Boswell saw & that which I am referring to in that photo, is very unusual in the looks department.

Like I said before, if I can get a solid explanation for it's appearance, then I could move on.

Regards

Alan

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Charles, thank you.

That blow-up comes from the rear view of the body photo, the one where we see the ruler being held against the back(at least that is what I have assumed up to now) & I would guess that it was taken after some surgery had been done, based on the amount of blood seen on the gloves. I could be wrong however & quite honestly, I have no idea at which stage of the autopsy it was taken, or whether this wound had been probed yet.

It's a great question though but I have serious doubts whether the features of this or any wound could be changed this much from exploratory probing.

It could change the size a little, I guess.

The heat of a low velocity bullet & the efects on it's entry point is also something I can only guess at & your guess Charlie, would probably mean more than mine would.

I agree with you that, in theory, a low speed bullet should make a rougher looking wound but, I'd like to know for sure if it could be this rough & could it leave these slithers/spinters around it's edge.

I would guess that, these slithers could lead an expert to know exactly how this wound was made or if not then at least what didn't make it but where do I find one?

Anyone here know a public access medical forum where I could get an answer?

Also, Richard,

it is good to see you post here & I hope you can keep a sense of humour about my picking up on Liftons false wound theory since I know your convinced of it's legtimacy & with good reason.

I don't want to drag you into it if your unwilling but you surely must realise that the wound that Humes & Boswell saw & that which I am referring to in that photo, is very unusual in the looks department.

Like I said before, if I can get a solid explanation for it's appearance, then I could move on.

Regards

Alan

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The photo was taken AFTER insertion of fingers into the wound of entry.

This is the reason why:

1. In interpretation of this photo, the HSCA decided that the entry wound had different measurements than as reported by the autopsy surgeons.

(they utilized the ruler shown in the photo as their scale)

2. The top portion of the entry appears virtually identical to the curvature and configuration of the fingernail of the little finger.

Look at the end of one's little finger and the shape of the fingernail.

Then reverse and point at the wound.

It takes little imagination to resolve how insertion of the little finger enlarged the entry as well as slightly changing it's configuration.

Then, call Dr. Boswell and discuss the issue with him.

Tom

P.S. The "similar" backwound which was created by a wadcutter bullet, was inflicted with a full velocity bullet which still had it's "spin".

P.P.S. Just another of those "slight" sleight-of-hand episodes of the HSCA to keep this confused, in presenting the photo of the back wound after insertion of the finger, thereby continueing to present conflicting evidence.

[Pat Speer]

The doctors testified the photos were taken before they did any inspection of the wounds. They took x-rays and photos while they awaited Dr. Finck's arrival.

In order for a fragment the size of a few grains to continue on and exit from Kennedy's throat, as has been speculated, its intitial speed would have to have been well over 2,000 fps. Probably more like the impossible 10,000 fps. I'm not an expert, and do not even own a gun, but I can read. Larry Sturdivan's testimony before the HSCA is particularly helpful. No way does such a small fragment possess the mass and speed necessary to traverse Kennedy's neck and exit his throat.

Those of you familiar with my seminar know I believe it was the bullet to the EOP that exited Kennedy's throat. When I studied what the effects would be of a bullet traversing the bottom of the skull I discovered that someone suffering minor cerebellar damage and/or a fracture of the posterior cranial fossa would be likely to have difficulty talking, sitting upright and grasping things with their hands, precisely the behavior kennedy exhibits on the Zapruder film between 224 and 313.

While anyone, especially Tom, is entitled to believe his theory, they shouldn't convince themselves it's the only theory that attempts to resolve the mysteries of the medical and ballistic evidence.

Edited August 22, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Thomas H. Purvis]

The doctors testified the photos were taken before they did any inspection of the wounds.  They took x-rays and photos while they awaited Dr. Finck's arrival.

In order for a fragment the size of a few grains to continue on and exit from Kennedy's throat, as has been speculated, its intitial speed would have to have been well over 2,000 fps. Probably more like the impossible 10,000 fps.  I'm not an expert, and do not even own a gun, but I can read. Larry Sturdivan's testimony before the HSCA is particularly helpful. No way does such a small fragment possess the mass and speed necessary to traverse Kennedy's neck and exit his throat.

Those of you familiar with my seminar know I believe it was the bullet to the EOP that exited Kennedy's throat. When I studied what the effects would be of a bullet traversing the bottom of the skull I discovered that someone suffering minor cerebellar damage and/or a fracture of the posterior cranial fossa would be likely to have difficulty talking, sitting upright and grasping things with their hands, precisely the behavior kennedy exhibits on the Zapruder film between 224 and 313.

While anyone, especially Tom, is entitled to believe his theory, they shouldn't convince themselves it's the only theory that attempts to resolve the mysteries of the medical and ballistic evidence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Theories which are supported by the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical fact, are far beyond "ideas".

I do seem to recall that the back wound was not even found until after Dr. Finck had arrived.

Assuming that my memory on this subject is correct, then this would make it somewhat difficult to take a photograph of something which had yet to be found.

The "closeup" photo's were taken prior to any finger insertion into the wound.

The slight/"sleight of hand" photo which attracts everyone's attention and in which the ruler is held, IS NOT the original photographs of the undisturbed wound of entry and was taken well into the examination of the wounds of JFK, after finger insertion into the wound.

Again, this is why the HSCA panel determined a contradiction in the entry wound size, as reported by the autopsy surgeons.

Little finger insertion, most assuredly makes for larger wound size.

And, again, no big secret to this either!

Perhaps you should take the time to review the drawings which were produced by Dr. Boswell which described/indicated the UPWARD/slanting angle of entry for the EOP wound, then explain exactly how this downward entry which you claim, created the damage to the tip of the occipital lobe on it's UPWARD trajectory.

Obviously, you are of the impression that your scenario has more credence and validity than those three surgeons who physically examined the EOP entry wound, therefore, one must assume that you consider it a waste of time to attempt to discuss these theories with those who were actually present at the autopsy.

Personally, I do not subscribe to the "crystal ball" method of problem resolution.

We were always required, and expected, to research the facts.

And, in this regards, you really should take a look at exactly how was it that the bullet entry into the scalp was located just up from the edge of the hairline and thereafter transversed UPWARDS through the fatty tissue of the neck to strike the skull in the vicinity of the EOP on an UPWARDS/slanting trajectory which damaged to tip of the occipital lobe.

Then, the bullet, according to your scenario, suddenly turned downwards to exit the throat????

As regards your "no way" scenario, then there would be "no way" that fragments from the Z-312/313 headshot could have the mass and velocity to crack windshields; dent chrome molding; fracture the wrist bone of JBC; etc; etc;

Obviously, you place little credence in one of the single most reliable witnesses who was in the Presidential Limousine. That being SS Agent Roy Kellerman who adamantly stated that he heard JFK state "My God, I'm hit!"

Of course, Agent Kellerman also fully stated exactly where in the hairline the entry wound into the scalp was located.

Obviously, you are of the impression that the exit wound in the anterior throat of JFK was that of a full 6.5mm Carcano bullet, when few who saw the wound, and most who understand the wound, think otherwise.

Obviously, you are of the impression that exiting bullets remove nice circular little pieces of fabric from ties "nick" as they pass by/glance off (whatever) these fabrics.

Obviously, there is far more wrong with whatever your seminar presentation is, then in most any other assassination scenario which I have ever heard. (excluding body kidnapping & wound alteration which leads the pack in regards to being asinine and stupid)

Not unlike the "body kidnapping/wound alteration" scenario, you may pass this EOP-entry/Anterior neck-exit /downward angle off to those who are unaware of the physical; pathological; and forensic facts, as well as the testimony of many witnesses.

However, where I come from, a pig with wings still can not fly.

Tom

[Pat Speer]

Tom, I'm sorry if my pointing out a weakness in your scenario has upset you. You still did not address how a miniscule fragment could have the energy necessary to traverse a neck and break through skin, which is 50% as strong as bone. Keep in mind that the bullet that killed Oswald was unable to break through the skin of his back, and was found just under it.

As to my scenario, I'm still working on it, but to me, it seems to have fewer problems than your own.

The back wound photos were all taken early. The doctors testified they took x-rays and photos, then worked on the skull, and then the body. Since the back wound photos show that the scalp has not yet been reflected, and the scalp was reflected before Finck arrived, this means the photos were taken before Finck's arrival.

I believe Dr. Boswell's drawing indictating the bullet went upwards was merely his assumption. He saw an entrance low in the skull and an exit at its top. He connected the dots. He was not then and is not now an authority on wound ballistics. While I do not consider it a waste of time to talk to the original doctors I don't think it will lead to a new understanding of the wounds. They undoubtedly made mistakes, as the autopsy photos and the Rydberg drawings do not match. Boswell himself has placed the back wound at 4 different positions of Kennedy's body. Their memories and impressions are not 100% reliable. I do agree with you, however, that it would be near impossible for all three men to remember a wound in the EOP if it was really in the cowlick.

Tom, you clearly do not know or understand my theory, as I'm at work on a presentation that will fully explain it that has not yet been revealed. But an outline for my theories was included in my seminar. I believe, for example, that the shot at 313 was a tangential wound, that is, it did not enter the skull at the EOP or the cowlick, but hit Kennedy right in the location people assume to be the exit. Large fragments of a bullet glancing off a skull at such a location would retain the energy to crack a windshield or chip up pieces of concrete 200 feet away. I also suspect that the EOP entry/neck exit shot was fired not from a Carcano but from a smaller caliber automatic rifle with a silencer, possibly an M-16.

Perhaps you should actually take the time to read my seminar before you go on and on about how lame it is. It's on this website in the seminars section. Or are you a closed book stepping down from Mt. Olympus to give us all a peek inside? If such is the case, thank you, thank you, thank you.