Robert Prudhomme

I hope that all of you are paying enough attention to spot a very obvious contradiction in my beliefs. On the one hand, I speak of the Carcano bullet's ability to penetrate two people, yet, on the other hand, I speak of a Carcano bullet that only penetrated a few inches into JFK's right lung before coming to a halt.

How can this be?

For those of you who have read my material at the Deep Politics Forum, the answer is already known to you. For the rest of you, stick around, as this is where it gets really interesting.

Hello again Jon

I should take a moment here to explain why I believe a shallow back wound to be unbelievable, and why I cannot imagine any serious conspirator would even attempt to pass off anything so nonsensical.

Those who believe in a shallow back wound attribute its cause to a faulty rifle cartridge resulting in something known as a "short shot". According to their theory, either deteriorated gunpowder or a faulty primer resulted in a bullet leaving the muzzle of the rifle at a velocity only a fraction of the normal muzzle velocity of that rifle.

Once again, this sounds quite believable, until a closer look is taken.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that JFK's back wound was made with a 6.5mm Carcano M91/38 short rifle, shooting a 162 grain FMJ bullet at a normal muzzle velocity of 2200 feet per second (fps), at a target roughly 50 yards out. This bullet, possessing a thicker than average copper alloy jacket, is a very long bullet that is exceptionally stable in flight, and possesses great penetration capabilities. We are constantly told, by WC apologists, that this bullet is capable of penetrating 48 inches of pine lumber, without significant deformation, and it is a fact that 6.5mm FMJ bullets, of a similar construction to the Carcano bullet but fired from a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer rifle, were used to shoot elephants in the head, as this bullet was capable of penetrating the thick elephant skull bone without deformation.

IMHO, a 6.5mm Carcano bullet leaving the muzzle at 2200 fps and striking JFK's back 50 yards out would have gone straight through JFK's chest, leaving a small entrance hole and a slightly larger exit hole. It would then, in my opinion, still have ample energy to go through Connally's jump seat and through Connally as well, leaving similar sized wounds in Connally. It MIGHT have slowed down enough to come to a halt somewhere in the seat occupied by Kellerman, but I would not volunteer to sit in that seat and try it out.

(I should point out here, to those that study the SBT, that, in my opinion, the relatively small amount of tissue the SBT was supposed to have gone through was really not enough to slow it down as much as we are told, and the thigh wound on Connally, as well as the wrist wound, should have been far more severe. All that this bullet did was pass through a few inches of neck muscle, and follow the outside of Connally's 5th rib prior to hitting his wrist.)

In order to make this bullet stop after only travelling an inch through flesh, it would be necessary to reduce the muzzle velocity to under 1000 fps, possibly as low as 500 fps. There are two critical problems with this:

1. Bullet stabilization. Exiting at 2200 fps, a high enough rate of spin has been imparted to the bullet, by the riflings of the barrel, to stabilize this bullet in flight on its way to the target. Lowering the muzzle velocity also lowers the rate of spin, and it is highly likely this bullet would de-stabilize and begin tumbling on its way to JFK's back. Even if it actually made it to JFK's back, it would have made the typical "keyhole" entrance wound one would expect of a tumbling bullet.

2. Bullet drop. Bullets do not follow a flat path to a target but, rather, follow a parabolic trajectory; due to the fact the bullet must overcome gravity. If the Carcano was sighted in to be accurate at 100 yards, one could aim dead on at 100 yards and be confident of hitting that target. Shooting at 50 yards, one would aim a bit low, as at 50 yards the bullet would be at the apogee of its trajectory. However, should you rob the bullet of 50-75% of its muzzle velocity, aiming at the normal point will result in a bullet landing far short of its intended target, simply because it now does not have the "legs" to go as far. It is called a "short" shot for a reason, for the fact the bullet will land far short of its target. I estimate a bullet with this little penetrating power would have landed well behind the limousine.

And THAT is why I think the "shallow" back wound is utter rubbish.

Hello Jon

The first thing to understand about Humes is that he told a rather outrageous lie about JFK's pulmonary condition that actually made its way into the Warren Commission Report. I should perhaps be more lenient, as the lie was so ridiculous, and there were other ways to cover up the problem. It may very well have been overzealous Commission lawyers that perpetrated the lie.

The lie I am referring to is how the insertion of bi-lateral chest tubes into JFK was explained in the WCR. In Appendix IX of the WCR, Humes writes the following:

"Incisions were made in the upper anterior chest wall bi-laterally to combat possible subcutaneous emphysema."

At first glance, it would seem that Humes has made a legitimate statement, until this statement is analyzed. Fortunately, for Humes, 99.99% of the population does not have the first clue what subcutaneous emphysema actually is. Subcutaneous emphysema, or SE for short, is literally air bubbles trapped under the skin. It is often associated with pneumothoraces, as the increased pressure in the pleural cavity can find its way to the surface of the skin. It is a benign condition, most definitely NOT a medical emergency, and is not even treated unless the volume of air trapped is so massive, it interferes with normal functions. ER surgeons faced with a pulseless patient bleeding profusely from a head wound would not even consider addressing something so minor as SE.

To further put the lie to Humes' statement is this from Dr. Perry's medical report:

"Closed chest cardiac massage was instituted after placement of sealed drainage chest tubes, but without benefit."

And from Dr. Baxter's medical report:

"A tracheotomy was performed by Dr. Perry and I and a chest tube inserted into the right chest (2nd intercostal space anteriorally)."

Once again, the full meaning of these statements may not be apparent but I will attempt to clarify them. The treatment for SE, if it is even applied, involves the placement of very shallow tubes (just under the skin) in the vicinity of the area affected, and these tubes are left open to the atmosphere.

What Drs. Perry and Baxter are describing is something totally different, and can only be interpreted as measures taken to relieve a life threatening tension pneumothorax of JFK's right lung.

1. "Sealed drainage chest tube". As I stated in an earlier post, it is essential to vent the built up air volume of a tension pneumothorax, but the vent cannot be left open as the patient inhales, or it becomes an open pneumothorax. A one way valve is needed and, in 1963, the method employed was to connect the chest tube to a sealed water bottle, thus allowing built up pleural air to escape, but maintaining the integrity of the pleural cavity for inspiration by not allowing air to return to the pleural cavity via the chest tube. Hence, Perry's reference to "sealed" drainage chest tubes.

2. "2nd intercostal space anteriorally". If Humes knew the first thing about pulmonary emergencies, he would have instantly recognized these words. To this day, the relief of air build up from a tension pneumothorax is accomplished by insertion of a large bore needle or tube anteriorally in the intercostal space, at the mid-clavicular line, between the 2nd and 3rd rib. Once again, Baxter only mentions a chest tube in the right lung, confirming my suspicions of damage in that lung alone.

It should be quite apparent, from this discussion, that, early on in the investigation, efforts were being made to hide the true nature of the effects of JFK's back wound, and the ensuing pulmonary emergency. Whether or not these efforts were made to further the Single Bullet Theory, and the belief of a bullet missing the top of JFK's right lung and exiting his throat, is difficult to say with any real certainty.

I shall end this post here, and continue this discussion in the next post.

Hello Jon

Interestingly, Jerrol F. Custer, an x-ray technician present at the Bethesda autopsy, has maintained that all personnel without a certain clearance were not present when JFK's heart and lungs were removed. If what he claims is true, there was definitely something worth hiding.

There is an obvious problem with the scenario I painted in post # 63, and I am surprised that neither you nor anyone else has pointed it out to me. The flaw is this, why did the 162 grain FMJ Carcano bullet, famous for its penetrating capabilities, come to a halt partway through the top of JFK's right lung, instead of exiting the front of his chest and going through Connally's seat and Connally, as well?

The answer to this question is, I believe, the fact that ordinary full metal jacket bullets were not used in the assassination. The most likely candidate was an early version of something known as a "hollow point frangible" bullet, a modern example of which can be seen at this website:

www.drtammo.com

These modern bullets are made from a compressed metal powder encased in a copper alloy jacket. This jacket has a small hollow point at its nose, as can be seen. Not only are these bullets possibly the most lethal rifle bullets on the market today, they are also incapable of ricocheting if they hit a hard surface such as concrete, stone or steel. When they hit such a surface,%

Robert

Why didn't I just say that pneumothorax meant collapsed lung? For the simple fact that the word pneumothorax means much more than collapsed lung, and only the "open" pneumothorax is associated solely with a collapsed lung.

However, the signs Dr. Jenkins was referring to were not of an "open" pneumothorax, although JFK's condition certainly began with an "open" pneumothorax, but of an associated condition known as a "tension" pneumothorax; a condition just as serious, and just as capable of killing a patient, as an open pneumothorax (sucking chest wound).

Sound confusing? Listen closely then, if you are capable of doing such a thing.

When the bullet entered the upper back of JFK's right lung (staying there) it put a hole in something known as the "pleural" lining of the pleural cavity. Imagine, if you will, a large airtight bag containing the right lung and attached to the diaphragm and inner chest wall. When you breathe in, you move the diaphragm part of this bag downward, increasing the volume of the pleural cavity and lowering the air pressure in the pleural cavity. When this occurs, air at atmospheric pressure (14.7 psi) enters through your nose and mouth, and attempts to equalize the pressure. Your lung, being in this pleural cavity, inflates like a balloon.

However, should there be a hole in the pleural lining, each time the diaphragm moves downward, air will rush in through this hole, filling the pleural cavity with air. With pressure being equalized in this manner, the lung cannot inflate and "collapses".

The medical solution for this, and it must be done quickly to prevent death by asphyxiation, is to seal this hole with a rubber gloved hand, a piece of plastic, tape or whatever happens to be handy. Once sealed, the pleural cavity is airtight, and the lung will inflate as it should.

HOWEVER, that is only half of the story. There is a very good chance that whatever put a hole in the pleural lining also put a hole in the lung itself. Now that the hole in the pleural lining is sealed, the lung with the hole in it will partially inflate, but a great deal of the air will go through this hole in the lung, and begin to fill the space between lung and pleural lining (pleural cavity) with air. When the patient exhales, the lung collapses on itself, sealing the hole in the lung and not allowing air in the pleural cavity to escape.

With each breath, the volume in the pleural cavity grows. At a certain point, this volume of air begins to exert pressure on the other organs in the chest (heart, other lung, major blood vessels), displacing them away from the affected lung and impairing their function. A real medical emergency has developed and a patient can die within minutes from it. This condition is, of course, the "tension" pneumothorax I spoke of earlier. The medical solution for a tension pneumothorax is the insertion of a large bore needle or tube in the intercostal space, between the 2nd and 3rd rib, to relieve this pressure. However, it must only allow air out, and not in, and this is why JFK's chest tube was connected to a water seal bottle.

So, what was observed about JFK?

1. Deviated trachea. This is the most obvious sign of a tension pneumothorax and cannot be confused with any other condition. Air volume was building in JFK's right pleural cavity, exerting pressure on all the other organs in his chest and pushing them to the left, including the trachea.

2. Obvious physical characteristics of a pneumothorax. Not knowing JFK had been shot in the back, Dr. Jenkins would have had to rely on the lack of expansion in the right lung to make this observation.

How did the tension pneumothorax develop? Quite simple, actually. When JFK was in the limo, his condition was likely only an open pneumothorax, as nothing was contacting the bullet wound and it remained open. But, when he was laid on his back on a metal cart, the wound would have been directly in contact with the metal, sealing it off, and beginning a tension pneumothorax.

If the damage to the lung was as extensive as I believe it was, JFK had a very good chance of dying from the back wound alone.

And, of course, Ray, none of the wounds described by these doctors, and correctly interpreted by you, are visible in the official back of head autopsy photo.

Poor Pat, I guess he was hoping his long post would confuse us. You are absolutely correct in your definition of "posterior lateral". Many people are unaware that, in such a double definition, the first word defines where the wound is (posterior = rear) while the second word defines more specifically on that surface where the wound is. For example, if he had stated "lateral posterior", it wound have meant the wound was on the side of the head (lateral) but toward the rear of that lateral surface.

No, Dave, you stated the bullet was slightly below the level of the top of the shoulders. Is that your final answer? Do you want to call a friend?

Pretty sad, Pat. The only doctor on that entire list that played a significant part was Dr. Baxter, and he claimed to see cerebellum. How could he have seen cerebellum if the large head wound was ahead of the ear, and high up? The tiny cerebellum is behind the brainstem in the rear part of the skull, and as low in the skull as any part of the brain can get.

Just making sure....

Are you sure you want to go with "just slightly below the level of the top of the shoulders", Dave?

Okay, smart guy, did the bullet go above the collar, or below the collar?

Now, here is a real toughie. How did the bullet enter JFK's neck at the collar line, without putting a bullet hole in the collar of his suit coat.

And the same would apply to the suit coat, if he were shot at the collar line and the coat was bunched up. The bullet would go through the fold, leaving one bullet hole on each side of the fold, and then through the collar of the coat, leaving another hole.

I count three holes, Dave.

Regarding the photo of JFK speaking to the young lad, and showing his shirt bunched up, if he was shot at the collar line, at that moment, you would have three holes in the shirt, once it was laid flat. Just saying....

Robert

In my opinion, a pristine bullet with a pointed nose really was found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, by sheer coincidence, and it had nothing to do with the assassination. When the nature of JFK's and Connally's wounds became apparent, and the need for one bullet to cause so many wounds, the inspiration for a "magic" bullet arose, and the bullet-on-the-stretcher story was emulated with a round nosed Carcano bullet.

Quite simply put, the bullet HAD to be pristine, or nearly pristine, as the final wound on Connally's inner thigh was so small and neat, it could only have been made by an undeformed bullet. I actually have other ideas as to what caused the thigh wound, but that is another topic. A deformed or expanded bullet would have made a much larger and messier wound in his thigh and, therefore, was ineligible as the multi-wound bullet.

I can give you no reason for a shallow wound in JFK's back and, as you well know, I do not think such a wound was even possible.

Now, it is your turn to address my post, and answer my questions.

Robert

Several doctors at Parkland observed JFK's trachea (windpipe) to be deviated slightly to the left. While several of these doctors speak of bi-lateral (both sides) chest tubes being inserted to relieve pressure in each lung's pleural cavity, there is a significant percentage of these doctors that only speak of a chest tube being inserted into the right pleural cavity. Dr. Marion Jenkins, in his testimony to the WC, speaks of JFK having a pneumothorax:

"Dr. Jenkins - About this time Drs. Kemp Clark and Paul Peters came in, and Dr. Peters because of the appearance of the right chest, the obvious physical characteristics of a pneumothorax, put in a closed chest drainage chest tube."

Robert, without going off on a tangent, do you understand what a pneumothorax is, why a chest tube is inserted as an essential part of the treatment to relieve a pneumothorax, and the significance of all the things I stated in the first paragraph?

Do you also understand the implications this has for the "shallow" back wound, if JFK did indeed have a tension pneumothorax in his right lung?

What would you like to know about it?

Do you have any comprehension whatsoever that a bullet with a muzzle velocity of 2200 feet per second simply cannot make a shallow wound (ie. 1 inch deep) in soft tissue on a target only 50 yards away? What kind of idiot would plan for a scenario like that?

If they had tried for a pristine bullet falling out of a shallow back wound, anyone with any ballistics knowledge would have laughed at them.

Honestly, I don't know where you are coming from but you have the most assbackwards approach to theorizing I have ever seen.

Yes, James, I agree, though I must say the back wound pales in comparison, on the strangeness scale, to the throat wound.

It is simple to picture a hollow point frangible bullet entering the top of JFK's right lung, slowing up under strain as it passes through soft tissue and exploding into a cloud of metal dust, long before it had a chance to exit JFK's chest. OTOH, the same type of bullet entering JFK's throat does not have nearly enough soft tissue, between the entry point and the vertebrae, to make the hollow point frangible bullet come apart. Even if it did, the resulting lethal cloud of bullet dust would have done far more damage and, with the carotid artery so close, it seems likely it would have been torn and profuse arterial bleeding from JFK's throat wound would have been reported.

Needless to say, the throat wound is quite an enigma.

It must be remembered, though, that there is no proof that JFK suffered the throat wound at any time before the head wound. He never actually grabbed his throat with his hands but, rather, only brought them up to the level of his neck. It is possible this was a reaction to an open pneumothorax, brought about by the bullet in his lung, or it could be the throat wound was an entrance wound and the bullet struck the vertebrae in his neck. Either could have induced the arm raising reaction.

Very good point you make, James. And, if I may add to that, recognition of a shot, at that point, may have been difficult for the SS agents, Hill included.

As you well know, I firmly believe the first shot that struck JFK's back was fired from a rifle equipped with a suppressor, and the only sound heard would be the "crack" of the supersonic bullet as it passed by. Otherwise, there is no explanation for the total lack of startle reactions in the bystanders.

Would the SS agents be trained to recognize the distinct sound of a suppressed bullet? With all of the background noise, would they be able to separate it from the other sounds? How long would it take to register this unique noise as a threat to the President?

As you say, 5 seconds is not a long time.

So, the "shallow" back wound was faked, but all the other wounds were real? How do you come by such knowledge?

By your reasoning, the whole assassination could have been faked, and JFK might still be living in cognito with Elvis and Salman Rushdie on a tropical island somewhere.

You are the worst kind of researcher, one who only cherry picks that evidence which will support his theory, and ignores the rest. You are on your own.

Why don't you slow down a bit and listen to what others have to say? You have got a severe case of tunnel vision, and can't see the forest for the trees.

Think of this possibility. JFK was shot in the back, at about the level of thoracic vertebra T3, and about 1.5-2 inches to the right of the spine. This shot occurred before JFK emerged from behind the Stemmons sign. Contrary to popular belief, this was not a shallow wound but, rather, the bullet entered the top of JFK's right lung. This bullet also stayed in JFK's right lung and disintegrated there, preventing it from exiting his chest. JFK suffered a condition in his right lung called a "pneumothorax" and, if one looks closely at the Parkland medical evidence, there is much to support this. This miraculous occurrence was brought about by a bullet known as a "hollow point frangible", a very unique bullet I will tell you more about, if you are willing to listen.

This shot was heard by a number of witnesses, though by no means all of them, at the upper end of Elm St. A quick look at the Altgens 6 will show you the majority of upper Elm St. witnesses either did not hear this shot or, if they did, did not immediately recognize it as a rifle shot. As you have pointed out, the witnesses at the lower end of Elm St. did not hear the shot that hit JFK in the back. There is a VERY good reason for all of this, but first you must understand that not all witnesses in Dealey Plaza heard the same thing. This was by design, and not by accident.

As I have pointed out many times, a suppressor mounted on a rifle will eliminate 100% of the muzzle blast, thus hiding the origin of a shot, but does NOTHING to hide the sound of a supersonic bullet breaking the sound barrier. However, this supersonic "crack", much like a bullwhip's crack, tends to be a localized phenomenon easily masked by loud background noises, and limited to a relatively small area of influence. Proof of this can be seen in the Altgens 6 photo. Two SS agents, Connally and a motorcycle cop are all reacting to something unusual, and that something is a bullet breaking the sound barrier within a few feet of each of them two to three seconds before this photo was taken. However, the bystanders are not reacting as, due to the sound of the motorcycles, the cars and the crowd, the crack of the bullet passing is just part of the background noise. People further down Elm St. do not hear it because the sonic boom stopped when the bullet struck JFK's back. For various not easily explained reasons, some people at the upper end of Elm St. (ie. Willis and his daughter) were able to hear the suppressed shot rather well, but were definitely under the impression it was not a normal shot, and more akin to a firecracker.

I highly recommend you try to find someone with a suppressed rifle, and stand well off to the side when that rifle is fired. I think you will understand what I am saying much better once you have experienced this.

Robert Mady

Do you have any experience with rifles equipped with suppressors (silencers)?

Jon G. Tidd

How do you think it came about that a bullet entered JFK's back at about the level of thoracic vertebra T3, and only caused a shallow wound?

Mary Moorman gave an interview not that long ago, in several parts, that can be viewed on Youtube in several instalments. In the second instalment, she describes to the interviewer the taking of her famous Polaroid. According to her, she heard the first shot at the time she took the photo, and two more shots following this one.

Simply Google "Mary Moorman Interview Part Two". I would post the link, but I do not seem to have posting privileges here.