Robert Prudhomme

There is absolutely no doubt that the CIA's Paul Gaynor had Edwin Walker in Gaynor's infamous "fag file," and that at all relevant times Walker was completely under CIA control as a result. The entire "assassination attempt" on Walker is utterly absurd, and THE ONLY ACCOUNT OF HOW IT HAPPENED COMES FROM WALKER HIMSELF. He was nowhere near where that bullet was shot into his home, the ONLY purpose being to get a bullet from that gun into evidence, deformed though it was. Walker was a willing participant in the staged "assassination attempt," with little scratches to show he was "injured" from splinters. What a load of transparent BS. Around the time of this staged "assassination attempt," the rifle DISAPPEARED for at least a number of days, and the ex post facto "explanation" is that Oswald had buried it somewhere near some railroad tracks. CODSWOLLOP! There had to be an "explanation" for the whereabouts of the rifle because IT WAS BEING USED DURING THAT TIME TO COLLECT BULLETS FIRED FROM IT FOR LATER USE AS "EVIDENCE" IN THE JFK ASSASSINATION. Confusion is the CIA's No. 1 product. They ALWAYS play both sides of the game. Ashton Gray This is assuming, of course, that a 6.5mm Carcano M91/38 short rifle bearing serial number C2766 was used in the Walker shooting. I still like to think the detectives investigating the Walker shooting were more competent than most consider, and that a steel jacketed bullet (or a bullet jacketed in material that could be mistaken for steel) was actually recovered from the Walker residence, and not the copper alloy jacketed bullet that became CE 573. Walker himself adamantly maintained CE 573 was not the bullet recovered from his residence although, unfortunately, he did not make any comments about the jacket material.

Well stated, Ashton. I sometimes wonder just how many scenarios, in addition to the Lone Nut and International Political Conspiracy, were planned for and how many other patsies, in how many other cities, narrowly missed being the selected assassin.

This conversation highlights the essential problem with the evidence in the JFK assassination case: Just what evidence DO we believe?

"5. Anybody who believes there was any kind of conspiracy involved in the murder, but believes that the conspirators HAD NOT arranged any kind of control at Parkland for the aftermath, is every bit as fall-down funny to me. In fact, having plants at Parkland was absolutely primary to any HOPE of success in pinning it all on Oswald, precisely BECAUSE of the inescapable requirement of being able to CONTROL the bullet/fragments issue and plant false "evidence." (This is another giant unmistakable fingerprint of CIA, and it isprecisely the modus operandi they used in Watergate.)" It certainly could not have been any of the doctors at Parkland who were part of this plot. Reading their medical reports in Appendix VIII of the WCR, as well as their WC testimony, one would think they were working on a different patient than the one the autopsy was performed on at Bethesda. "6. I don't believe that any type of metal bullet or missile possibly could have "disintegrated" in the short distance inside the body as the back shot, or could have "exploded" or shattered without doing far, far more damage to the lungs and surrounding tissue than is in evidence." This is your belief, and I can assure you that you are quite mistaken on this point, and quite ignorant of the ballistic capabilities of certain bullets. Also, when you use the words "in evidence", perhaps you would be wise to recall all of the other "evidence" contained in JFK's autopsy, and what a glaring contradiction this autopsy was to all of the medical evidence received from Parkland.

Well, Robert, I'm aware of that testimony that you cited, but please remember that Arlen Specter would browbeat his witnesses to push them closer and closer to his ridiculous Single Bullet Theory. The sentences you cite follow a long argument with the whole WC present, which begins as follows: ------------ BEGIN EXTRACT OF ROY KELLERMAN - W.C. TESTIMONY - 3/9/1964 ----------------------- Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Kellerman, you said earlier that there were at least two additional shots. Is there any area in your mind or possibility, as you recollect that situation, that there could have been more than two shots, or are you able to say with any certainty? Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say that I have, from the firecracker report and the two other shots that I know, those were three shots. But, Mr. Specter, if President Kennedy had from all reports four wounds, Governor Connally three, there have got to be more than three shots, gentlemen. Senator COOPER. What is that answer? What did he say? Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat that, Mr. Kellerman? Mr. KELLERMAN. President Kennedy had four wounds, two in the head and shoulder and the neck. Governor Connally, from our reports, had three. There have got to be more than three shots. Representative FORD. Is that why you have described-- Mr. KELLERMAN. The flurry. Representative FORD. The noise as a flurry? Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right, sir. ------------ END EXTRACT OF ROY KELLERMAN - W.C. TESTIMONY - 3/9/1964 ----------------------- Now, I grant that after a severe browbeating by the WC members, that Roy Kellerman was forced to admit that he couldn't be certain. But that is aside from the point. Roy Kellerman's initial feeling as an eye-witness -- only a few feet away from JFK -- was: "there have got to be more than three shots." Regards, --Paul Trejo Paul We have to establish the difference between what Roy Kellerman heard, and what he deduced after observing the wounds (or the reports of wounds) of JFK and John Connally. I'm not saying you are wrong about speculating about the number of shots, I would just like you to think about why Kellerman might have heard only two distinct shots in the "flurry" he described. Hint: It has something to do with the "firecracker" sound he reported as the first shot. P.S. At no time during Kellerman's testimony did Specter attempt to make Kellerman reduce the number of shots he heard in the "flurry". Kellerman testified to there being two distinct shots, one almost right on top of the other, without any prompting or coercion on the part of Specter. If anything, Specter is almost encouraging Kellerman to say he heard more than two shots in the "flurry". "Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Kellerman, you said earlier that there were at least two additional shots. Is there any area in your mind or possibility, as you recollect that situation, that there could have been more than two shots, or are you able to say with any certainty?"

I deleted this post. Somehow, I managed to paste quotes from two different posts here.

BTW, Paul, in the next few days I plan to put forth, on this thread, a theory to explain the throat wound as an exit wound from a bullet entering JFK's rear. Don't worry, it is not an attempt to endorse the SBT. As you may have noticed, I believe the bullet that entered JFK's back also entered the top of his right lung and stayed there.

"ROY KELLERMAN... In my opinion the flurry of shots was more than three, since JFK had one neck wound, one shoulder wound and two head wounds, while Governor Connally suffered three separate wounds." Where was this quote from, Paul? It seems to contradict his WC testimony, in which he defined the "flurry" as two shots. "Mr. SPECTER. Now, in your prior testimony you described a flurry of shells into the car. How many shots did you hear after the first noise which you described as sounding like a firecracker? Mr. KELLERMAN. Mr. Specter, these shells came in all together. Mr. SPECTER. Are you able to say how many you heard? Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say two, and it was like a double bang--bang, bang. Mr. SPECTER. You mean now two shots in addition to the first noise? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir; yes, sir; at least."

"But what about the angles seen in the stairway posts? They are there because the stairway has been rebuilt since 1963 and whoever built it didn't make the posts plumb. In fact, the post nearest us is VERY crooked." I noticed that too, Sandy. At first, I simply thought it was because the stair stringers had rotted out but this does not seem to be the case, as we would see a definite sag in the outside stringer. Placing a straight edge on the outside stringer shows no sag, and the stair treads that are still intact and in place appear to be level. Do you know for sure the stairs have been rebuilt since 1963? If they have, I wonder if these intermediate support posts were placed just a bit further down the stringers than the original ones, and ended up being shorter posts. This could explain why Oswald looks so small.

Well justified. From the HSCA report on the neck x-ray, emphasis added <quote on> Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a fracture in that area. There is some soft tissue density overlying the apex of the right lung which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue swelling. <quote off> Do you actually know what subcutaneous tissue is, Cliff?

For the simple fact that Dr. Malcolm Perry did not observe a wounding of the cricoid cartilage; situated just below the thyroid cartilage and just above the beginning of the tracheal rings. The wound observed by Perry was a tear in the right side of the trachea between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings (tracheal cartilages). As observed from JFK's right side, the tear was on a downward angle from the back of the trachea to the front; further nullifying your guess of a projectile first striking the cricoid cartilage.

LOL "Significant Subcutaneous Deflection" You just made that up, right, Cliff?

What, precisely, are you getting at with this notion, Cliff? Bullets don't necessarily take straight line paths in the body. This is true, Cliff. However, not all bullets are created equally. Some bullets are designed intentionally to deviate from a straight path in tissue, and to even begin tumbling in a wound. Other bullets (the long narrow round nosed 6.5mm Carcano bullet for example) will travel remarkable distances, as much as 50 cm. (19.7 inches) or more, through flesh without deviating or yawing; barring contact with large bones, of course. http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Fackler_Articles/wounding_patterns_military_rifles.pdf (see Page 5) You do realize the subcutaneous layer of the skin is just below the upper layer of the skin, and it is doubtful any bullet would be deflected in that tiny distance? Your argument is almost as pointless as those pushing the SBT, who claimed a 6.5mm Carcano bullet would be tumbling after passing through the small amount of tissue in a human neck. BTW, HAVE you read the medical argument I made in JFK's "SHALLOW" BACK WOUND REVISITED (FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME) for the throat wound being below the top of JFK's shirt collar, or are you one of those researchers who only reads things that agree with your beliefs?

What, precisely, are you getting at with this notion, Cliff?

Cliff and Michael I believe there was a throat wound but, I also believe I have proven beyond a doubt that this wound could not have been above JFK's shirt collar. Unfortunately, a wound below the shirt collar cannot have been an entrance wound, unless someone was shooting from the floor of the limo. Rather than going over the same tired arguments, why don't you go to this thread JFK's "SHALLOW" BACK WOUND REVISITED (FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME) and, toward the end of the tread, read how I explain it is impossible for the throat wound to have been above the shirt collar.

Robert: Things are more complicated than they seem. The new tourist picture you show presents a very different field of view compared to the original backyard picture. The focal lengths of the camera used in the new picture differed from that in the backyard picture. Therefore, the divergence of vertical lines will appear different in these two pictures. My post 40 shows another modern picture with a very similar field of view seen in the backyard picture - you can see the divergence of vertical lines very much alike in the backyard picture. Oswald's leaning is exactly the point which interests me because it appears to be a characteristic feature of his stance which I also see in the reconstruction of Prayer Man's stance. Oswald is leaning towards his back and right in the backyard picture, however, it does not mean that he would have to fall down. He would fall down only if the centre of mass of his body would be outside of the area delineated by his feet. One also needs to mind the rifle which displaces the centre of mass in opposite direction (towards the left and front), and Oswald's right arm which is flexed in front of the body and holds newspapers. The newspapers do not weigh much, however, the right arm does contribute to the stability of the stance. While it is quite easy to write a brief message to EF, it is more difficult and time consuming to build a 3D model of the Neeley Street house and the backyard and test it with different fields of view, to reconstruct Oswald's stance and to figure out qualitatively or quantitatively whether the location of the centre of mass would allow a stable stance or not. Thus, I basically do not have much to say until I am done with my analyses and understand this problem to the least detail. If you would like to figure out how it is possible to stand as Oswald did in this backyard picture, you would stand with your feet in parallel and about one foot apart, then rotate your right foot about 45 degrees outwards, and then lean back in such a way that the full of your body weight would rest on your stretched right leg. You continue leaning until you feel that your left foot touches the ground with only the front half of the foot. In this stance, your left knee would by very, very slightly bend to allow the left foot touching the ground with only its front part. The pose is a bit uncomfortable but one can hod it. To make it more realistic, one needs to also simulate the rifle in Oswald's left hand. It weighed 3.4 kg and it helped to oppose the displacement of the mass towards the right and back. However, it is not only the weight of the rifle but also its length which contributed to the stability of the pose. It is similar to tightrope walking in which either widely extended arms or a long stick held in walker's hands help to stabilise the pose. Oswald's pose did not need this much help as a tightrope walker's stance because his stance was much more stable. You really want that BYP to work, Andrej. Any particular reason? To learn the truth about this picture after 53 years, if it is possible at all. I am relatively new to the JFK assassination research and take nothing for granted. If I am wrong and this picture was geometrically impossible, I will let people know. I have almost no doubts that the heads in other two backyard pictures were altered, and maybe even the chin in this picture. However, the pose appears to me realistic. "Appears" is, however, not good enough. So, why aren't the tourists leaning over, Andrej?

They likely straightened ol' Lee up for these photo shoots with the tourists, simply because it would look a little strange to have the tourists standing up straight and Lee listing to starboard about 20°.

Hi Michael I know nothing about this photo at all. It was in the link provided by Chris Newton in post # 162 of this thread. https://sightseeingd...-harvey-oswald/

Robert: Things are more complicated than they seem. The new tourist picture you show presents a very different field of view compared to the original backyard picture. The focal lengths of the camera used in the new picture differed from that in the backyard picture. Therefore, the divergence of vertical lines will appear different in these two pictures. My post 40 shows another modern picture with a very similar field of view seen in the backyard picture - you can see the divergence of vertical lines very much alike in the backyard picture. Oswald's leaning is exactly the point which interests me because it appears to be a characteristic feature of his stance which I also see in the reconstruction of Prayer Man's stance. Oswald is leaning towards his back and right in the backyard picture, however, it does not mean that he would have to fall down. He would fall down only if the centre of mass of his body would be outside of the area delineated by his feet. One also needs to mind the rifle which displaces the centre of mass in opposite direction (towards the left and front), and Oswald's right arm which is flexed in front of the body and holds newspapers. The newspapers do not weigh much, however, the right arm does contribute to the stability of the stance. While it is quite easy to write a brief message to EF, it is more difficult and time consuming to build a 3D model of the Neeley Street house and the backyard and test it with different fields of view, to reconstruct Oswald's stance and to figure out qualitatively or quantitatively whether the location of the centre of mass would allow a stable stance or not. Thus, I basically do not have much to say until I am done with my analyses and understand this problem to the least detail. If you would like to figure out how it is possible to stand as Oswald did in this backyard picture, you would stand with your feet in parallel and about one foot apart, then rotate your right foot about 45 degrees outwards, and then lean back in such a way that the full of your body weight would rest on your stretched right leg. You continue leaning until you feel that your left foot touches the ground with only the front half of the foot. In this stance, your left knee would by very, very slightly bend to allow the left foot touching the ground with only its front part. The pose is a bit uncomfortable but one can hod it. To make it more realistic, one needs to also simulate the rifle in Oswald's left hand. It weighed 3.4 kg and it helped to oppose the displacement of the mass towards the right and back. However, it is not only the weight of the rifle but also its length which contributed to the stability of the pose. It is similar to tightrope walking in which either widely extended arms or a long stick held in walker's hands help to stabilise the pose. Oswald's pose did not need this much help as a tightrope walker's stance because his stance was much more stable. You really want that BYP to work, Andrej. Any particular reason?

Hi Chris Oswald isn't leaning anymore! (they had to cut most of his left foot off to accomplish this, though)

Cliff Have you ever taken a serious look at the medical argument I presented in the back wound thread that shows why the throat wound had to be below the top of JFK's collar? I've asked you this question several times now.

...I do agree with you that we never had any conclusive material evidence of a frontal throat shooting, except the fact that JFK seems to be clutching his throat in the Zapruder film, after JFK's image emerges from behind the road sign there on Elm Street. (Also there was some contradictory Parkland testimony.) That led Jim Garrison and many others to presume a frontal shot into the throat -- to correspond with the perception of a frontal shot to the right temple, as many claim to perceive in the Zapruder film. So -- it was a convenience, rather than a perception -- to insist upon a frontal shot into the throat. Why does JFK apparently clutch his throat? I still need more evidence. Paul, I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that I cannot comprehend, at all, how or why anyone can possibly interpret JFK's actions when he emerges from behind the sign as "clutching his throat." He doesn't move his hands anywhere near his throat. He doesn't put his hands anywhere near his tie—or his lapel (no matter how many times reading-challenged bozos might gibber on about it). This claim that he grabs at his throat or his tie or any part of his clothing around his neck is nothing more than an urban legend—and a pretty ridiculous one, at that. A simple, honest, unbiased, unprejudiced LOOK will tell anyone that. At all relevant times, JFK's hands clench into fists, and his arms lift suddenly, spasmodically, at the shoulders, which puts BOTH HANDS UP IN FRONT OF HIS FACE, WITH THE LEFT HAND OUT IN FRONT OF HIS RIGHT HAND. I have now further edited my tie/lapel animation to outline the hands, and it proves beyond any shade of doubt that he DOES NOT clutch at his throat: It is utterly clear and inarguable that his RIGHT HAND flies up, spasmodically, in front of his face, and that HIS LEFT HAND AT ALL TIMES IS OUT IN FRONT OF THE RIGHT HAND. Then his right hand sinks down toward his chest (as Jackie takes hold of his left arm), and with his left hand he appears to be pointing—BUT NOT TO HIS THROAT! His left hand is beyond his midline to his RIGHT SIDE, so he has to be pointing down toward his chest on the right side (if he is consciously pointing at all—see below). It is IMPOSSIBLE that he clutches at or grabs at his throat WHEN BOTH HANDS ARE OUT IN FRONT OF THE MOUTH/NOSE AREA OF HIS FACE. It is ridiculous. The closest his hands come to his throat can't be closer than about 8 inches, or more like 10 inches. Put your own fists out in front of your face, with your elbows raised up to shoulder level, and your head pulled down in toward your chest. You''ll find that it's nonsense that you'd be in that position if "clutching at your throat." Everything about his sudden reaction is NOT INCONSISTENT with his having just been shot in the back. The assertion by a few blowhards that this cannot possibly be the reaction of a man just shot in the back is patently absurd to me, and without foundation. The man was bound up in a corset-like back brace. This reaction is probably about all his body could manage in reaction to a sudden powerful impact in the back—and I say "his body" advisedly, because it is ridiculous to assume that in those few traumatic seconds or parts of seconds, anything like analytical motor control was in play. By the time the "pointing" motion happens, perhaps some analytical thought and control was behind it, but even that could be an autonomic manifestation. His left forefinger also straightens in a "pointing" gesture very early in the sequence, at Zapruder 228, but that doesn't mean he was consciously "pointing" then. This entire manic, breathless urban legend apparently is based on nothing more than Mamie Myopic and Nellie Nearsighted having spouted off verbally that they just KNOW that JFK had "clutched at his throat" in those few brief seconds of unprecedented emergency, so half the world (well, at least the half that can't see very well) has been running around in the clutch (pun intended) of that hypnotic command ever since—never bothering to LOOK at the clear, unequivocal visual EVIDENCE that proves conclusively that he did NOT "clutch at his throat" or "grab his tie" or (the best one ever) "try to cough up a bullet." "He clutched at his throat!" "He clutched at his throat!" "He clutched at his throat!" "The sky is falling!" "The sky is falling!" "The sky is falling!" Ashton Gray Well, that was a rather refreshing read, Ashton. Sometimes, it occurs to me we are not as far apart as I think we are.

Robert, all these technical facts are interesting and helpful. I'm most interested in your consideration of the JFK autopsy, because I had hastily guessed that the "dust-like particles" found in JFK's brain were probably the result of an exploding bullet. It's surely a loss to assassination science that the brain of JFK has been withheld by authorities, because the autopsy report of the Bethesda doctors has been subjected to criticism by historians such as David Lifton (Best Evidence, 1980). What is your informed opinion about the bullet that hit JFK in the head, as compared with the bullet that penetrated Governor Connally in so many places? Regards, --Paul Trejo Hi Paul Excellent question, and one I have put a great deal of thought into. I think some of the greatest misconceptions about this case involve the wounds suffered by John Connally, and I believe those misconceptions were cleverly fostered by certain parties, as the true nature of his wounds would stretch the limits of credibility regarding the SBT. The more I study Connally's wounds, the more I am convinced one bullet could not have made all of his wounds. The biggest misconception about Connally's wounds is that a bullet entered his back, travelled through his right lung, and exited the right front of his chest. Nothing could be further from the truth. The bullet that hit Connally's "back" struck a tangential blow at the very side of his chest, at the crease of the right armpit, and the bullet was actually travelling at about a 40° angle from right to left across the front of his chest. Of course, this required Connally to be turned quite a ways to his right at the time of the SBT occurring. This bullet never actually struck anything in Connally's chest head on but, rather, grazed his 5th rib for about 10 cm. (4 inches); ploughing out the upper surface of the rib for this distance and then exiting his chest just below and to the left of his right nipple. The bullet never entered the chest cavity and all of the damage to the right lung was from shards of rib bone broken off by the bullet and entering the chest cavity as secondary missiles. Despite the SBT, there is ample evidence this bullet was not tumbling but was, rather, travelling straight and true. The slightly oblong entrance wound the bullet made in Connally's side is easily explained by the fact this was a tangential hit. Despite the 2 inch exit wound in Connally's chest. FBI SA Robert A. Frazier testified to the WC that, when he examined Connally's suit coat, he found a round 3/8 inch diameter hole in the front of the coat; certainly not evidence of a tumbling bullet either. Even Connally's surgeon remarked that, while the bullet tore up the 5th rib ploughing through the upper layer of it, the intercostal muscles above and below the 5th rib were almost untouched. A tumbling bullet would have torn up a great deal more tissue passing through. So, how does this relate to JFK's head wound? Well, as I said, I believe a very special bullet, either a frangible bullet or something similar to the Glaser safety bullet was used in the assassination. It is very easy to see evidence of this in JFK's head wound, a bit more difficult to see evidence of this in his back wound, and a LOT more difficult (though not impossible) to see evidence of this in JFK's throat wound. To understand these phenomena, let's take another look at the .303 British Mk. V cartridge, seen below on the right: As I stated before, the Mk. V was a hollow point bullet, and achieved its nasty objectives by the buildup of high pressure tissue and liquid in the hollow nose as it passed through the victim's body, forcing the nose open and, sometimes, tearing the bullet into lethal fragments. Someone eventually looked at the hollow point bullet and said to himself, "Not nearly nasty enough. I can improve on this." So, what they did was, instead of using a solid lead core, as the MK. V and all other hollow point bullets do, they made a bullet core from metal powder; and not always lead. This metal powder was either compressed into a solid, under great pressure, or "sintered" together using pressure and heat. Some have even used different types of glue to hold the powder together. In the case of the Glaser safety slug, #6 or #12 shotgun shot is compressed into a solid. This core was then placed into a bullet jacket (although there are frangible bullets that have no jacket) and a hollow point nose was incorporated into the nose of the jacket. As the frangible bullet travels through tissue and semi-liquid organ matter, it collects this matter in its hollow nose in the same way the hollow point bullet does. However, instead of the great buildup of pressure just opening up the nose into a "mushroom" shape, and possibly fragmenting the bullet, as with a standard hollow point, this pressure now acts on the entire compressed metal core and, usually no more than 2-4 inches into a wound, the compressed metal core disintegrates into a lethal 4 inch cloud of metal powder. This cloud comes to an immediate halt and transfers ALL of its energy to surrounding tissue; explaining why the head shot was able to drive JFK back a few inches to the point where he toppled over due to gravity. The bullet that hit JFK's back and travelled through the top of his right lung, if it was also a frangible bullet, would have behaved in an identical fashion as its nose filled with tissue and liquid, and it would have disintegrated into a cloud of metal powder long before it exited his chest. The throat wound, as I said, is a bit more difficult to explain, and I will reserve comment about that for the moment. Could a frangible bullet have caused Connally's chest wound? And not have disintegrated? I think it is entirely possible, especially if it was of a design similar to the Glaser safety slug. The bullet that traversed the front of Connally's chest was referred to as a "burrowing" round, in that it stayed just below the surface of the chest. A couple of millimeters further out and it would not have even touched his 5th rib. A few more millimeters, or a slightly less acute angle, and it would never have touched his chest, and left only a small burrowing wound in his upper back. Most of the damage this bullet did was by the things it grazed passing by, similar to a car running along a guard rail on the highway. Depending on the design of the frangible bullet, and the shallow penetration and, perhaps even a malfunction of this bullet, such as a bone shard from the rib blocking the hollow point, I believe this bullet could have exited Connally's chest quite intact. The real problem in analyzing these wounds, and the type of bullet that caused them, comes when we look at the damage to Connally's right wrist. More later.....

P.S. The Glaser bullets are called "safety slugs" because they will disintegrate if they hit a very hard surface such as steel, stone or concrete, and will not ricochet. A dum dum or hollow point is not a "safe" bullet as it is more than capable of ricocheting, off of a hard surface, and inflicting collateral damage. P.P.S. I seriously doubt that Finck, Humes and the WC lawyers knew a dum dum bullet from a regular bullet, or their butts from their elbows, for that matter.

Robert, the WC testimony of Doctors James Hume and Pierre Finck from Bethesda Hospital refers to "dumdum" bullets, which are apparently bullets that explode on contact, so that even a "dumdum" can liquidate a target with any contact of any kind. They were repeatedly asked to deny that the JFK head wound was caused by a "dumdum" bullet. I believe these are also called "safety slugs" in some circles. It seems to me that the single bullet that penetrated Governor Connally, producing five wounds (as widely testified) was not an exploding bullet -- but the bullet which hit JFK in the head was one (and thus is evidence of at least two shooters). Regards, --Paul Trejo Hi Paul The label of "dum dum" is used profusely, yet the concept of an "exploding" bullet is almost universally misunderstood. First of all, a bullet that explodes on contact would be completely useless for a head shot. It might or might not fracture the skull, it would definitely give the victim a headache but real damage requires a bullet to enter a skull, via a neat little hole, and then come apart inside. A truly exploding bullet would require some kind of explosive charge inside the bullet and these are very rare; mostly because there are far simpler ways to make a bullet come apart and inflict maximum damage. The history of the dum dum bullet began, in the 1890's, at the British Dum Dum Arsenal in Dum Dum, India with a Captain Neville "Bertie" Clay, and the first dum dum bullet was made for the .303 British infantry rifle. I suppose it was considered naming the bullet after this officer but, a "clay bullet" would be a hard thing to sell, although a "Bertie bullet" might be equally difficult to peddle. From Wikipedia: "Soon after the introduction of smokeless powder to firearms, full metal jacket bullets were introduced to prevent lead fouling in the bore caused by the higher pressures and velocities when used with soft lead bullets.[14] However, it was soon noticed that such small caliber rounds were less effective at wounding or killing an enemy than the older large caliber soft lead bullets." The words "less effective" are quite the understatement, and the stopping power problems of the rounds mentioned here go way beyond the bullet having a smaller calibre and a full metal jacket. In the 1890's the bullet fired from the standard .303 British Mk. II cartridge was a long full metal jacket bullet with a round nose; possibly the most stable bullet design at closer ranges; both in the air and in a wound. When this bullet entered the abdominal or chest cavity, its full metal jacket prevented it from expanding. Because of its round nose, its front end weighed the same as its back end, and this prevented it from tumbling and causing greater damage. If it had a spire point instead of a round nose, this point would help to deviate the point and encourage it to tumble, but this was not the case. In short, the long round nosed FMJ bullet was the worst design you could imagine if you wanted to cause someone a lot of damage, and the bullets from a .303 Mk. II cartridge often went right through an enemy combatant, causing only minimal damage along a narrow wound track. If any of this sounds familiar, it is because the 6.5mm Carcano bullet was also a long narrow round nosed bullet with a full metal jacket; in fact, it was longer and narrower than the .303 Mk. II and even stabler in a wound. Arlen Specter's description of a 6.5mm Carcano bullet tumbling after passing through the muscle tissue of JFK's neck is one of the greatest exaggerations of all time. So, how did Capt. Clay make the dum dum bullet? It was rather simple, actually. He merely removed 1 mm of the bullet's copper alloy jacket at the tip of the nose, exposing the lead core beneath. In reality, Capt. Clay created the world's first expanding bullet, plus the world's first jacketed soft point bullet. Without the intact nose of the jacket, these bullets expanded rapidly in a wound, just like any hunting bullet, and it was no longer required to shoot indigenous tribesmen 6 or 7 times just to knock them down. At about the same time Capt. Clay was developing the simple dum dum, out of desperation, research was going on at the Woolwich Arsenal in Britain, addressing the same problem but with a slightly different approach. Instead of just removing the tip of the bullet jacket to expose the lead nose, they actually made a hole in the nose of the bullet that opened up down into the core of the bullet. Essentially, they made the world's first jacketed hollow point bullet and boy, did they ever work! Left, .303 British Mk. II dum dum bullet developed by Capt. Clay at Dum Dum Arsenal, India Right, .303 British Mk. V hollow point bullet developed at Woolwich Arsenal, Britain The hollow point bullet is a little more difficult to understand but still really very simple. These bullets will make a very small entry wound, even in a skull. Once into soft organ tissue and semi-liquid matter, the hollow point of the bullet fills with this matter creating, due to the velocity of the bullet, a tremendous hydraulic pressure within the hollow nose. As the core is only made of soft lead, the nose very quickly opens up from this pressure, sometimes tearing the bullet into several lethal fragments. However, the bullets that hit JFK (and possibly Connally) were something else altogether. From the autopsy it was revealed that x-rays of JFK's skull showed hundreds of "dust like" metal fragments. X-ray tech Jerrol Custer reported to the HSCA that the neck x-rays of JFK he recalled showed "many fragments" in the vicinity of cervical vertebrae C3/C4. As I stated, expanding hollow point bullets will, depending on their design, sometimes break into several fragments but they will not turn into dust. Lead is a very malleable metal, and the only thing that could turn to dust in a wound would be something that was extremely brittle, or a bullet that was made from compressed metal dust to begin with, such as a frangible bullet.