Robert Prudhomme

Bob, I have mentioned this before, and I think that it was Lt. Day of the DPD said that one could not tell if a rifle had been fired today, last week, or a month ago. What I have always argued is that by the time the rifle was found, fresh gunpowder would still have allowed for a "smell test". What are your thoughts on this?

Hi Terry

While I wouldn't call it the most accurate way of telling when the last time a rifle was shot, I certainly agree that the old "sniff test" can tell a person with a good nose (typically a non-smoker) if a rifle has been shot recently, or if a person has shot a rifle recently.

The smell of burnt gunpowder will not only linger in the barrel of a rifle, it will also permeate the clothing of the person shooting a rifle. Sometimes, hunters here will return from hunting, and when they walk into the coffee shop, you will get a definite whiff of gunpowder. As a quick glance at their vehicle often reveals no deer, some joker inevitably asks, "Target practicing or just missed?"

I tend to agree with Bob here.

I wonder if the wax cast that was made of the inside of the barrel has been checked for loose flakes of rust? Obviously, that assumes that the barrel hadn't been cleaned prior to the cast being made...

Hi Ian

I don't think I've ever heard or read about anyone ever gaining access to the sulphur cast made from the interior of C2766's barrel by the FBI. I would certainly like to see it myself, up close, for reasons that have nothing to do with whether the barrel was rusty or not.

However, it would have been quite a clumsy act on Frazier's part to have made a sulphur cast of a rusty barrel, and seal into evidence for all time the fact that C2766 was never fired on 22/11/63. Besides, when making a sulphur cast, one always oils the barrel lightly by placing gun oil onto a cleaning patch, and running this patch through the barrel with a cleaning rod. It simply goes against the nature of a gun owner to do this without cleaning the barrel first.

Frazier's WC testimony, regarding the condition of the interior of the barrel of C2766, is likely the most misunderstood piece of evidence in this entire case. Certain overly zealous researchers, in their haste to prove C2766 was never fired on 22/11/63 or any recent period preceding that date, have latched onto Frazier's testimony and twisted his words completely out of proportion.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

Here is a portion of that WC testimony:

"Mr. McCLOY - When you examined the rifle the first time, you said that it showed signs of some corrosion and wear?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY - Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good shape?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.

Mr. McCLOY - Was there metal fouling in the barrel?

Mr. FRAZIER - I did not examine it for that.

Mr. McCLOY - Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as you found it?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not an indication of the condition of the barrel, since if a barrel is allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean barrel.

Mr. McCLOY - Thank you."

This is the testimony that got everyone excited, and that has been used to "prove" the interior of C2766's barrel was rusted on 22/11/63 and that a bullet could not have passed through it on that day.

However, a careful examination of Frazier's testimony, and the consideration of the following points, will show clearly that Frazier said no such thing.

1. A worn and corroded barrel is not necessarily a rusty barrel. I have seen severely corroded and worn barrel interiors that are as shiny as the day the rifle was made, simply because someone has taken the time to clean the barrel.

2. As Frazier correctly points out, it is impossible to look at the interior of a barrel and determine if worn riflings are from wear due to a great number of shots fired through that barrel, or corrosion from improper storage and lack of cleaning and oiling.

3. Frazier's only reference to a rusty barrel is a hypothetical situation he puts forth to demonstrate how rust can wear a barrel as much as bullets fired through it. He merely points out that one bullet fired through a barrel will remove any accumulated rust.

As much as I have found errors in a lot of Frazier's other testimony, I agree completely with him on this matter. And, what he told McCloy has been grossly misinterpreted by certain JFK researchers.

Hi Bob,

Although I do know the difference between deep pitting and surface rust in a rifle's barrel, I'm confused now, of course, so let me just ask you this:

Based on your interpretation of Frazier's testimony, do you think the rifle was fired on, or shortly before, 11/22/63?

Or is it impossible to say?

Thanks,

--Tommy

I think it is impossible to say. Frazier was in possession of C2766 early on and, I believe, the only person to examine the interior of the barrel after the assassination. If the interior of the barrel had been rusty when he received the rifle, indicating it had not been fired for an extended period of time, all he had to do was either clean the barrel or fire a couple of bullets through it to remove this rust, and no one would know it had been rusty.

Remember this, as well. A rifle can have a severely eroded barrel interior, due either to corrosion from rusting, many bullets being fired through it or a combination of the two, such as a military rifle used extensively and under harsh climatic conditions, and still appear shiny if recently fired or cleaned. However, this same rifle can be left uncleaned in a damp location, and continue to corrode due to rust and to deposit a layer of rust on the inside (and outside) of the barrel. The rusting is enhanced because 1) there is no protective gun oil on the interior surface, as a responsible gun owner will apply after cleaning and 2) there is now a coating of burnt gunpowder residue on the interior of the barrel. While modern gunpowder does not create a corrosive residue when burned, it does leave a porous layer on the interior of the barrel that will attract and hold moisture.

Frazier's WC testimony, regarding the condition of the interior of the barrel of C2766, is likely the most misunderstood piece of evidence in this entire case. Certain overly zealous researchers, in their haste to prove C2766 was never fired on 22/11/63 or any recent period preceding that date, have latched onto Frazier's testimony and twisted his words completely out of proportion.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

Here is a portion of that WC testimony:

"Mr. McCLOY - When you examined the rifle the first time, you said that it showed signs of some corrosion and wear?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good shape?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.
Mr. McCLOY - Was there metal fouling in the barrel?
Mr. FRAZIER - I did not examine it for that.
Mr. McCLOY - Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as you found it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not an indication of the condition of the barrel, since if a barrel is allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean barrel.
Mr. McCLOY - Thank you."

This is the testimony that got everyone excited, and that has been used to "prove" the interior of C2766's barrel was rusted on 22/11/63 and that a bullet could not have passed through it on that day.

However, a careful examination of Frazier's testimony, and the consideration of the following points, will show clearly that Frazier said no such thing.

1. A worn and corroded barrel is not necessarily a rusty barrel. I have seen severely corroded and worn barrel interiors that are as shiny as the day the rifle was made, simply because someone has taken the time to clean the barrel.

2. As Frazier correctly points out, it is impossible to look at the interior of a barrel and determine if worn riflings are from wear due to a great number of shots fired through that barrel, or corrosion from improper storage and lack of cleaning and oiling.

3. Frazier's only reference to a rusty barrel is a hypothetical situation he puts forth to demonstrate how rust can wear a barrel as much as bullets fired through it. He merely points out that one bullet fired through a barrel will remove any accumulated rust.

As much as I have found errors in a lot of Frazier's other testimony, I agree completely with him on this matter. And, what he told McCloy has been grossly misinterpreted by certain JFK researchers.

About the only source regarding the condition of the rifle (C2766) would be the WC testimony of FBI SA Robert A. Frazier.

Was there anything in particular you were wondering about?

A fragment from the nose of a frangible bullet either entering low in the back of the skull, or glancing off the base of the rear of the skull and impacting the vertebrae at C3/C4, could have made the wound in the throat. If it had expended all of its energy by the time it exited the throat, it may not have gone through the shirt collar.

Where did it go? I'd check JFK's briefs.

Commission Exhibit No. 392 (Appendix VIII, Warren Commission Report)

The President arrived in the Emergency Room at exactly 12:43 p. m. in his limousine. He was in the back seat, Gov. Connally was in the front seat of the same car, Gov. Connally was brought out first and was put in room two. President was brought out next and put in room one. Dr. Clark pronounced the President dead at 1 p. m. exactly. All of the President's belongings except his watch were given to the Secret Service. His watch was given to Mr. O. P. Wright. He left the Emergency Room, the President, at about 2 p.m. in an O'Neal ambulance. He was put in a bronze colored plastic casket after being wrapped in a blanket and was taken out of the hospital. He was removed from the hospital. The Gov. was taken from the Emergency Room to the Operating Room.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sibert and O'Neill FBI Report:

"Arrangements were made for the performance of the autopsy by the U.S. Navy and Secret Service.

The President’s body was removed from the casket in which it had been transported and was placed on the autopsy table, at which time the complete body was wrapped in a sheet and the head area contained an additional wrapping which was saturated with blood. Following the removal of the wrapping, it was ascertained that the President’s clothing had been removed and it was also apparent that a tracheotomy had been performed, as well as surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull. All personnel with the exception of medical officers needed in the taking of photographs and X–Rays were requested to leave the autopsy room and remain in an adjacent room."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was he wrapped in a sheet or a blanket?

deleted

Kudos for giving it some actual thought, Bob.

Why I don't think this is a reference to Baker. See the bits highlighted: "and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later.

Baker had no time for questioning anyone at the front door - and nor would he have asked anyone to step aside so he could get to him later.

No. The cop here is Welcome Barnett. The questions asked would be name and address - at which time Oswald has flashed his library card upside down causing Barnett to transcribe it as "Harvey Lee Oswald" with the Elsbeth address - the only ID Lee had with that address on it.

As you can see, looking at this upside down, you get "Harvey Lee Oswald" - same as Revill's list.

Hi Greg

When did Officer Welcome Barnett (bet he had to fight his way through school with a name like that - small wonder he became a cop) enter the TSBD? I'm a bit puzzled to notice that Holmes testified Oswald "told the officers", indicating the cop Oswald encountered was part of a group of cops.

Why would Baker have no time to question anyone at the front door?

If Truly vouched for Oswald at the front door, who went up the stairs with Baker?

P.S.

You do realize, I hope, that if Oswald did not arrive at the front door until the later group of cops entered, this makes it possible for Oswald to have been in the 2nd floor lunch room as Baker and Truly went by. The only fly in the ointment, though, is Truly vouching for Oswald when confronted by Welcome Barnett.

No encounter with a cop on the fist floor? Oswald said there was, and a number of newspaper accounts agreed, citing A COP...

Greg,

I just read the newspaper account of the first-floor cop-Oswald encounter, over on the Oswald Leaving TSBD thread. But I don't recall any report of Oswald saying the encounter with a cop occurred on the first floor. Can you quote that, or tell me where to find it?

From Holmes' testimony. Holmes was the only interrogator in that room not trained in the Reid Interrogation Technique. Because of that, he is the most trust-worthy as far as the alibi goes.

He said, "I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about."

And he wouldn't tell what happened then.

If we think about it a while, this testimony, given by Holmes, actually makes quite a bit of sense.

How many people did Baker run into when he went into the TSBD? Two by the elevators, more by the front door, possibly more on the upper floors (I'm sure he would have seen the ladies on the 4th floor, and possibly heard Williams, Norman and Jarman on the 5th floor).

Did Baker stick his revolver into the stomachs of anyone beside Oswald? Nope, at least not anyone Baker and Truly told us about. What was so special about Oswald, on the 2nd floor, that made Baker detain him at gun point, until he was identified by Truly as a TSBD employee?

OTOH, if Holmes is speaking the truth, what is the only thing Oswald was doing at the front door that not one other TSBD employee was doing?

Give up?

Simple. Oswald was leaving the building, and THAT simple act would be the only thing that would make Baker want to detain him.

And speaking of the head wound. Ashton's position is that there was NO shot from the front, so that includes the headshot.

Dawn

Ashton,

Is Dawn reading you correctly vis a vis her "NO shot from the front" interpretation of your view?

Charles, I am very chary of addressing this at all in this thread because it potentially could open the door to all manner of off-topic garbage. I am going to address it once to answer you briefly because I believe you're asking in good faith, but strictly speaking the question is not at all germane to this thread or to the very clear and inarguable evidence regarding the throat wound.

It also is counterproductive to the entire reason I have focused narrowly on the throat wound in starting this thread, which is embodied in the following definition:

ANALYSIS: the separating of any material or abstract entity into its constituent elements; the separation of an intellectual or material whole into its constituent parts for individual study.

The throat wound is one, and only one, constituent part of a case that has been made by various parties for a front shot or shots. I have neither desire nor intention to leap from the specific case of the throat wound to a general supposition about the presence or absence of a sniper ever having been in some location forward of the motorcade.

So in answer I'll say only this:

1. Dawn did not quote me; she assayed to speak for me, and despite her many sterling qualities, speaking for me is not one of them.

2. I have discussed the head shot vis a vis the likelihood of a front shot in other threads in this forum where the discussion was appropriate, including but not limited to this message et seq. in the thread "Who were the shooters?, as well as in this message et seq. in the thread "The Head Wound Explained, and even in a thread I started called "The Back Wound Considered, A Window of Opportunity". If anyone wants to discuss either the head shot or the back shot with me, I'll be happy to take such discussions further in those threads.

3. In another message in the thread "Who were the shooters, I provided a graphic and considerable evidence and discussion going to the question of the likelihood of any shooter ever having been behind the picket fence or in that vicinity. I also graphically explored, by request, many other proposed locations for an outdoor shooter in that thread, and found them all wanting in material ways. But my tests and views on that are memorialized in that thread and need no further discussion here.

4. I've said it before and I'll say it again in yet other terms: It seems highly unlikely to me (not to say bunghole-plug dumb) that sophisticated, highly-trained intelligence agents would plot for months, if not years, to set up an assassination of the President of the United States, to set up a Communist patsy to take the fall for it, to set up the location for the patsy behind and above the target at the time of the shooting—and then have the real sniper(s) shoot from in front of the target. Could one possibly conceive of anything more stupid in terms of a sophisticated frame-up of Oswald?

I hope that answers your question, and now I hope that people responsibly will restrict discussion in this thread to discussion of matters related to the throat wound, which I believe deserves a great deal of attention all by itself. If the wound in John F. Kennedy's throat was not caused by a bullet or fragment, but by another device, it truly is proof beyond any doubt whatsoever that Lee Harvey Oswald was not a "lone nut assassin," and that there was, in fact, a sophisticated and far-reaching conspiracy to murder.

Ashton

Using this exact logic, wouldn't the agent at Parkland Hospital have inserted the large bore needle into the back of JFK's neck, if it was intended for all of the shots to have come from the rear?

In a word: No. Assuming, arguendo, that a large-bore needle was used to deliver the coup de grâce, it was applied in the exact location where an intentionally butchered tracheotomy would render the exact nature of the wound inscrutable. I actually already dealt with this in the second post in this thread: Out of 12 Parkland Hospital personnel who testified under oath about the throat wound—10 doctors and 2 nurses—9 were ambiguous about or flat out didn't know whether the wound was a bullet entrance wound or a bullet exit wound.

There were only six who said they saw the would prior to the throat butchery by Dr. Perry. Of the six actual eyewitnesses, half said it could have been either an entrance or an exit wound, one said he thought it was an exit wound, and two people in the entire world who claim they saw the wound—including the ambivalent Jones—said they thought it was a bullet entrance wound.

Ashton Gray

I have to take issue with what you refer to as an "intentionally butchered tracheotomy", plus your assumption the tracheotomy would "render the exact nature of the wound inscrutable".

If Perry had been performing a tracheotomy because of a blockage or injury higher up in the trachea, his incision likely would have been much smaller. However, in this case, there were two other factors involved.

1) JFK had a bullet wound in the right side of his trachea. While making the tracheotomy incision, Perry elected to quickly extend the length of this incision to the right, in order to allow him to explore that part of the mediastinum behind the right side of JFK's trachea.

2) JFK's trachea was deviated to the left, as a result of a tension pneumothorax in his right pleural cavity, evidenced by air bubbles in the mediastinum. Upon observing these signs, Perry requested the insertion of bi-lateral chest tubes to relieve one obvious and one potential pneumothorax. It was necessary to extend the tracheotomy incision much further than normal to the left; so far, in fact, Perry describes the necessity of severing the left strap muscle in order to reach the trachea beneath it.

While the trachea was deviated to the left during the tracheotomy procedure, Perry knew that, once the chest tube was inserted in the right pleural cavity and connected to sealed water drainage, the pneumothorax in the right pleural cavity would be relieved, and the trachea would return to its normal mid line position. This, plus the need to explore the wounded area behind the right side of the trachea, made it necessary for Perry to also extend the incision much further to the right as well.

So, instead of an "intentionally butchered tracheotomy", as you claim, Perry made a very neat tracheotomy incision that was, by necessity, somewhat larger than normal, for the above listed reasons. The conspirators would not want Perry discussing the possibility of a pneumothorax in the right lung, as this would reveal the fact that a bullet had entered JFK's right lung and stayed there, as there was no exit wound in his chest. With a bullet staying in his lung, the throat wound was now either 1) an entrance wound or 2) the result of a bullet that grazed the rear base of his skull.

As to the tracheotomy incision making the "exact nature of the wound inscrutable", nothing could be further from the truth.

As this closeup of the autopsy photo shows, there is no difficulty at all in seeing, especially on the bottom edge of the incision, the semi-circular outlines of the bullet wound in JFK's throat. If Perry meant to obliterate and hide this wound, don't you think he would have been more secretive about it?

From Appendix VIII of the Warren Commission Report (the medical reports):

"At the time of initial examination, the pt. was noted as non-responsive. The eyes were deviated and the pupils were dilated. A considerable quantity of blood was noted on the patient, the carriage and the floor. A small wound was noted in the midline of the neck, in the lower third anteriorly. It was exuding blood slowly. A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted, exposing severely lacerated brain. Brain tissue was noted in the blood at the head of the carriage.

Pulse or heartbeat were not detectable but slow spasmodic respiration was noted. An endotracheal tube was in place and respiration was being assisted. An intravenous infusion was being placed in the leg.

At this point I noted that respiration was ineffective and while additional venisections were done to administer fluids and blood, a tracheostomy was effected. A right lateral injury to the trachea was noted. The tracheostomy tube was put in place and the cuff inflated and respiration assisted. Closed chest cardiac massage was instituted after placement of sealed drainage chest tubes, but without benefit. Electrocardiographic evaluation revealed that no detectable electrical activity existed in the heart. Resuscitation attempts were abandoned after the team of physicians determined that the patient had expired.

Malcolm O. Perry, M.D.

1630 hr 22 Nov 1963"

Statement of Nina Rhodes-Hughews. Witness to shooting of RFK.

"Sirhan Sirham was to my left and Senator Kennedy was to my right, and I was in the middle, and as I ran towards him, I started to hear shots, and I turned right [?] to Sirhan Sirhan who was standing on a metal steam cable and Reefer[sp?] Johnson and Rosie Grew [sp?] ran to subdue him but there will still shots coming from my right and back of the Senator, I was about six to seven back of him, and it sounded like between ten and fourteen,well, twelve and fourteen shots”

Above starts at 1.22

Just to avoid confusion, something should be pointed out here. In the above video, Nina Rhodes-Hughes states that, while she told the FBI she had heard 14 shots, her FBI statement states she only heard 8 shots.

While this might make some readers think the FBI was admitting to two shooters, I would like to point out Sirhan Sirhan was not shooting a typical six shot revolver. The revolver he was shooting was a .22 LR calibre revolver that held eight rounds.

"Even if he did alter anything, that is a perfectly legitimate practice as long as it is altered to the truth."

??????????

Holy sh*t, Doug! Excuse my language but, lesser words simply don't come to mind.

I'm willing to bet the interrogation tape, featuring Hernandez and Serrano, was never meant to have survived.

I wonder how many Dealey Plaza witnesses received a similar going over, prior to giving their statements?

RP: I almost hate to bring this up, as you folks are having so much fun but, did you know that the weapon depicted in the 36" ad and the 40" ad is the same rifle, and that it is neither a carbine or a short rifle?

Notice, too, that a "turned down bolt" is advertised in both, yet both rifles show a straight bolt handle.

I was going to say this later after I looked it up, but Bob didn't have to look it up..

Nice one Bob.

And BTW, I figured Lance would start calling us crazy, sooner rather than later.

Thanks, Jim. I was hoping someone would express interest in exactly what model of Carcano is pictured in the ads. It's really quite an interesting story.

"Robert Prudhomme, on 11 Jan 2016 - 1:23 PM, said:

I almost hate to bring this up, as you folks are having so much fun but, did you know that the weapon depicted in the 36" ad and the 40" ad is the same rifle, and that it is neither a carbine or a short rifle?

Notice, too, that a "turned down bolt" is advertised in both, yet both rifles show a straight bolt handle.

Dear Robert,

Thanks for pointing that out.

So Kleins would have been even more justified, at least in their own minds, in sending a customer the 40.2" model instead of the 36" model, especially if they were out of the 36" ones.

--Tommy

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps, then, you would be so good as to explain this response to my post and, if it was not related to my post, just how you arrived at this conclusion.

No, I did not say that at all, and I sincerely wish you would lose this annoying habit you have of reading more into what people say than what is there.

I was merely pointing out that the rifle shown in the ad is neither a carbine nor a short rifle, and that it has a straight bolt handle.

I almost hate to bring this up, as you folks are having so much fun but, did you know that the weapon depicted in the 36" ad and the 40" ad is the same rifle, and that it is neither a carbine or a short rifle?

Notice, too, that a "turned down bolt" is advertised in both, yet both rifles show a straight bolt handle.

Now that there are two research threads up, and we are allowed to reply to them, I am going to make a commitment right from the start, and if I stray from it, I expect to be taken to task for straying.

James has very noble expectations for these threads, and I respect him for that. While I am not immune from mudslinging and infighting on other threads, I hereby pledge to be always on my best behaviour on the new research threads, and to discuss all topics in as gentlemanly a fashion as a retired West Coast logger is capable of.

In respect of the vision James has for these threads, would it be asking too much for my fellow members to also make a commitment to excellence?

LOL okay.

Hello James

As you have stated, we will be required to defend our positions on these Research Threads. At the moment, though, I see it is not possible to reply to my research thread. Is this a temporary situation?

Bob

Do you think that the tension pneumothorax was caused entirely by damage to the top of the lung from the throat entry shot or damage from the back entry shot?

The other notable thing Lipsey observed was that the autopsy doctors seem to have decided the bullet, or a part of it, that entered near the "external occipital protuberance" had made the wound in the throat as it exited.

Jerrol Custer...told the HSCA that the x-ray he recalled seeing of JFK's neck showed "many fragments" in the vicinity of cervical vertebrae C3/C4...would align quite well with the path of a bullet deflecting off of the EOP.

Could a frangible bullet have come apart at C3/C4, and a particle of it have continued on to exit JFK's throat?

A fragment exiting the throat could explain the small size (even for an entry shot) of this wound, but I'm still on the fence regarding an EOP entrance. Could a shot from the front enter the throat and cause the damage at C3/C4? Would this path pierce the pleura and/or lung? If not, then a back shot would be required to cause the tension pneumothorax which I am convinced did exist.

Do you think your EOP entrance/throat exit is the most likely explanation for the 'throat wound'?

Tom

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

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

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

Hi Tom

Thanks for placing things in perspective. Do you know if the date at the end of the autopsy report, 06/12/63, is the date Humes finished the autopsy report? The reason I ask is this is only two weeks after the assassination, and it seems like the ground work is already being laid for the SBT.

Bob,

Great job on this thread!

IMO December 6, 1963 is the date that Stover and Galloway signed Humes completed report.

Do you think that the tension pneumothorax was caused entirely by damage to the top of the lung from the throat entry shot or damage from the back entry shot?

Thanks for any thoughts,

Tom

I have a slightly different perspective of JFK's bullet wounds than everyone else, it seems.

I carefully read Lt. Richard Lipsey's deposition to the HSCA in which he described his observations of the autopsy of JFK, and the comments of Humes, Finck and Boswell. One of the things he described, which also inspired me to seek evidence of a pneumothorax, was that the doctors spent a great part of the autopsy looking for a bullet that entered JFK's back and ranged downwards, due to the angle of the shot, into his chest or abdomen. Of course, no bullet was ever found.

The other notable thing Lipsey observed was that the autopsy doctors seem to have decided the bullet, or a part of it, that entered near the "external occipital protuberance" had made the wound in the throat as it exited. If you look at this x-ray below, you can see how low in the base of the skull the EOP is. If we consider this, plus the slight lean forward at z313, plus the steep angle of the shot from the 6th floor, it is conceivable that a part of this bullet (or even the entire bullet) merely grazed the base of JFK's skull, and continued on to strike his cervical vertebrae.

External occipital protuberance marked with arrow

Also interviewed by the HSCA was Jerrol Custer, the x-ray technician who took all of the x-rays at JFK's autopsy. Custer told the HSCA that the x-ray he recalled seeing of JFK's neck showed "many fragments" in the vicinity of cervical vertebrae C3/C4. Looking at the x-ray above, C3/C4 would align quite well with the path of a bullet deflecting off of the EOP.

Could a frangible bullet have come apart at C3/C4, and a particle of it have continued on to exit JFK's throat?

Robert,

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

Xray taken before the autopsy:-

I have added lines to show the clear slope of the neck. Clearly there has been damage to the spine. This image and close up taken around 8:30pm and after the organs have been removed makes clear something has been damaged. the position of the damage is around C7.

The question is this. Did a bullet enter through the throat hit and damage the spine around C7 and land on the lung thereby creating the damage to the lung? Something caused that damage to the spine. The kind of damage needs explaining. And the only explanation I have is that the spine was damaged by a bullet entering through the throat. I wonder whether this same bullet did not also cause the damage to the lung.

"Osteoporosis is more common among people with Addison's disease compared to healthy individuals because of the medical management with long-term steroid replacement therapy. Steroids have several effects on bones including increasing osteoclastic activity, decreasing osteoblastic formation, and decreasing the absorption of calcium in the intestines."

http://www.physio-pedia.com/Addison's_Disease

Addison's disease also explains why JFK always looked so well tanned.

"President John F. Kennedy is the most widely known person who was believed to have suffered from Addison's disease, easily noting the bronze coloring of his skin in photographs. Prior to diagnosis, he was so ill that he collapsed during his final campaign event for the House of Representatives, being described as "sweating heavily and his skin being discolored." When he was properly diagnosed, doctors gave him the prognosis of no more than a year to live.

Some of the clinical signs and symptoms of Addison’s disease include:

• Darkened pigmentation of the skin (especially of the mouth and scars), due to increased secretion of melanin-secreting hormone (MSH) corresponding with increased secretion of ACTH, which is released to try to stimulate the work of the adrenal glands."

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