Robert Prudhomme

Further evidence of post WWII production of 6.5mm Carcano ammunition can be seen on the en bloc clip purportedly found in C2766. On its base is stamped "953", meaning a manufacture date of 1953.

Robert:

One quick question for you; if frangible ammunition, particularly Carcano M37 Magistri was used as you theorize, and this theory is IMO not without merit, from where was this particular and specific ammunition obtained? Also, why not give the member of the IAA Forum credit for his bullet cut-away diagrams that you are using.

Gary

Hi Gary

You realize, of course, it is entirely theoretical on my part that 6.5mm Carcano M37 Magistri frangible range bullets were used in the assassination. That being said, I have been able to verify that standard 6.5mm Carcano ball ammunition was being made by the Italian government, right up until the early 1970's. It seems the Carcano rifles were still being used by the Italian correctional system until that late date. Also, as the M91/41 Carcano long rifle was a very accurate weapon, the Italian rifle team was still shooting it in international competitions right into the late 1960's. While it would make sense they would be manufacturing the frangible range bullet, for indoor target shooting, as well as the standard ball ammunition, I have been unable to make a real verification that any frangible range ammunition was made following WWII. This, of course, presents the very real possibility the cartridges loaded with frangible bullets would be twenty years old and, with the problems experienced with deteriorated Italian ammunition, quite unreliable by 1963. However, this problem could easily be overcome by pulling the frangible bullets from the Italian cartridges, and reloading them into new cartridges, such as the American made Western Cartridge Co. cartridges. At this point, the gunpowder in each cartridge could be precisely measured (more precisely than the factory would have) to guarantee each cartridge had an equal portion of gunpowder, thus guaranteeing greater accuracy. This last is, of course, one of the reasons why hand loaded ammunition will shoot much more accurately than "factory ammo".

P.S.

You're right, I should be giving credit where credit is due. However, I obtained that photo from a Google search, and did not actually visit the IAA Forum to retrieve it. Fascinating ammo though, eh? The cartridge next to the frangible cartridge is a Carcano armour piercing round, and beside that are three "guard" cartridges containing a tube loaded with individual balls, This tube, much like a bullet jacket, was extremely thin and often slotted lengthwise. Upon leaving the muzzle, this tube would tear apart, leaving the balls to fly through the air like buckshot from a shotgun. Great crowd control.

Well, as you pointed out, there are some definite problems with my theory, such as the angle from EOP to C3/C4 to throat being a bit on the steep side, and Jenkins claim that he could see the probe pushing up against the pleura, but not actually finding a path through it.

I've always had trouble with Jenkins' stating he saw a probe pushing the pleural lining and how he viewed this from the inside of the empty pleural cavity. In his HSCA interview with Andy Purdy, he describes it as an 8 inch metal probe, and that 2-4 inches of this probe was inserted into the back wound. It is my belief that there is simply not 2-4 inches of tissue, between the skin and the pleural lining, and this is confirmed by Jenkins telling Purdy that the only way this probe could be inserted was almost straight downward or, as he put it, at a "...fairly drastic angle downward so as not to enter the cavity."

Considering the overlying muscles of the back and the intercostal muscles between the ribs together do not amount to any great thickness, my question is, why were they attempting to probe this wound with a metal probe? A basic knowledge of human anatomy is enough to tell us that an entrance wound between the vertebrae and the shoulder blade, at the level of T3, is directly over the top of the right lung, and does not have to travel through very much flesh to get to it.

And why would the probe be forced straight down, likely parallel to the rib cage? Did someone think JFK was shot from a helicopter? This, combined with the very shallow depth of the tissue they were probing (before they would have put the probe into the pleural cavity), tells me something very odd was going on here.

This is slightly off topic but, does anyone know what became of the section of the rear of JFK's head that Clint Hill observed lying on the back seat of the limo?

P.S.

Interesting point you made, Sandy, about the lower quality of the portable x-ray machines. Would this be compounded by the fact the portable x-ray machine they used might have been a late 50's (or older) model? That would certainly explain the oddity of slicing up all of the organs in their search for a bullet. Call me stupid but, why not just take the organs to the stationary x-ray unit and get a better look?

Going over the HSCA interviews with Lt. Lipsey (aide to Maj. General Wehle and present at the autopsy) and Jerrol Custer (x-ray technician at Bethesda that night), I have come up with another theory that might explain all of JFK's wounds. Unfortunately, my theory requires there to have been at least six shots fired, and I am not sure if even the use of suppressors on three of those shots could have made it sound as if there were only three shots. Also, this only accounts for the wounding of three people (JFK, Connally and Tague) and does not account for the crack (hole) in the windshield or the dented frame above the windshield.

First, I should state that I believe all of the evidence points to JFK being shot twice in the head, with one bullet entering in the right (or possibly left - that theory is far from dead) temple and one bullet entering low and to the right on the rear of JFK's head. I believe the back of the head was the first bullet to enter, and that the large wound created by the temple shot partially obliterated the rear entrance wound in the skull. However, I shall be calling into question the true location of the rear head wound, as Lt. Lipsey tells some very interesting things about this wound and the throat wound to the HSCA.

In order to make this theory work, the majority of bullets, excluding the one from the front, had to originate from behind and fairly high up. All bullets fired had to be frangible bullets, although likely of a fairly primitive construction strongly resembling frangible range bullets (M37 Magistri) made for the 6.5mm Carcano.

To begin, it is my theory that a frangible bullet hit JFK's back at about the level of T3, entered the top of his right lung and disintegrated. While the bullet would have disintegrated totally into powder, thus stymieing any search for bullet fragments, the jacket itself would not have disintegrated, and the fact they found no jacket fragments has always bothered me.

A frangible bullet, likely the last shot, also entered JFK's right temple, although there is also a lot of information pointing to the fact this bullet entered the left temple. Either way, the large blowout in the rear of JFK's head was created by this shot. While it may not seem possible for a shot to the right temple to cause a blowout in the right rear of the skull, my experience hunting deer with hollow point bullets has demonstrated that the large hydraulic pressure created by such a bullet will cause the skull to blow out in unexpected places. For example, a shot entering the side of the head that one would expect to exit the opposite side of the head actually causes the top of the head to blow off. An exit wound also does not mean an intact bullet actually exits from that sight. In fact, in the case of a frangible bullet, I would be surprised if any part of the bullet exited through an "exit" wound.

Now, the throat wound and the bullet that entered the rear of JFK's skull. The throat wound, as we all know, has been the most difficult to explain. I will present a theory that attempts to explain what occurred with the throat wound.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that a bullet struck the rear of JFK's head and entered just to the right of the External Occipital Protuberance, something very obvious comes to light, as can be seen in this x-ray:

External Occipital Protuberance (EOP) designated by arrow.

X-ray showing location of cervical vertebrae, EOP and throat.

Note how low in the rear of the skull the EOP is, and how the surface of the skull is actually sloping inwards at this point. I have always assumed the bullet entering just to the right of the EOP would have made a clean entrance wound and, if it broke up, would have remained inside of JFK's skull. However, seeing the location of this entrance wound on an x-ray, and considering the distinct possibility many of the shots came from high up on a building to the rear of the limo, I am not so sure the entire bullet remained inside JFK's skull any more.

Here are some of the clues I have been contemplating; most of which emerged with the release to the public of HSCA interviews in the 1990's.

In Lt. Lipsey's interview, he related that most of the time spent in the autopsy he observed was spent in trying to locate the bullet that entered JFK's back. As the autopsists were quite convinced the shots from behind were all from high up, it was believed this bullet may have ranged downwards in JFK's torso. However, Lipsey also goes into some detail describing a bullet that entered the lower rear of JFK's head. While never really pinpointing the exact location of this entrance wound, Lipsey finally relays that it would be about where the rear hairline meets the neck, which is considerably lower than the EOP. Lipsey then states that the autopsists were quite convinced that, because of the steep angle the bullet was travelling at, this bullet, or a fragment of it, continued on and exited the right side of JFK's throat. I believe, looking at the x-rays above, this may be a distinct possibility.

Jerrol Custer was the x-ray technician on duty at Bethesda the night of JFK's autopsy. He, too, was interviewed by the HSCA, and he made one observation that has bothered me since I first read it. In his interview, he stated the x-rays purported to be of JFK's neck were not the ones he remembered seeing. The ones he recalled showed many metallic fragments in the vicinity of cervical vertebrae C3/C4. Looking again at the x-rays above, we can see the location of C3/C4 is directly in line with a bullet path originating at the EOP and exiting at the throat, just below the Adam's apple.

Once again, this would require that a frangible bullet had been used in this shot, as I have no doubt a full metal jacket (FMJ) bullet would have easily passed through his neck (including the vertebrae) without leaving fragments behind. I also believe the design of this frangible bullet would have been somewhat primitive, as compared to modern frangible bullets, and would not have been 100% powdered lead inside the jacket. Rather, it might have resembled the 6.5mm Carcano M37 "Magistri" frangible range bullet, pictured below:

6.5mm Carcano M37 Magistri frangible range bullet on right.

As the cutaway above shows, this bullet was of an odd construction. Inside the copper alloy, two-piece jacket, there was sand in the base of the bullet, powdered lead above the sand and, above that in the nose of the bullet, was a solid pellet made from lead or "maillechort". Was this pellet what made the throat wound, described as being from 3-8 mm in diameter by Parkland surgeons, while the powdered lead, sand and bullet jacket were deposited on bone at C3/C4?

The only fly in the ointment here comes, once again, from another HSCA interview. Thomas Robinson, one of the enbalmers from Gawlers Funeral Home who prepared JFK's body following the autopsy, reported that, as viewed from inside JFK's empty skull, every bone in JFK's face appeared to be broken. While this statement hardly seems to be supported by the "stare of death" photos of JFK, it must still be taken into consideration.

From my experience hunting, it seems unusual that a shot, entering the right temple and causing a blowout in the right rear of the skull, could cause such extensive breakage of bones in JFK's face, although I may be underestimating the explosive force of the bullet used.

One explanation may be that the EOP wound was not as neat as described in the autopsy and, considering the oblique angle it struck the rear base of the skull, the frangible bullet might have broken up penetrating the skull and sent part of the bullet into the skull, and part on its way to C3/C4.

Another explanation may be that the bullet entered the skull at the EOP, disintegrated shortly after entry, and parts of it either exited the base of the skull or exited through the "foramen magnum", the large opening at the base of the skull through which the spinal cord enters the cranial cavity.

Unfortunately, these last two possibilities place the wound slightly higher than the hair line wound, and do not line up anywhere near as nicely with C3/C4 and the throat wound.

Robert,

As I read your theory, I kept waiting for the part where you tell us what happened to the bullet to the back. That part never came. So I re-read your theory and saw the following paragraph of yours:

In Lt. Lipsey's interview, he related that most of the time spent in the autopsy he observed was spent in trying to locate the bullet that entered JFK's back. As the autopsists were quite convinced the shots from behind were all from high up, it was believed this bullet may have ranged downwards in JFK's torso. However, Lipsey also goes into some detail describing a bullet that entered the lower rear of JFK's head. While never really pinpointing the exact location of this entrance wound, Lipsey finally relays that it would be about where the rear hairline meets the neck, which is considerably lower than the EOP. Lipsey then states that the autopsists were quite convinced that, because of the steep angle the bullet was travelling at, this bullet, or a fragment of it, continued on and exited the right side of JFK's throat. I believe, looking at the x-rays above, this may be a distinct possibility.

Is this paragraph the place where you're telling us what happened to the bullet to the back? That is, as part of your theory, are you saying that the fragments from the bullet to the back "ranged downwards in JFK's torso," and some fragments from the EOP bullet went down to T3/T4? (BTW, I don't know if I can refer to frangible pieces/powder as fragments. But you know what I mean.)

If so, that strikes me as odd. That fragments from one bullet (EOP) end up "replacing" fragments I expect to see (at T3/T4) from a different bullet (T3). (I hope you know what I mean by that.) Not impossible... just a bit of a twist.

If not so, please let me know where I went wrong... what happened to the bullet to the back.

Perhaps you should take the time to re-read my post. I was proposing that part of the bullet entering at a downward angle at the EOP (external occipital protuberance) might have impacted at C3/C4 (cervical vertebrae or neck), not T3/T4 (thoracic or upper back vertebrae).

What I am proposing is what Lipsey described; a frangible bullet entering just inside the hair line at the back of the head and part or all of it impacting the C3/C4 cervical or neck vertebrae and a small part of it continuing on and exiting the throat. For the moment, I am ignoring the back wound, aside from saying it was at T3 and the bullet entered the top of the right lung.

No thanks!

Going over the HSCA interviews with Lt. Lipsey (aide to Maj. General Wehle and present at the autopsy) and Jerrol Custer (x-ray technician at Bethesda that night), I have come up with another theory that might explain all of JFK's wounds. Unfortunately, my theory requires there to have been at least six shots fired, and I am not sure if even the use of suppressors on three of those shots could have made it sound as if there were only three shots. Also, this only accounts for the wounding of three people (JFK, Connally and Tague) and does not account for the crack (hole) in the windshield or the dented frame above the windshield.

First, I should state that I believe all of the evidence points to JFK being shot twice in the head, with one bullet entering in the right (or possibly left - that theory is far from dead) temple and one bullet entering low and to the right on the rear of JFK's head. I believe the back of the head was the first bullet to enter, and that the large wound created by the temple shot partially obliterated the rear entrance wound in the skull. However, I shall be calling into question the true location of the rear head wound, as Lt. Lipsey tells some very interesting things about this wound and the throat wound to the HSCA.

In order to make this theory work, the majority of bullets, excluding the one from the front, had to originate from behind and fairly high up. All bullets fired had to be frangible bullets, although likely of a fairly primitive construction strongly resembling frangible range bullets (M37 Magistri) made for the 6.5mm Carcano.

To begin, it is my theory that a frangible bullet hit JFK's back at about the level of T3, entered the top of his right lung and disintegrated. While the bullet would have disintegrated totally into powder, thus stymieing any search for bullet fragments, the jacket itself would not have disintegrated, and the fact they found no jacket fragments has always bothered me.

A frangible bullet, likely the last shot, also entered JFK's right temple, although there is also a lot of information pointing to the fact this bullet entered the left temple. Either way, the large blowout in the rear of JFK's head was created by this shot. While it may not seem possible for a shot to the right temple to cause a blowout in the right rear of the skull, my experience hunting deer with hollow point bullets has demonstrated that the large hydraulic pressure created by such a bullet will cause the skull to blow out in unexpected places. For example, a shot entering the side of the head that one would expect to exit the opposite side of the head actually causes the top of the head to blow off. An exit wound also does not mean an intact bullet actually exits from that sight. In fact, in the case of a frangible bullet, I would be surprised if any part of the bullet exited through an "exit" wound.

Now, the throat wound and the bullet that entered the rear of JFK's skull. The throat wound, as we all know, has been the most difficult to explain. I will present a theory that attempts to explain what occurred with the throat wound.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that a bullet struck the rear of JFK's head and entered just to the right of the External Occipital Protuberance, something very obvious comes to light, as can be seen in this x-ray:

External Occipital Protuberance (EOP) designated by arrow.

X-ray showing location of cervical vertebrae, EOP and throat.

Note how low in the rear of the skull the EOP is, and how the surface of the skull is actually sloping inwards at this point. I have always assumed the bullet entering just to the right of the EOP would have made a clean entrance wound and, if it broke up, would have remained inside of JFK's skull. However, seeing the location of this entrance wound on an x-ray, and considering the distinct possibility many of the shots came from high up on a building to the rear of the limo, I am not so sure the entire bullet remained inside JFK's skull any more.

Here are some of the clues I have been contemplating; most of which emerged with the release to the public of HSCA interviews in the 1990's.

In Lt. Lipsey's interview, he related that most of the time spent in the autopsy he observed was spent in trying to locate the bullet that entered JFK's back. As the autopsists were quite convinced the shots from behind were all from high up, it was believed this bullet may have ranged downwards in JFK's torso. However, Lipsey also goes into some detail describing a bullet that entered the lower rear of JFK's head. While never really pinpointing the exact location of this entrance wound, Lipsey finally relays that it would be about where the rear hairline meets the neck, which is considerably lower than the EOP. Lipsey then states that the autopsists were quite convinced that, because of the steep angle the bullet was travelling at, this bullet, or a fragment of it, continued on and exited the right side of JFK's throat. I believe, looking at the x-rays above, this may be a distinct possibility.

Jerrol Custer was the x-ray technician on duty at Bethesda the night of JFK's autopsy. He, too, was interviewed by the HSCA, and he made one observation that has bothered me since I first read it. In his interview, he stated the x-rays purported to be of JFK's neck were not the ones he remembered seeing. The ones he recalled showed many metallic fragments in the vicinity of cervical vertebrae C3/C4. Looking again at the x-rays above, we can see the location of C3/C4 is directly in line with a bullet path originating at the EOP and exiting at the throat, just below the Adam's apple.

Once again, this would require that a frangible bullet had been used in this shot, as I have no doubt a full metal jacket (FMJ) bullet would have easily passed through his neck (including the vertebrae) without leaving fragments behind. I also believe the design of this frangible bullet would have been somewhat primitive, as compared to modern frangible bullets, and would not have been 100% powdered lead inside the jacket. Rather, it might have resembled the 6.5mm Carcano M37 "Magistri" frangible range bullet, pictured below:

6.5mm Carcano M37 Magistri frangible range bullet on right.

As the cutaway above shows, this bullet was of an odd construction. Inside the copper alloy, two-piece jacket, there was sand in the base of the bullet, powdered lead above the sand and, above that in the nose of the bullet, was a solid pellet made from lead or "maillechort". Was this pellet what made the throat wound, described as being from 3-8 mm in diameter by Parkland surgeons, while the powdered lead, sand and bullet jacket were deposited on bone at C3/C4?

The only fly in the ointment here comes, once again, from another HSCA interview. Thomas Robinson, one of the enbalmers from Gawlers Funeral Home who prepared JFK's body following the autopsy, reported that, as viewed from inside JFK's empty skull, every bone in JFK's face appeared to be broken. While this statement hardly seems to be supported by the "stare of death" photos of JFK, it must still be taken into consideration.

From my experience hunting, it seems unusual that a shot, entering the right temple and causing a blowout in the right rear of the skull, could cause such extensive breakage of bones in JFK's face, although I may be underestimating the explosive force of the bullet used.

One explanation may be that the EOP wound was not as neat as described in the autopsy and, considering the oblique angle it struck the rear base of the skull, the frangible bullet might have broken up penetrating the skull and sent part of the bullet into the skull, and part on its way to C3/C4.

Another explanation may be that the bullet entered the skull at the EOP, disintegrated shortly after entry, and parts of it either exited the base of the skull or exited through the "foramen magnum", the large opening at the base of the skull through which the spinal cord enters the cranial cavity.

Unfortunately, these last two possibilities place the wound slightly higher than the hair line wound, and do not line up anywhere near as nicely with C3/C4 and the throat wound.

Robert, just a question.

If you believe the extant Z-film is a fake, why all the discussion here about Z-313?

Quite simple, Jon. I am attempting to demonstrate that the bone fragment depicted in z313, seen rocketing skyward, could not possibly have been captured in "stop action photography" by Zapruder's camera, simply because Zapruder's camera had a very slow shutter speed and was not designed for high speed photography.

From Ollie Curme:

"With respect to the clarity of the blob moving at high speed, I'm not surprised that there is not more blurring. There is a lot of blurring: the blob seems to move for at least 3 feet: that object is blurred over the entire distance. We just see distinct instance of it during the blur as it rotates and catches the sunlight, again, as in stop motion strobe light photography."

You are aware, I hope, that stop motion strobe light photography requires not only a strobe, but a high speed camera. as well? If we are seeing the fragment at various positions, simply because that is when it is reflecting sunlight back to the camera (how convenient that the fragment reflected directly back at Zapruder each time it came around!), we cannot escape the fact this fragment is still travelling upwards at high speed AND forward, with the limo, at 17.6 feet per second. As any text will tell you, stop motion strobe light photography requires a strobe light AND a fast shutter speed; something entirely lacking in Zapruder's camera. There is every reason to expect to see a similar blurring of this fragment as is seen in many other parts of this frame.

Thank you, Ron Ecker #338. "...military man who told David Lifton..." When I read that, I knew it was at the back of Best Evidence, and my copy fell open to one of the many dog-eared pages. Chapter 29, The Assertion of Adm. David P. Osborne, p 645. 2nd P: "The HSC reported Osborne's assertion that he 'thought he recalled seeing an intact slug roll out from the clothing of President Kennedy and onto the autopsy table; at the outset of the autopsy.'" The next page Osborne stated, "I had that bullet in my hands."

p590 is the first appearance of "The Osborne Allegation." I believe; haven't had time to go over it much.

Whenever I hear of an intact bullet just falling or rolling out of JFK or his clothing, or Connally, the phrase "planted evidence" flashes in my mind. What are the odds that a bullet cleanly pierces the flesh (or clothing) on the way out and just happens to stop right there. I'm sure it happens... but how often?

Count me as skeptical.

I think it's more likely, in this throat-to-back trajectory theory, that the bullet exited Kennedy's jacket, went through the back of his seat, into the trunk. Where it could hit something much more likely to stop it... steel.

With so much blood all over, I can see how nobody spotted the hole in the seat.

It would be interesting to know where a throat-to-back shot would have originated from.

I just took a short trip down Elm Street in Dealey Plaza -- via Google Maps -- and I see no tall buildings from which a bullet could have originated. Roy said the downward angle of the shot had to have been around 15 degrees. I just can't see how that angle could have been achieved. I'd like to hear from Roy about this, given that he's the proponent of the theory.

I believe the downward trajectory would have been in excess of 20° unless, of course, JFK quickly bent over while behind the Stemmons sign. However, bending over tends to hide the throat wound location behind the chin.

Thank you, Ron Ecker #338. "...military man who told David Lifton..." When I read that, I knew it was at the back of Best Evidence, and my copy fell open to one of the many dog-eared pages. Chapter 29, The Assertion of Adm. David P. Osborne, p 645. 2nd P: "The HSC reported Osborne's assertion that he 'thought he recalled seeing an intact slug roll out from the clothing of President Kennedy and onto the autopsy table; at the outset of the autopsy.'" The next page Osborne stated, "I had that bullet in my hands."

p590 is the first appearance of "The Osborne Allegation." I believe; haven't had time to go over it much.

Whenever I hear of an intact bullet just falling or rolling out of JFK or his clothing, or Connally, the phrase "planted evidence" flashes in my mind. What are the odds that a bullet cleanly pierces the flesh (or clothing) on the way out and just happens to stop right there. I'm sure it happens... but how often?

Count me as skeptical.

I think it's more likely, in this throat-to-back trajectory theory, that the bullet exited Kennedy's jacket, went through the back of his seat, into the trunk. Where it could hit something much more likely to stop it... steel.

With so much blood all over, I can see how nobody spotted the hole in the seat.

It would be interesting to know where a throat-to-back shot would have originated from.

This copy of 313 - that was given to me by Chris Davidson - allowed me to zoom into the head explosion.

Chris Davidson's copy of 313 is the best I have which allows me to look at the detail of the head explosion.

It is not possible to distinguish what is bone matter and what is brain matter.

But this copy certainly shows matter flying in all directions.

Amazing stop action frame for a camera that blurs with the slightest movement of the person using it, wouldn't you say?

For an example of blurring, here is z301:

Notice how clear the limo occupants are, and how blurred Jean Hill and Mary Moorman, standing on the grass, appear to be. This is because Zapruder has focused his movie camera on the limo as it moves from left to right across his view at 12 mph, a very slow speed, I daresay.

If the limo had been travelling, in the same fashion, at 81 mph, and Zapruder had successfully tracked the limo (no blurring of limo occupants), would the bystanders appear almost 8x as blurred?

According to Rollie Zavada the exposure time on the B&H camera was 1/40 of a second.

The camera ran at approximately 18.3 frames per second.

Ollie,

I used to know all this, but it's been a long time. Am I correct in believing the following:

To use round numbers, let's say that the camera's frame rate was 20 frames a second. Elapsed time = 0 secs. The shutter opens and frame #1 is exposed to light for 1/40th of second. The shutter would then be closed for an additional 1/40th of a second. Total elapsed time = 1/20 of a second. The shutter would again open to expose frame #2. Repeat as necessary...

If correct, then the film records an image for 1/20th of a second, does not record what happens for the next 1/20th of a second, and this cycle is repeated. An analogy would be a human eye that opens for 1/20th of a second, then closes for 1/20th of a second missing whatever happens during that 1/20th of a second slice in time.

TIA,

Tom

Interesting, Tom. When you put it that way, it seems as though the lens only opens once per frame, for 1/40th of a second.

Robert, do you believe the extant Z-film is an accurate record of events?

No I do not.

z314

By following the line of trajectory forward, you can observe a point just level with a point on the woman to the left, just above the hem line of her coat. An object is clearly visible, with possibly a fainter object just below it. This object is not visible in z315.

Do you think Zapruder's camera could capture a clear image of a car going past him at 81 mph, if the camera was held stationary, and not tracking the car?

The throat to back wound suffers from the same problem as the SBT's back to throat wound; that being the vertebrae are in the path of such a trajectory.

As we all know, two frames from the Zapruder film, z312 and z313, have been studied exhaustively over the years, since the film was first shown to the public in 1975. Both frames are shown below:

z312

z313

I was just watching a video by Josiah Thompson titled "The Untrue Fact about the JFK Assassination". In this video, Mr. Thompson pointed out a difference between z312 and z313 that I had not noticed before. If you look closely at the divider bar above the area between the front seats and the jump seats (occupied by the Connallys), you can see a number of reflections that show up as whitish dots in z312. However, in z313, these same "dots" appear as elongated objects. The reason is simple, as explained by Mr. Thompson.

The movie camera used by Abraham Zapruder was not, at 18.3 frames per second, considered anywhere even close to being a "high speed" or "stop action" camera, and any movement of the camera at all would result in blurred images being exposed on the frames. Mr. Thompson theorizes that the sound of the rifle shot at z313 might have startled Zapruder, with the resultant blur in z313. Or, alternatively, Zapruder simply could have made an involuntary movement that made the z313 blur. Whatever the case, the z313 frame is most definitely blurred, and this can be seen in things such as the faces of Connally or the SS men in the front seat, as well as in many details of the limo itself.

Just above the windshield of the limo, in z313, can be seen a white elongated blur, supposedly an empty film package dropped on the grass by either Altgens or the man with a camera beside Altgens. This object is much shorter by z315, indicating it too suffered from the blurring effect in z313, but I would really not like to use anything outside of the limo in this thread. As the limo was moving forward at 12 mph (17.4 feet per second), and as Zapruder was tracking the limo with his camera, we should expect stationary objects to have a blur to them.

However, there is one object that, right up to z312, was a part of one of the occupants of the limo, and only left the limo in z313. That object is the bone fragment seen ascending skywards from the top of JFK's head. As we are told by WC apologists, it can be seen toppling end over end as it flies upwards, and it actually appears to be four or five fragments, one above the other.

How does this jive with our explanation for the elongated blurs seen elsewhere on the limo? In actual fact, not at all.

As the fragment was, in z312, part of JFK's skull, and moving forward with the limo at 12 mph (17.4 ft./second), it should still retain the forward momentum (inertia) in z313, regardless of how fast it is ascending skyward. It is like standing in the aisle of a jetliner travelling at 500 mph. If you jump up in the air, or if you were able to hover above the aisle, you are still able to retain a forward speed of 500 mph, and to everyone else in the jet, you appear to remain stationary, even though at that point you would not be attached to the jetliner. Of course, though, if you were outside the jet, at 500 mph, you would soon get swept away by wind resistance, but our case, at 12 mph, is quite different. This case is much more analogous with the sailor being 60 feet above the deck in the crowsnest of a sailing ship moving through the water at 15 knots, and dropping a cannon ball from the crowsnest. The question is, where will the cannon ball land? The answer, of course, is at the foot of the mast, as the cannon ball retains the forward inertia and, instead of dropping straight down and landing behind the ship, it follows a forward angle downward.

Knowing these basics, the fragment(s) seen in z313 should have the same elongated horizontal blur as do many other parts of the limo, yet they do not. But that is not the only thing wrong here.

I'm not sure how fast the fragment seen leaving the top of JFK's head was travelling in the first few feet of its journey but, I am willing to bet it was a great deal faster than the limo was travelling. Having personally seen fragments fly from the skulls of deer that have been shot, I can attest that the movement in the first few feet is so fast, the human eye cannot follow it, while the human eye has no trouble following a limo moving at 12 mph.

Therefore, if Zapruder's camera was so slow that the slightest movement by Zapruder causes everything in the frame to blur, how was this camera able to catch the rapid bone fragment in almost "stop action" clearness? Worse yet, we are told the fact we can see this one fragment several times in this frame, as it ascends, is because, as we are informed by WC apologists, it is tumbling end over end, and each time it reflects sunlight back to the camera it appears in this frame. What we should be seeing is one long blur ascending skyward. In fact, considering this camera only captured 18.3 frames per second, it is nothing short of miraculous Zapruder's camera was able to capture this fragment at all, and twice, at that; once in z313 and once in z314.

I would appreciate any thoughts or comments you may have on this.

I think I can read CENTIMETER on the left. Prob can count the divisions. Might be possible to actually identify the ruler by the markings.

edit add: I counted the divisions and found 5 measured as 2.5 cm (WYSIWYG) 100% zoom on my screen. So, scaling up the image to 200% gives an image pretty much to scale at 100% zoom. So saving it as PDF using PosteRazor enables printing a full scale poster.

Counting the marks on here, I find there are roughly 30 markings made in centimeters. As there are 2.54 cm. to the inch, 30 cm. divided by 2.54 = 11.81 inches.

(approx 2) Small sharpnel wounds in face.

Packed with wax.

What would be the possible source for these?

Could they be exiting fragments?

If they were entrance wounds then I'd speculate they were from the windshield frame hit.

Has anyone done a close examination of the one good facial photograph to try to identify these?

The phrase "approx 2" is curious. Wouldn't you say 2-3? It has to mean more than 1, it can't be 1 1/2.

In a longer interview, Robinson claimed that every bone in JFK's face was broken, and that this could be viewed from the inside of the empty skull. He also made reference to the shrapnel wounds in the face, and stated the reason for packing them with wax was to prevent leakage through these wounds, indicating the particles causing them might have originated in the cranial cavity.

If everything Robinson says is true, not only does this place the back wound 5-6 inches below the shoulder, it is also indicative of two shots striking JFK's head; one from the front and one from behind.

I have always been curious about the "smaller wound in right temple. Crescent shaped, flapped down. (3")". When Robinson described this wound years earlier, he described it as nothing more than a round 1/4 inch hole.

There is one person, not a physician, who likely spent more time with JFK's body (actually handling it) than anyone else on the night of the autopsy. Below is a transcript of a telephone interview with Thomas Evan Robinson, an enbalmer with Gawler's Funeral Home. This interview was conducted by Investigator Joe West on May 26, 1992.

Transcription Thomas Evan Robinson

Personal contact info deleted to protect Mr. Robinson's privacy May 26, 1992 (Phone)

Wounds:

Large gaping hole in back of head.
patched by placing piece of rubber.....over it.
Thinks skull full of Plaster of Paris.

Smaller wound in right temple.
Crescent shped, flapped down (3")

(approx 2) Small sharpnel wounds in face.
Packed with wax.

Wound in back (5 to six inches) below shoulder.
To the right of the back bone.

Adrenlin gland and brain removed.

Other organs removed and then put back.

No swelling or discoloration to face.
(Died instantly)

Dr. Berkley (family physician) came in an ask.....
"How much longer???"
He (Robinson) was told (funeral director)
"Take your time."

Is in favor of exhuming body.....to settle once and....for all.
(Robinson quote) "Good pathologists would know exactly"

Plus, Sandy, if we look at the skeleton diagram from your Wilipedia link again:

It is possible to see the superior angle of the right scapula depicted here is not quite at the level of T2 but, rather, is more at the level of T3. The very upper tip of their falsely portrayed superior angle is just barely near the bottom level of T2.

More importantly, the artist has portrayed the left most portion of the scapular spine (spine of scapula) exactly where I stated it to be; between T4 and T5.

As the scapular spine is quite visible in the back photo, and the back wound appears to be two finger widths (using the upper gloved hand holding down the ruler in the photo) above the scapular spine, it is possible to closely estimate the location of the back wound. My index and middle fingers together, side by side, have a width of 1.5 inches. I am a fairly large person, at over 6 feet tall, so the fingers in the photo are possibly not as wide.

Suffice it to say, the back wound is roughly 1-1.5 inches above the scapular spine. Think we are getting close to T3?

Robert,

First, just to clarify, I neither agree nor disagree with the "T2" location pointed out in the Wikipedia article. I think you bring up valid points countering what is claimed there.

But I wish you would have responded to my other comments in the post, about person-to-person variations in anatomical structure, etc.

You say:

"Suffice it to say, the back wound is roughly 1-1.5 inches above the scapular spine. Think we are getting close to T3?"

I don't know. I looked at the backs of several men and couldn't find the scapular spine in any. Well, possibly in one guy. But his weren't oriented at an angle... they were horizontal, or maybe vertical... I forget. But it wasn't what I expected. Maybe he was flexing muscles and I was looking at muscle bumps. (He's skinny and has little muscle mass to flex, but he did have horizontally or vertically oriented bumps where the scapular spines might be.)

BTW, for scapular spines to be discernible, I think a person has to have very little body fat AND not a good deal of muscle mass.

All that aside, scapulae simply do not look like the ones in that Wikipedia diagram. Period. The superior angles of the scapulae in that drawing have been drawn much too high, as they are shown to be as high as the acromion.

If you take this correctly oriented photo :

...and look below the finger of the right hand you can see the outline of a drain hole.

John,

Thanks for the photo and info. I presume you are referring to the right hand in the approximate center of the photo that is on the steel ruler and touching or almost touching the back of JFK's head. Should I be looking below his "little" finger in the 6 o'clock position of the full photo? The rectangular area outlined in white has been brightened considerably. Is the outline of the drain hole within this rectangle?

Slightly to the left of the middle of the rectangle and just above the bottom edge of the photo I see a highlight that MAY be the inner edge of a circular cutout. Is this what you are referring to?

Tom

If JFK is on his left side, who is holding his head up? Shouldn't his head be flopping downward to his left?

P.S.

I can see a drain hole about as much as I can see Badge Man hiding in the bushes.

Do tell us all, Pat, how you deduced the back wound photo was taken of JFK lying on his side.

Just look at the arms, and see if they make sense if he's laying flat on his belly, or sitting up.

Seriously, Pat, that's it??

Do tell us all, Pat, how you deduced the back wound photo was taken of JFK lying on his side.

Plus, Sandy, if we look at the skeleton diagram from your Wilipedia link again:

It is possible to see the superior angle of the right scapula depicted here is not quite at the level of T2 but, rather, is more at the level of T3. The very upper tip of their falsely portrayed superior angle is just barely near the bottom level of T2.

More importantly, the artist has portrayed the left most portion of the scapular spine (spine of scapula) exactly where I stated it to be; between T4 and T5.

As the scapular spine is quite visible in the back photo, and the back wound appears to be two finger widths (using the upper gloved hand holding down the ruler in the photo) above the scapular spine, it is possible to closely estimate the location of the back wound. My index and middle fingers together, side by side, have a width of 1.5 inches. I am a fairly large person, at over 6 feet tall, so the fingers in the photo are possibly not as wide.

Suffice it to say, the back wound is roughly 1-1.5 inches above the scapular spine. Think we are getting close to T3?