Robert Prudhomme

When it comes to skulls, does it make a lot of difference whether you "penetrate" or "pierce"?

I was commenting on the sheriff's comment simply because we don't know how slow a bullet would have to be going to only penetrate the flesh of JFK's back a mere inch, and somehow we have come to the conclusion that this shallow penetration in flesh might be possible at 300 fps. Sheriff Baca would seem to disagree with that notion.

Was that Frazier or Shaneyfelt in those recreation photos on the 6th floor?

http://forensicoutreach.com/the-falling-bullet-myths-legends-and-terminal-velocity/

Interesting analogy, just in terms of the speeds obtained from a free-falling bullet.

SB_Pete's comment, ninth entry below article.

I'm not insinuating the back wound was created this way.

Interesting that the authors of this article quote someone as saying that a projectile travelling between 300 and 700 fps is still going fast enough to pierce a human skull.

I would be very interested to know if other Klein's customers ran into the same problems with the 4x18 Ordnance Optics scope as Frazier did. If it was 2015, and not 1963, that the assassination occurred, we could simply look up Product Reviews for the scope (or Klein's) on Amazon.com or something.

I like how Frazier says:

we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact.

It requires deciphering: "the point of impact" is where the missile hits. He should be saying they move away from the aiming point.

LOL You caught that, eh? That is just the tip of the iceberg. Every time I go through his WC testimony, I find more more things that make me shake my head.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

From the Warren Commission testimony of FBI SA Robert A. Frazier:

"Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, could you tell us why, in your opinion, all the shots, virtually all the shots, are grouped high and to the right of the aiming point?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope. And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots."

Hi Ian

Even the FBI's so called firearms "expert", SA Robert A. Frazier, made the mistaken assumption that C2766, with its Mauser bolt, could be used without the clip, as a single shot rifle, by manually loading one cartridge at a time.

"Mr. McCLOY - Can you use that rifle without the clip?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; you can.
Mr. McCLOY - What is the advantage of the clip?
Mr. FRAZIER - It permits repeated firing of the weapon without manually loading one shot at a time.
Mr. McCLOY - The only other way you can fire it is by way of manual load?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; one shot at a time.
Mr. McCLOY - When you say a six-cartridge clip, could that gun have been fired with the clip fully loaded and another one in the chamber?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - The same as the .30-06?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; the weapon will hold a maximum of seven."

Garbage in, garbage out......

"What is meant by the phrase "short shot?" "

A "short shot" is a bullet that impacts unexpectedly short of its target. Its name implies that the rifle the bullet is fired from is functioning properly and has already fired several rounds that impact where the shooter expects them to impact.

The cause of a short shot is inevitably within the cartridge itself, and can be attributed to deteriorated gunpowder, a deteriorated primer or a ruptured or loose primer that vents propellant gases out the vent port of the rifle. These occurrences are extremely rare and, considering the high standards Western Cartridge Company ammunition was manufactured to, I do not believe a WCC 6.5mm Carcano cartridge produced a short shot during the assassination.

I still find it somewhat odd that Humes would declare his finger had bottomed out in the back wound, and then still attempt to explore this wound with a probe after the lungs had been removed. If Humes knew anything about human anatomy, which I assume he did, being a doctor, he would know the thickness between the outer back and the pleural lining was not very thick, and a probe could not have gone any further than his finger without entering the pleural cavity. Was he trying to determine if there was a bullet hole in the pleura? A quick look with a flashlight inside the pleural cavity would have determined that.

Are you aware that one witness (at least) later described to a researcher how the autopsy physicians were at one point probing all over the place, trying to figure out the path(s) of the bullet(s)? Unfortunately I don't remember who it was that gave the interview, and I don't remember if they were probing primarily from the throat wound or back wound. But I'm pretty sure the person said they did try to see if there was a path from the back wound to the throat. Or if such a path was possible.

The reason I make a point of this is perhaps it explains why Humes probed through to the pleura. Having probed everywhere else, why not there too?

Upon read the description of this probing, I came away with the impression that it was a far-from-methodical thing. More like frantically looking for an explanation.

If the back wound was at the level of thoracic vertebra T3, as claimed by many witnesses, and Humes knew the basics of human anatomy (one would assume a doctor of his standing would have such knowledge), he would have been aware of the fact the only way to get to the throat wound, from the back wound, was by going through the top of the right lung. As Paul O'Connors' sketch clearly shows, there is only a thin layer of skin, intercostal muscle and ribs between the outside and the pleura.

If Humes did any probing of the back wound, it was all part of a charade.

As I said on another thread, there are two reasons the scope on the M91/38 Carcano C2766 (or any Carcano, for that matter) was mounted offset to the left side of the receiver.

1. The Carcano bolt handle (even the curved ones) stands vertically when retracting the bolt, and would run into a scope mounted directly over the receiver.

2. The Carcano magazine is loaded with a six cartridge "en bloc" clip that must be pushed down from the top of the magazine. Once again, a scope mounted directly above the receiver would interfere with this.

However, for the above reasons, it was necessary for the gunsmith at Klein's to make a further modification to the scope. Pictured below is a bolt action rifle with a scope mounted on it, in the normal fashion:

In the middle of the scope can be seen two knobs (actually protective caps over top of adjustment screws). This arrangement is almost universal, and is likely a concession to right handed shooters, as is having the bolt on the right hand side of most rifles. The knob or cap standing vertically conceals the "elevation" adjusting screw, and turning this screw will make your shots hit higher or lower on a target. The cap on the side conceals the "windage" adjusting screw, and turning this screw will make your shots hit further left or right on a target.

Unfortunately, the windage cap projects far enough out that even mounting the scope offset to the left on a Carcano is not enough to keep the windage cap out of the way. To solve this, Klein's turned the scope, in its mounting rings, 90° to the left, as seen from the view of the shooter.

As seen in this photo of C2766, the windage cap is on the wrong side of the scope. Actually, it is not the windage cap at all. In this photo (barrel is on the left, remember) the elevation cap has become the windage cap, and the windage cap has become the elevation cap.

So now we have a rifle with a side mounted scope, a very difficult thing to sight in, and things are further complicated by the elevation and windage adjusting screws being swapped for each other. I wonder if Klein's included a note with this rifle to explain what they did. Many LN's have proposed that the gunsmith at Klein's would have boresighted the rifle prior to shipping, and that sighting it in would have been unnecessary. This is a myth, told by people who don't shoot and believed only by people who don't shoot. Any experienced shooter knows that boresighting only gets the rifle into the ballpark or "on the paper", and it is still necessary to sight it in further with live shooting.

Also noticeable in this photo is that the two screws holding the scope mount to the receiver are in screwholes that have been drilled and tapped horizontally into the receiver. This is very important to remember. The FBI was able to test fire this rifle as it was found at the assassination, but the Army, the next to test fire it, found it necessary to install shims under the scope mount, in order to bring the scope into closer alignment with the barrel, and make it possible to properly sight the rifle in. This was a very interesting thing for the Army people to say as, with the screwholes for the mount drilled horizontally into the receiver, the only adjustment of the scope possible by shimming would be laterally or side to side. This is the downfall of mounting the scope this way; if the gunsmith is off when he drills the two holes, there is nothing, not even shimming, that can be done to correct the mounting for elevation. If the elevation adjusting screw runs out of thread, and the scope is still not on target, it is just too bad, and the only solution is to get a gunsmith to drill two new holes; hopefully in the right location this time.

SA Robert Frazier of the FBI described a very peculiar thing he encountered while attempting to sight in C2766. According to him, each time he made an adjustment to the scope (elevation or windage), the results of this adjustment were not immediately apparent but, instead, required several more shots before the internal scope ring supporting the cross hairs would "settle into place". I have never heard of a scope doing this and when I first read it, I assumed either the scope was broken internally or Frazier was full of crap up to his eyeballs. While I still find it odd that Frazier seemed to accept this condition as if it were true of all rifle scopes, further thought on the subject brought another possible cause for this condition to mind; what if the Ordnance Optic 4x18 scope did not like being used while turned 90° from the vertical? I'm sure the makers of this scope never dreamed anyone would try to use it without having the elevation cap on top, in the normal fashion. Could it be the cross hair ring relied on gravity to assist it when being turned downward?

If this was the case, and the person sighting the rifle in did not know about it, there would be so many confusing and conflicting results, each time the shooter adjusted the scope and fired a couple of test shots, I seriously doubt anyone could successfully sight this rifle in. It would be interesting to see if any other customers of Klein's ever wrote to the company to complain about this. Is it possible that Klein's scope mounted Carcanos contributed to the reputation Carcanos had for being inaccurate rifles?

More to come....

To paraphrase Walter Cronkite, the proof that Oswald could make a very difficult shot is that he did.

A fine example of redneck logic!

Hey Bob,

Thanks for returning to this.

I understand that part of the difficulty in sight adjustment was that when the scope is turned 90 degrees elevation becomes windage and visa versa. Is this still practical?

How does the sight mount interfere with the iron sights, does it protrude into the "line of sight"?

I also understand that the sight, because of the side mount, can only really be bore-sighted for one point in space and that any range adjustments would need to be horizontally and vertically corrected as opposed to a normal mount (almost like a "cant" adjustment). Would this mean that adjusting lead for distance, speed, wind direction and "scope angle" almost an impossible task?

No it is not a practical thing. In fact, it may present problems that go beyond "practical", and the evidence of this may be provided by the FBI.

The scope is offset to the left far enough that it is possible for a shooter to see the iron sights. However, I can tell you from experience shooting a lever action Winchester Model 94 with a side mounted scope that it is extremely uncomfortable, with the scope poking you in the face as you try to crowd in close enough to use the iron sights. If C2766 was my rifle, and I couldn't get the scope sighted in, I would take two minutes with a flat bladed screwdriver and remove the scope by unscrewing the two screws holding the mount to the receiver.

Your last question, about sighting in a side mounted scope, is very involved and I will save it for a bit later. You are correct, though, in that, laterally, the scope can only be zeroed at one particular range. There is a way around this problem that is a bit of a compromise, but minimizes the problem nonetheless.

I started discussing the scope on C2766 a while back, prior to being offered a prolong leave of absence for references I was making toward a certain Scottish forum owner, and never seemed to pick up where I left off, once I returned.

I strongly maintain the scope on C2766 is the weak link in the conspiracy lie. It was basically a toy scope designed to be mounted on a pellet gun or .22 calibre rifle and, with its extremely limited field of vision, meant for shooting at very close ranges. As admitted by the FBI's SA Robert A. Frazier, it was of very poor quality and quite difficult to make adjustments on while sighting it in.

4x18 Ordnance Optics scope mounted on C2766. Barrel is to left in photo, rifle butt stock is to right.

Tasco Rimfire 4x15 Riflescope from Walmart - $6.97. This would be the modern equivalent of the 4x18 Ordnance Optics scope on C2766 (.22 rifle cartridges are known as "rimfire" cartridges), although, in fairness, I must point out that Tasco makes a much better product and this scope has superior mounting rings.

Not only was this a cheap poorly made scope, the very mechanics of the 6.5mm Carcano rifle required it to be mounted in an awkward and unusual fashion. Even then, further modifications were required to allow the rifle to function properly. Each of these problems by themselves would make sighting this rifle in to a target very difficult. Together, they presented what I believe would be a scope so difficult to sight in, it is difficult to believe Oswald could have accomplished this feat.

What I intend to prove is that Oswald, who the records show owned or used no other scoped rifle in civilian life and who had no training with scopes in the USMC, would have had such difficulty sighting in this scope, it is probable the scope never was sighted in at all. Knowing this, Oswald would have been forced to use the open sights; an awkward and limiting practice if one has the scope in one's face while doing so. From this I draw the obvious conclusion; with such deficiencies in the scope, Oswald would have removed the scope and mount weeks before he brought the rifle to the assassination.

The government and the media did such a propaganda mind trip on the American people which continues to this day, that most young folks will never know (confused), or even want to know the truth (weary and non- relevant),about what was taken away from them. “Sheeple” forever is the goal, and it works well enough that it is repeated every year at this time Re- -propped…like clockwork!

Just my opinion.........

Bill

The Magician's tricks only work on those who want to believe them. The public, despite the polls showing a majority of people believing in a JFK conspiracy, does not really want to know the whole truth, as it is far too frightening. We might have to wake up the next morning and realize that everything we are told by the US government is mostly lies, and everything we watch on the "News" is a well orchestrated play, and not reality.

Tick tick tick....ad nauseum....

DVP

You're like a Timex watch. No matter how much of a beating you take, and how many times people prove you are full of crap, you just keep coming back for more.

Every deer I have ever shot in the head and observed a larger exit wound on the opposite side of the head has fallen away from me, not toward me. Also, with a large exit wound, there is never so much as one drop of blood seen coming back out of the entrance wound, as the large exit relieves ALL internal cranial pressure.

Garbage in, garbage out.

I've always been a bit puzzled by the autopsy doctors reporting bilateral scalpel incisions made in preparation for the insertion of chest tubes, but also reporting no chest tubes had actually been inserted. It is disturbing to read the medical report of Dr. M.T. Jenkins. written only a few hours after JFK's death, in which he states only a right chest tube was inserted AND connected to a closed chest drainage tube. As the chest tube is inevitably inserted first, and then connected to drainage, it seems very odd for Jenkins to say this if the tube(s) were never inserted. My licence does not allow me to insert a chest tube (for relief from tension pneumothorax) but I have gone over this procedure many times with higher licenced paramedics. While it may have been a common practice in 1963, I have never heard of anyone making a scalpel incision in the chest, in advance of inserting a chest tube. It is a rather quick routine involving nothing more than a large bore needle inserted through the intercostal space between the 2nd and 3rd rib, at about the midclavicular line.

Does anyone recall the Parkland surgeons speaking of making scalpel incisions for chest tubes? It was definitely mentioned in the autopsy report, and the claim that the incisions were made, but no tubes inserted, seemed to lessen the importance of chest tubes; as if they were an afterthought.

Dr. Peters did insert a right chest tube, as you noted on page 1 of this topic. So of course an incision was made there. As for the left side, I don't know.

Maybe Humes (falsely) reported such an incision being made on both sides in an attempt to make it sound like doing so was standard practice and nothing to ask questions about. Because an incision on just one side naturally would indicate something being wrong... on just that side. Dr. Humes would mislead like this because the presence of a collapsed lung would have been problematic to the WC.

I have two questions related to this, for you Robert:

1. How could the Parkland doctors have known which lung, left or right, was affected based upon symptoms they saw, like agonal breathing? Dr. Jenkins said that there was "obvious tracheal and chest damage." What kind of chest damage would indicate which lung is affected?

2. Jenkins said there was "obvious tracheal ... damage." Could this damage have been the cause of the Kennedy's pneumothorax, rather than something from the back wound? After all, Jenkins himself said, "...a tracheotomy tube was put in. This is one way of avoiding pushing air out through a fractured trachea and down into each chest cavity, which would cause a pneumothorax or a collapse of the lungs"

Hi Sandy

I discussed this a few posts back but I will gladly go over it again. When JFK arrived in Trauma Room One, assisted ventilation was begun almost immediately. As oxygen was pushed into his lungs, much of it would escape from the hole through his trachea and out through the throat wound. I'm sure bloody air bubbles would have been visible at the throat wound.

If JFK had a tension pneumothorax in his right lung, for which a chest tube connected to closed water drainage would be the only solution, there would be no expansion seen on the right side of the chest each time a breath was forced in. Also, another sign of a tension pneumothorax is the external observation of the trachea deviated away from the affected lung. The deviation of JFK's trachea to the left was reported by Dr. Malcolm Perry in his WC testimony.

Many have argued that the tension pneumothorax could have been caused by air escaping the trachea and going down into the mediastinum and the two pleural cavities, but I strongly disagree. First, the hole in the skin at JFK's throat kept the tracheal wound from being airtight and, as air will take the path of least resistance, it would escape through the wound in his throat to the atmosphere long before it ever pressurized the cavities below. Second, with the deviation of the trachea to the left as an indicator, why would only the right pleural cavity fill with air from the tracheal wound?

P.S.

Note that Jenkins says "This is one way of avoiding pushing air out through a fractured trachea and down into each chest cavity, which would cause a pneumothorax or a collapse of the lungs." Jenkins speaks of air coming out of a fractured trachea, not one shot through by a bullet and with a nice vent hole to atmosphere adjacent to it. He also speaks of air going down into EACH chest cavity, and a collapse of the LUNGS, not a LUNG.

Could a 'deformed' bullet inflict the type of back wound reported? (length and diameter of Humes' little finger)

FWIW, my little finger is 3/4" in diameter at the 2nd knuckle, and from 2nd knuckle to the tip is 2". I am 6' tall with a medium build, and Humes was 6'4" with a large build.

Tumbling or not, 3/4" is rather a large hole for a Carcano bullet, isn't it?

As it turns out, it looks like Doug Horne misspoke when he said that James Jenkins could see Hume's little finger push on the pleural membrane. Here is what Jenkins said in an early interview (his first, I think) with David Lifton. From Best Evidence:

[Jenkins] remembered very clearly Humes’ probing the back wound with his little finger. “What sticks out in my mind,” Jenkins told me, “is the fact that Commander Humes put his little finger in it, and, you know, said that.... he could probe the bottom of it with his finger, which would mean to me [it was] very shallow. .... I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe.... through the pleura [the lining of the chest cavity]. .... You could actually see where it [the probe] was making an indentation.... where it was pushing the skin up. .... There was no entry into the chest cavity.... no way that could have exited in the front because it was then low in the chest cavity.

This resolves (to my satisfaction) a number of problematic things. First, it means that there is no reason to believe that Humes probed deeply with his finger, and so the question of how his finger could possibly fit becomes a non-issue. Second, if the official size of the wound (4 mm by 7 mm) is correct or near that, Humes could not have probed very deeply at all, and yet was able to hit bottom. Which means the wound was very shallow indeed. This could be a important clue as to what exactly made the wound. Third, apparently Humes did indeed probe the pleural membrane with a probe, just as he (and at least one other autopsy physician) had testified. This gives me more confidence in Jenkins as a witness.

I still find it somewhat odd that Humes would declare his finger had bottomed out in the back wound, and then still attempt to explore this wound with a probe after the lungs had been removed. If Humes knew anything about human anatomy, which I assume he did, being a doctor, he would know the thickness between the outer back and the pleural lining was not very thick, and a probe could not have gone any further than his finger without entering the pleural cavity. Was he trying to determine if there was a bullet hole in the pleura? A quick look with a flashlight inside the pleural cavity would have determined that.

While something very odd was taking place with regard to the back wound one thing is certain; Jenkins observations definitely put the lie to Specter's Single Bullet Theory.

From Tom Neal

"It may or may not matter in this specific case, but a pneumothorax is not a punctured lung. It is a wound through the pleura that allows air, blood, fluid, into the sac that contains the lung. When the lung is collapsed during exhalation, air and fluid fills the space around the lung and the lung cannot re-expand during inhalation."

Hi Tom

You are quite correct in pointing out that a pneumothorax is not necessarily synonymous with a punctured lung although, in the case of a bullet wound (especially a frangible bullet), there is inevitably a compromise in the lung underlying the affected pleura, through which air can escape from the lung into the pleural cavity.

This would be a good time to distinguish between the two types of pneumothoraces, open and closed (tension).

An open pneumothorax, or "sucking" chest wound is, as you say, merely a hole in the pleural lining through which air can pass. When the injured person inhales, the pleural cavity grows in volume, creating a vacuum. Normally, air at atmospheric pressure will rush in through the trachea and bronchi to equalize this vacuum; filling the lung and inflating it in the process. However, with a hole in the pleura, air will rush in through this hole on inhalation, and fill the pleural cavity outside of the lung with air, and prevent the lung from expanding. Without treatment, the lung will collapse, and the patient may be in danger of dying from lack of perfusion. The immediate treatment, by first responders, is to place a rubber gloved hand over the wound to seal it. (always look for a matching through and through wound on the other side of the chest....easy to miss). At this point, it would seem as simple as placing a piece of duct tape over the hole and rushing the patient to the hospital. This is where the possibility of a punctured lung must be considered. If there is a hole in the lung, and the chest wound is sealed, each time the patient inhales, air rushing into a partially inflated lung will be drawn through the hole in the lung into the pleural cavity. When the patient exhales, the lung collapses again, sealing the hole in the lung and trapping the air in the pleural cavity. With each breath, this volume of air in the pleural cavity grows, until it begins exerting pressure on the other lung, the heart and superior and inferior venae cavae. At this point, our open pneumothorax has become a closed or "tension" pneumothorax.

I've always been a bit puzzled by the autopsy doctors reporting bilateral scalpel incisions made in preparation for the insertion of chest tubes, but also reporting no chest tubes had actually been inserted. It is disturbing to read the medical report of Dr. M.T. Jenkins. written only a few hours after JFK's death, in which he states only a right chest tube was inserted AND connected to a closed chest drainage tube. As the chest tube is inevitably inserted first, and then connected to drainage, it seems very odd for Jenkins to say this if the tube(s) were never inserted. My licence does not allow me to insert a chest tube (for relief from tension pneumothorax) but I have gone over this procedure many times with higher licenced paramedics. While it may have been a common practice in 1963, I have never heard of anyone making a scalpel incision in the chest, in advance of inserting a chest tube. It is a rather quick routine involving nothing more than a large bore needle inserted through the intercostal space between the 2nd and 3rd rib, at about the midclavicular line.

Does anyone recall the Parkland surgeons speaking of making scalpel incisions for chest tubes? It was definitely mentioned in the autopsy report, and the claim that the incisions were made, but no tubes inserted, seemed to lessen the importance of chest tubes; as if they were an afterthought.

To allow air to escape from an open pneumothorax and prevent air from going back in, the dressing seen below is used.

Asherman Chest Seal. The rubber tip opens from inside pressure and closes on inhalation, effectively allowing air pressure to escape the pleural cavity and preventing its return. This dressing is adhesive and is applied directly over the wound.

Back to the closed or tension pneumothorax. Just as an open pneumothorax can have an opening in the pleura, but no puncture in the lung, a tension pneumothorax can have an opening in the lung, but no hole in the pleura, making it necessary to insert a chest tube to vent accumulated pleural air that would go out through the hole in the pleura in an open pneumothorax. One of the mechanisms of injury for a tension pneumothorax is the sharp end of a broken rib poking its way through the pleura into a lung. Although the rib end opens the pleura, there is no avenue to the surface of the skin to allow air to escape, and pressure will build in the pleural cavity.

In the case of JFK, I believe he would have had a right open pneumothorax as well as a hole(s) in the right lung. While he was in the limo, it would have continued to be an open pneumothorax, unless of course the back wound was of such a nature that it could seal itself. However, once JFK was lying on his back on the ER table, there is a very good chance the weight of his body would seal the wound against the surface of the table, creating the necessary conditions for a tension pneumothorax. Once sealed, incoming air would pass through the hole(s) in his right lung and into his right pleural cavity. With no way to escape, this volume of air would increase until it put harmful pressure on his left lung, heart and large blood vessels. The situation would be further exacerbated by positive pressure ventilation, as this is forcing air into the lungs at greater than atmospheric pressure.

There are definite signs of a tension pneumothorax that first responders are taught to observe. Unequal expansion of the chest, lack of breath sounds in the affected lung, jugular vein distension, tachycardia (abnormally rapid heart rate), hypotension (low blood pressure), hypoxia (oxygen deficiency) and, most importantly in this case, visible deviation of the trachea (windpipe) away from the affected lung. Without immediate intervention (ie. chest tube), this patient can die in a matter of a couple of minutes.

The deviation of the trachea (windpipe) away from the affected lung is important, as we can see in this excerpt from the WC testimony of Dr. Malcolm Perry, in which he describes the tracheostomy procedure:

"Dr. PERRY - Yes. Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made, it was necessary to separate the strap muscles covering the anterior muscles of the windpipe and thyroid. At that point the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea."

"Your theory also contradicts James Jenkins, who said he saw the pleural membrane as Humes probed it with his finger, and that it was intact. If Jenkins is the only witness to have seen and reported that, then he could be mistaken and your theory could be right."

As I said, Jenkins' statement about seeing Humes' finger pushing on the pleural membrane makes a prevaricator out of Humes or Jenkins; for the simple fact that Humes would not be discussing the use of a probe to explore the back wound if he knew the wound ended at the pleura.

I mean, think about it for a second. The bullet only has enough energy to penetrate an inch, yet a flake from the base has enough energy to make it all the way to the throat wound?

Pull the other one!

"First shot struck tree limb, tumbled in flight, struck in base first attitude, and small 4.5mm lead protrusion out base of bullet sheared off and came out the anterior neck of JFK."

Again I have to ask, what shooter would put himself in such a firing position that this would happen?

It may be a dumb or naive question, I don't shoot guns, I'm just trying to think like an assassin with a rather important job to do and plenty of time to think ahead and decide where to shoot from.

Obviously, it was intended for us to consider this data, and conclude that a panicky young amateur assassin with the initials "LHO" would be the kind of shooter to put himself in this position.

Purvis' "theory" was just different enough from the WC story to make the more naive among us believe he supported the concept of a conspiracy. It was also plausible enough to drive that thin wedge of doubt into the mind of researchers, as nonsensical as it was to anyone with any understanding of rifles.

Another experiment.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-40-deflected-bullets-and-the-box-o-truth/

Interesting experiment. I know the old timers around here always felt the Winchester Model 94 30-30 was a good "bush gun" as they felt its bullets would not be affected by going through a few branches, especially if the bullets were Round Nose Flat Points:

It was believed the flat point would resist deflection better than a spitzer point or a round nose. The flat point bullets were used in this rifle because it has a tubular magazine, with the bullets stacked on top of each other. As one bullet nose would be in contact with the primer at the base of the next bullet, a pointed bullet could accidentally detonate the primer of the next bullet, should the rifle be dropped, and the flat point was believed to be the safest thing for this rifle.