Tom Neal

...the rule doesn't measure anything, and its location is such that it would conceal the "opening" reported by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill.

David, thanks for the original response, and for the re-do...

The purpose of the ruler in this photo has always eluded me. When a ruler is placed within a photo it either indicates a specific measurement or is used as a scale reference, so its presence here is certainly suspicious. To my eye, the ruler is placed to the left of the mid-line of the back, while the location of the "opening" is described as 1.5" - 2" to the right of the mid-line.

Tom

There is not a single Dallas doctor or nurse's account of JFK having a back wound

Agreed.

The strongest evidence proponents have for a "back" wound are the clothing holes.

David,

Are you dismissing Glen Bennett's report that he saw a shot strike JFK in the back? If so, what do you believe is his reason for making this false report?

Tom

I'm afraid this is where I have to disagree with him. There is simply too much medical evidence from Parkland Hospital that points toward an injury to the right lung causing a tension pneumothorax in that lung, and an entrance wound at the level of the T3 vertebra (5.75" below the collar) is a perfect match for such an injury.

Any chance the throat wound could have caused the pneumothorax? BTW, although Humes insists photographs were taken of the 5 cm bruise at the apex of the eviscerated right pleural cavity (above the apical portion of the removed lung), per Horne that photo is not in the autopsy collection at NARA. I wonder why someone would remove THAT photo???

BTW, the x-ray section of "Inside the ARRB" is ALL about the skull x-rays. Nothing to add to what I wrote earlier regarding the chest x-ray.

And as I mentioned earlier, my suspicions regarding the x-rays were correct. Kennedy Family permission is required to view them.

The autopsy descriptive sheet is included in "Inside the ARRB", and along with the blank space for brain weight, it includes the following:

Right Lung: 320 grams

Left Lung: 290 grams

Obviously the right lung is peppered with 30 grams of bullet fragments!

Tom

I think David Lifton was saying he believed the lower back wound was the original and true back wound, and that the upper back wound, which was actually at the level of the collar (5.75" higher), was created to allow a connection with the throat wound. In the autopsy photo, the ruler is likely covering the lower back wound.

...later that evening, and by the time of autopsy photography of that area occurred--i.e., by the time a permanent photographic record was

being made--there existed (i.e., "was created" --again, my quotes) a higher (and equally false) wound.

Bob & Sandy,

I believe Mr. Lifton is stating that both "wounds", high and low, are "false". See above quote; "a higher (and equally false) wound".

What little I could find.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13098

Thank you Chris. Sorry to make you search for the info. I wrongly assumed that you had this information already.

I just PM'd Pamela with my question.

Tom

I hear ya. Jerrol Custer has stated that the autopsists were chopping up all the organs looking for bullet "fragments" rather than seeking bullet paths or trails of minute fragments. Certainly, x-rays would reveal any fragments - so why chop them up? A possible explanation is to destroy evidence of a 'dust cloud' of fragments...

Are you sure it was Custer who said that, Tom? I ask because Lt. Lipsey said precisely the same thing. He did so in HSCA testimony. If they both said it, I'm sure it's true

Custer was emphatic, and greatly annoyed as to their actions.

Tom

Yes, we are far from producing conclusive evidence of a frangible bullet coming apart in the top of JFK's right lung. However, at least in my mind anyways, the other possibilities for the "shallow" back wound are systematically being eliminated, with the frangible bullet scenario slowly emerging as the only viable possibility.

Of course, we also have the 'false wound' scenario. While researching this possibility today, I had in mind that the nurses who washed JFK's body had seen the back wound. Apparently, only one nurse mentioned it, and even then only after 30(?) years. They were washing the body to be sent to autopsy so they wouldn't have been specifically searching for any wounds, but without confirmation of a back wound at Parkland, I certainly don't discount the possibility of a "false wound" designed to buttress the 3-shot scenario.

Glen Bennett's testimony that he saw the "back shot" hit JFK is not rock solid due to his statement that he "heard the shot", immediately looked at JFK and saw the shot impact 4 inches below his shoulder and slightly to the right of center. The shot would have hit first, then the sound would arrive, so his statement is questionable. My thought is that if he heard the first shot, then turned toward JFK and saw the 2nd shot hit without hearing the "firecracker" sound of the second shot then his story is plausible. I can't think of any obvious reason for him to lie, and if Vince P. is correct that Bennett was only in the motorcade because of threats to JFK it seems less likely for him to lie.

IMO, the false wound scenario is still a strong possibility.

Bruising was reported in the top of JFK's right lung. What if this "bruising" was actually more than just bruising?

I hear ya. Jerrol Custer has stated that the autopsists were chopping up all the organs looking for bullet "fragments" rather than seeking bullet paths or trails of minute fragments. Certainly, x-rays would reveal any fragments - so why chop them up? A possible explanation is to destroy evidence of a 'dust cloud' of fragments...

Another thing to consider; Would Humes recognize the damage to the lung, inflicted by a frangible bullet, as damage inflicted by a bullet?

Excellent point. They discussed the possibility of 'exotic bullets' that would disappear completely, but did they ever mention looking for minute fragments from frangible bullets?

I certainly hope you are successful in locating the JFK autopsy x-rays.

They must be at NARA, but they may require "special permission" because I don't recall reading that any researchers have copies. Or, everyone is only looking at the skull x-rays.

Tom

Did any of the other x-rays have these "dirt artifacts" on them, BTW?

Funniest thing...there's no mention of dirt on ANY of the other 14 x-rays... AND enlisted tech Edward Reed explained that the film was removed from all the cassettes, and they were cleaned every Thursday.

I'm only about 1/2 through the x-ray section from Volume II of the ARRB report, so I can't say for certain.

I had seen references made to the "dirty" chest x-ray but, until you pointed out the possible connection between the "dirt" and the powdered metal that would be left in the lung, following the disintegration of a frangible bullet, I had never put the two together. Wow!

How does one access the x-rays, especially Nos. 9 & 7?

I haven't been able to find the x-rays yet. I'm not finished with the section in the ARRB 5 Volume set devoted to the x-rays, so they MAY be located someone in these 5 volumes, but I do NOT recall seeing them during a previous reading.

I sincerely hope that everyone reading this thread understands the importance of what you have pointed out here. You may have answered the favourite LN question, "What happened to the bullet, then, if it did not go through JFK and hit Connally?"

It would be nice if it is this easy, but I'm not convinced yet by any means. I certainly intend to keep looking though...

Tom

Two questions, please:

1. Do you believe Boswell witnessed the creation of the two false back wounds?

2. I presume you believe that Humes had nothing to do with the alteration of the 'throat wound'?

Tom, Ebersole stated that the throat wound was "neatly sutured" when he saw it. I don't think the autopsy photos show a "neatly sutured" wound- more a gash.

Hi Ray, I'm not sure why you are mentioning the Ebersole statement...AFAIK Ebersole is the only one to claim the wound was sutured.

By alteration of the 'throat wound' I meant that at Parkland it was a short, neat, transverse incision, yet at Bethesda Humes described it as gaping with wide irregular edges.

Tom

How about a back wound at 3.27ft above the pavement. If this photo represented JFK in the limo, would the chalk mark appear to be 3.27ft above the ground? Remember, the top of JFK's head was measured at 52.78 inches above the ground.

Everyone's in bed, and I can't do these measurements accurately without assistance. The only measurement I can take is from the floor to where the chalk mark would be on me while seated (I'm 1" shorter than JFK) is 3' 5" above the floor. So I'd say 3.27" is too low...

So the height you assign the chalk mark would be approx 3ft 6inches = 3.5ft = 42 inches above the ground?

No. Not above the ground -- above the floor. The chalk mark height above the ground would by 3 feet 5 inches or 41" PLUS the height of the floor above the ground. I do NOT know the distance from the floor of the JFK limo to the ground.

Tom

I do not believe that Humes was responsible for creating what he himself described as "surgery of the head area, namely in the top of the skull." That FBI statement was based on what the FBI agents heard Humes say aloud.

By reading "Best Evidence" many years ago, I learned of Humes statement regarding "surgery of the head area." I was of the opinion that if he performed the surgery himself, the best thing he could have done was to say nothing at all. That wasn't quite enough to make me certain, however. Adding the weight of O'Neill's "Wayne, there was no brain" statement to Paul O'Connor's testimony, and Humes outburst: "I'd like to know by whom it was done, and when, and where", convinces me that Humes had no knowledge of the head surgery until he began the autopsy.

This tape was played aloud at the mid-West Convention in 1993. I am going to make it available on the internet, soon.

By all means, please do.

I believe the back wound to be false (i.e., man made)

Two questions, please:

1. Do you believe Boswell witnessed the creation of the two false back wounds?

2. I presume you believe that Humes had nothing to do with the alteration of the 'throat wound'?

Thanks for the info, and of course I eagerly await the publication of "Final Charade"!

Tom

I just realized that #3 is covered by #1. Oops.

Yes sir, it is.

I responded to that back in post 119.

Tom

Did any of the other x-rays have these "dirt artifacts" on them, BTW?

Funniest thing...there's no mention of dirt on ANY of the other 14 x-rays... AND enlisted tech Edward Reed explained that the film was removed from all the cassettes, and they were cleaned every Thursday.

I'm only about 1/2 through the x-ray section from Volume II of the ARRB report, so I can't say for certain.

Something else that I JUST learned: John Ebersole, a Radiation Therapist, was the ACTING Chief of Radiology on 11-22-1963. For some reason CAPT Brown, Chief of Radiology just happened to be out of town that night. Ain't it A-mazin' how many top officials were unavailable on 11-22-1963, and were replaced by 2nd or 3rd stringers? Why it's ALMOST as if they knew something was going to happen that they wanted no association with...

what are your thoughts as to the minimum size of the fragments for a 'typical' 1963 era frangible bullet?

Fragments that might possibly show up as "hundreds of dust like particles" in an x-ray of a skull?

That's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear.

X-ray #9, the elusive Chest X-ray taken with heart and lungs still in the body, and X-ray #7 Abdomen and Lower chest also with heart and lungs is described by Dr. Ebersole and the HSCA Panel as having "many dirt artifacts which appear to be metal but are not."

Ain't THAT a surprise?

Tom

...there is no reason to assume that a lethal frangible bullet in 1963, when they were still in the developmental stage, would be made from the identical materials

as these ultra-modern frangible bullets.

Thanks for the info, Bob.

I wasn't making that technological leap -- I'm trying to keep things as low-tech as possible. Now that you've opened the door, what are your thoughts as to the minimum size of the fragments for a 'typical' 1963 era frangible bullet? I'm sure CIA people had access to 'better' than typical frangibles, but if low-tech would do the job, why make it more complex?

Tom

How about a back wound at 3.27ft above the pavement.

If this photo represented JFK in the limo, would the chalk mark appear to be 3.27ft above the ground?

Remember, the top of JFK's head was measured at 52.78 inches above the ground.

Everyone's in bed, and I can't do these measurements accurately without assistance.

The only measurement I can take is from the floor to where the chalk mark would be on me while seated (I'm 1" shorter than JFK) is 3' 5" above the floor. So I'd say 3.27" is too low...

Tom

Chris,

Have you calculated the angle of depression from the 6th floor window to the site of the back wound? I'm curious regarding the path from the entry wound...

Thanks,

Tom

The clip I posted was the most comparable to a carcano. imo

This was 90 micron powder loaded into a frangible bullet? I expected small buckshot...

Would this powder even appear on an X-ray taken by portable equipment manufactured prior to 1963???

Tom

personally my professional opinion on the nature of JFK's back wound is that there was one.

May we quote you on that?

Tom

At the moment I [Tom] can only accept two possible scenarios:

1. The pleura and probably the lung were punctured, and Humes et al are lying to protect the LN scenario

2. Some form of an 'exotic bullet' penetrated his back and then broke up to such a degree that it left little or no trace. "Ice bullets", "blood soluble bullets", mercury bullets, etc. have been mentioned. On the one hand I don't see any reason to dismiss them as a possibility, but on the other hand, I don't know if they could inflict the shallow back wound we seem to be dealing with.

To this I would tentatively add a third possibility, in red here:

3. A frangible bullet disintegrated and lodged itself within the right lung.

Tom, have you ruled out #3?

An FMJ would almost certainly have exited JFK's chest, so frangible bullet fragments lodged somewhere in the lung or chest wall would be the result of my scenario #1.

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

Hey Bob,

Any thoughts as to how much damage a frangible bullet would do to the pleura and lung(s) with a T3 entry? Would the bullet pass through enough soft tissue to break up before it entered the air-filled lung? If not, it may have left a single hole in the pleura and posterior side of the lung, possibly breaking up as it passed through the lung tissue, or fragmenting only when it encountered the anterior side of the lung, pleura, chest wall, ribs, etc.

I've come to the conclusion that neither an FMJ nor a frangible bullet could cause the shallow back wound as described by Humes. i.e. Not deep enough to pass through the pleura. Even an 'exotic' bullet seems unlikely to have stopped short of the pleura, although I'm certainly willing to change my mind if new information on ice bullets, mercury bullets, blood soluble bullets, etc. appears.

IMO the pleura was penetrated as was the lung.

If Humes admitted the back wound continued into the lung at T3, that would be the end of the fiction that the back wound was actually

a base of the neck wound connecting to the throat wound. Thus, a 4th shot is required and no more Lone Gunman.

Tom

However, for the above reasons, it was necessary for the gunsmith at Klein's to make a further modification to the scope.

Bob,

At the moment I can't find the source of the quote, but according to the Klein's gunsmith, they did NOT mount scopes on the Carcano model allegedly sent to LHO. Only on the longer type. IIRC, this was discovered when Kleins asked the FBI "how" they wanted the scopes mounted on the rifles the FBI ordered for test purposes.

Tom

Also, we have Glen Bennett's statement that he observed a shot strike JFK in the back 4" below the shoulder and slightly to the right of the center of his back. So there is evidence that it is a real wound.

I wouldn't put much stock in Bennett's statement, which was made the day after the assassination. As seen in Willis 5, Bennett was not even looking in JFK's direction at the time of the shot that startled Willis and caused him to snap the picture. Bennett is facing toward the right of the SS car and is looking off at someone or something in that direction.

Thanks, Ron. Now that you mention it, I do recall reading that.

Are you certain that Willis 5 was snapped due to a reaction to the first shot? I'm undecided as to the sequence of the back, throat and head shots, and where the first shot occurred. Also, IIRC, some witnesses reported hearing more than one "firecracker" sound.

Glen Bennett's notes made on return trip to DC: "Immediately, upon hearing the supposed fire cracker looked at the Boss's Car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder; a second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Bosss head."

Bennett does state that he heard the "firecracker" [and] immediately looked at the Boss's Car and saw the shot hit. This statement indicates that he was NOT looking at JFK when he heard the sound, and this agrees with Willis 5. I am far from certain, but I think the back shot occurred behind the Stemmons sign. It appears to me that Willis 5 was taken prior to the area where the Stemmons sign blocks Zapruders line of sight. If so, Bennett, as he says, was looking away from JFK before the first shot or at the time of the first shot, and only looked at JFK after he heard a shot.

I do have a problem accepting his statement regarding the back shot. The bullet would hit first, then the sound would arrive. The interval would be minimal due to the short range, but could he actually turn his head at the sound and still see the bullet hit? However, if there were two firecracker shots as some witnesses stated, he could have heard the first firecracker, turned and saw the impact from the second "firecracker" without realizing there was a second sound. Additionally, he states a second shot immediately hit the boss's head. If there were two "firecracker" sounds, this would tend to support that he saw the impact of the second "firecracker" shot.

He compiled his notes on the way back to DC aboard Air Force Two(?). Is it likely that he would have been informed of the back shot including its precise location at that time? The back shot doesn't seem to have been a major topic of discussion even among the doctors that were in the ER. Would this information be known to the SS Agents at this time?

Of course, in this case ANYTHING is possible!

Tom

Tom Neal: "Any additional plausible scenarios would be welcome..."

I remember reading somewhere the suggestion that the back wound was deliberately created by whoever tampered with the body, to explain the throat wound as an exit wound. They just didn't do a very good job, being in a hurry. Problem is, that doesn't explain the corresponding holes in the coat and shirt. Presumably they would have had to shoot the corpse in the back while clothed, which brings us right back to the enigma of the wound's shallowness. But they wouldn't want this bullet to exit, if the intent was to explain the throat wound.

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your input. I recall reading about that scenario, also.

It's the only scenario I can come up with that would actually produce the shallow wound and explain a bullet falling out of a wound. But, as you say, the corresponding holes in the jacket and shirt require the creation of the false wound prior to the removal of his clothing at Parkland. It seems unlikely that anyone had the opportunity to so this unobserved. Also, we have Glen Bennett's statement that he observed a shot strike JFK in the back 4" below the shoulder and slightly to the right of the center of his back. So there is evidence that it is a real wound.

Tom

Tom Neal:

"This bullet allegedly passed through JFK's neck, JBC's Jacket, shirt, undershirt, chest, undershirt, shirt, jacket, jacket sleeve, wrist, trousers, thigh and struck bone. Yet no organic material was present on CE-399?"

Hi Tom: Just a minor correction to your above quote: John Connally was not wearing an undershirt on November 22, 1963. This of course does not detract from the central point you are making - re: "no organic material..." found on CE 399.

FWIW

Hello Gary,

Comment noted.

Thanks; every detail matters in this case.

Tom