Tom Neal

Chris, As stated below Bennett recorded his observations on the flight back to DC, so they are contemporaneous. AFAIK, he is the only person to report seeing the back shot hit JFK. According to his statement the first shot *that he heard* was the back shot. So it was either the first or second shot. Below Bennett's statement is Vince Palamara's take as to why PRS was in the motorcade. SA Glen Bennett PRS-Notes: "Written on plane (5:30 pm 11-22-1963) We made a left hand turn and then [back?] right. The Presidents auto moved down a slight grade and the crowd was very sparse. At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. 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. I immediately hollered to Special Agent Hickey, seated in the same seat, to get the AR-15. I drew my revolver and looked to the rear and to the left" Vince Palamara 03-02-2014: Bennett was a PRS agent- an administrative agent who monitored threats to the president and stayed BACK in D.C. His presence on these trips (and later denials) confirms my suspicions that he was a covert monitor of mortal threats to JFK's life in-progress and that this was covered up afterwards for fear of reprisals from Congress and the public... Tom

Chris, What do you think of the "close friend" of Sam Kinney, who revealed that Kinney had told him that he is the one that put the bullet on the stretcher? I'm convinced that CE-399 is NOT the bullet found on the stretcher, and is very different in appearance from a Carcano bullet. If true, then where did Kinney get this bullet, and WHY did he put it on the stretcher? The friend has also stated that according to Kinney at least one shot definitely came from the Grassy Knoll. Kinney himself has stated that he found the back of JFK's skull on the rear seat of the limo, "right where Clint Hill said it was." Tom

Thanks Chris! Based on JFK and Governor JBC's wounds, I agree that IF CE-399 fell out of any wound, it was JFK's back wound. However, I can't figure out how a Carcano bullet could have created such a shallow wound that it literally fell out of the body. An exiting bullet MAY POSSIBLY do this. According to quotes from LHO's doctors, Ruby's slug came close to exiting. In an attempt to consider every possibility, if this was an exit wound (and the jacket and shirt indicate it is an entry wound), where was the entry wound in the front of the body?? Especially if the pleura wasn't violated... As I recall, CE-399 had not a trace of "organic material" adhering to it. Not that I would otherwise accept the SBT, but in addition to flesh, blood and bone, JBC's clothing was made of organic fiber. This bullet allegedly passed through JFK's neck, JBC's Jacket, shirt, chest, shirt, jacket, jacket sleeve, wrist, trousers, thigh and struck bone. Yet no organic material was present on CE-399? Unless the pleura was violated (and I'm not entirely convinced one way or the other) then this back wound is quite the enigma. At the moment I 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. Any additional plausible scenarios would be welcome... Any leads to Chest X-ray #9, and the possibility of it revealing metallic fragments/particles... Tom EDIT: deleted "undershirt" from JBC's clothing

Hi Sandy, To elaborate: when I stated "simplest explanation", I probably should have included the caveat that I do NOT have a theory that fits all the evidence that appears to be real. To believe Humes is lying is "the simplest explanation" in the sense that it's the least complex. To believe that others are also lying is not AS easy, but of course we don't know WHO was ordered to lie to comply with the LN scenario. ANY of the military personnel MAY have been ordered to lie. Below are lists off the top of my head, stating what I PERSONALLY have been convinced is true, and what I PERSONALLY find bewildering. By all means PLEASE pick apart anything I've stated that IN GENERAL is incorrect. Any contrary or supporting evidence is EQUALLY welcome. The issue of body alteration, and lying by witnesses is problematic. If you accept body alteration (and I DO!) then you must be suspicious of (but NOT reject out of hand) any evidence that points toward multiple gunmen. If you believe Humes, Boswell, and Finke were ordered to lie (and I do!) the same method should be applied regarding them and ANY military personnel at Bethesda. What I do believe regarding the Back Wound: 1. SS Glen Bennett stated on the day of the shooting that he observed a 'hit' about 6" down JFK's back and slightly to the right of the midline 2. RADM Burkley's Death Certificate completed and signed in Dallas in support of the SS stealing the body states a wound at or near T3 3. The holes in JFK's clothing support Bennett's statement, AND Burkley's Death Certificate 4. Humes, Boswell and Finke were ordered to lie, and did so whenever necessary 5. The doctors were not allowed to perform a complete autopsy. See testimony of Finke during Clay Shaw's trial. Thus, evidence necessary to understand the wounds has been hidden. This of course implies that there actually WAS 'something' that was required to be hidden... 6. The body WAS tampered with, possibly including the back wound. Therefore vital evidence regarding the back wound MAY have been destroyed. The condition of the throat wound based upon Humes' description as he began the autopsy convinces me that sometime between Parkland and the moment Humes began the autopsy, someone opened the throat. If the purpose was to create an unquestionable wound of exit, then it was extremely overdone. If however, someone expected to find the wrong type of bullet and/or remove proof that this shot entered from the front, this is the type of damage to be expected. Proof that the throat wound WAS tampered with, is proof that ALL the wounds are suspect. 7. Bullets and/or bullet fragments WERE removed from the throat wound (see size of wound above) and therefore, possibly the back wound as well 8. CE-399 was a plant to link the TSBD rifle to the assassination. It did NOT create any of the damage done to JFK or JBC, and should be completely disregarded in any discussion of the wounds What I do NOT know about the Back Wound: 1. How a FMJ, or a standard frangible bullet could have made a shallow wound. A FMJ would have penetrated the pleura. A frangible would not break up after traveling only an inch or two. In the previous linked thread, the possibility that an under-powered shot aimed at his head would have impacted his back was discussed. To my satisfaction you could have a short-shot that EITHER hit low, OR impacted at a low enough velocity to cause a shallow wound, but not BOTH with the same shot. Importantly, no one came up with a proven impact velocity that would create a wound ONLY an inch or two deep in soft tissue. 2. Was a bullet or any metallic fragments removed from the back wound? 3. Could ANY type of bullet including an 'exotic' bullet create the shallow back wound without penetrating the pleura? 4. Are we absolutely certain that the pleura was NOT penetrated? Jenkins stated that Humes' probe did not penetrate the pleura. What was the diameter of the probe used? If there were a number of holes smaller in diameter than the probe used, and Humes WAS seeking the track of an intact bullet, then the probe would not have penetrated. If the probe was held at an angle other than the bullets actual trajectory, it would not have penetrated. Toward the end of the autopsy it was decided that the back wound AND the throat must be connected by a bullet path. If a hole in the pleura was discovered lower than the back wound entry this can NOT be admitted as it would require one more rifle shot than a LN could produce in the allotted time frame. Humes, Boswell and Finke were ordered to lie, why not Jenkins? 5. Where is chest x-ray #9? As discussed in testimony by Ebersole there are a multitude of small objects visible, which he dismisses as 'dirt' in the film cartridges. At least one other doctor present appears to disagree. I know nothing about Radiology. Are film cartridges typically that dirty? Prior to use, aren't they shipped in protective bags?

WC Testimony of COMMANDER HUMES: [T]hese were knife wounds, these were incised wounds on either side of the chest... . Their intention was to incise through the President's chest to place tubes into his chest. We examined those wounds very carefully, and found that they, however, did not enter the chest cavity. They only went through the skin. I presume that as they were performing that procedure it was obvious that the President had died, and they didn't pursue this Would it be normal procedure to first cut through the skin only, stop, and then soon after cut through the chest? If this is NOT standard procedure, then why did two doctors do this? See testimony below of Drs. Peters and Jones: The testimony of Dr. Paul Conrad Peters, March 24, 1964, Parkland Memorial Hospital by Arlen Specter: Dr. PETERS - Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter were doing the tracheotomy ... and Perry noted also that there appeared to be a bubbling sensation in the chest and recommended that chest tubes be put in. Dr. Ron Jones put a chest tube in on the left side and Dr. Baxter and I put it in on the right side I made the incision in the President's chest, and I noted that there was no bleeding from the wound. Mr. SPECTER - Did you put that chest tube all the way in on the right side? Dr. PETERS - That's our presumption--yes. WC testimony of Dr. Ronald Jones: DR. JONES: Dr. Perry was performing the tracheotomy ... they thought they saw some gush of air and the possibility of a pneumothorax [collapsed lung] on one side or the other was entertained, and since I was to the left of the President, I went ahead and put in the anterior chest tube in the second intercostal space. MR. SPECTER: Was that tube fully inserted, Doctor? DR. JONES: I felt that the tube was fully inserted, and this was immediately connected to underwater drainage. The hedging by both doctors when asked by Specter if the chest tube was fully inserted troubles me. Looks like I will be doing some some reading re the "chest tubes"... Tom

Here's an illustration of something that has bothered me since I first read Humes' testimony: In the illustration above is a red 7mm x 4mm ellipse representing JFK's back wound as reported by Humes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he states that he inserted his little finger up to the 2nd knuckle. Humes was a MUCH larger person that me, so the 3/4" diameter at the 2nd knuckle of my little finger, and 2 inch length from tip to 2nd knuckle is likely less than his. The yellow 3/4" diameter circle represents a reasonable estimate as to the size of the 2nd knuckle of Humes little finger. Skin is elastic, but you certainly don't want to damage the wound. So, with a tray full of metal probes at his beck and call, he decides to stick his finger into a hole 1/3 the size of his finger. He states that he was able to "probe the bottom of it with his little finger." Does anyone else find this difficult to believe? Tom

At Parkland, a pneumothorax was diagnosed, and chest tubes were inserted for drainage. However, Humes insists he carefully examined the pleura and it was NOT violated. Why is this so important to Humes that he would tell an obvious lie about the incisions for the chest tubes? It appears that for whatever reasons, he (they) can NOT admit that either the "Throat Wound", or the "Back Wound" penetrated the pleura. The simplest explanation is that the pleura actually WAS penetrated, and they are covering this up, but overselling the lie. Humes COULD have said, the only violations to the pleura were the chest tube incisions. Certainly those scalpel cuts could be distinguished from bullet holes. But, what if false x-rays were used (like the intact brain that was autopsied), and these x-rays did not include the chest tube incisions? This would prove the x-rays were false. When this was realized the fake chest x-rays vanished. I've read that chest x-rays were taken, and of course they should have been, but I've never located any. If the actual chest x-rays revealed a 'constellation' of bullet fragments as the head x-rays do, this would prove that frangible ammo was used. If so, then JFK was not hit with a round fired by LHO. Sandy, 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. Tom

Hi Bob, If the distance between the rifle and the branches is 25 yards as Chris has indicated, then how far away from the branches is the spot where the two holes were an inch apart? How far is the target from the branches? He doesn't say. The fact that at some unknown distance from the branches the bullets flight path is altered by one inch tells us nothing. However, if we knew the distance from the target at which the flight path was altered by one inch, and in what direction it was altered we could calculate the angle the bullet was deflected. With this angle you could project the miss distance at any range. Instead of this, he makes a big deal out of saying the trajectory was only altered by an inch, just an inch. He is implying that this small amount of alteration is insignificant, but then goes on to state that the bullet would have ended up in the pavement. If the board with the two holes is close to the branches then obviously the angle subtended by that one inch at a distance of another 75 yards means a significant miss. The further the board with the two holes is from the branches then the smaller the miss distance. Assuming the board with the two holes was at 75 feet from the branch then 1 inch would indicate a very small angle of deflection. This was my point. He doesn't state the distances so we don't know. Since they had the equipment, they could have measured the speed of the bullet after it impacted the branches. That would have been nice to know. If we assume the target was a further 25 yards from the branches, then the results of this particular experiment are telling us that the impact with a branch would have deflected the shot too much to have turned a head shot into a back hit. The bullet penetrated 36" of pine. How much of its almost 2100 fps did it lose after penetrating 4 small branches? Could this bullet have caused a shallow back wound? I'll have to watch the full video to see what their objective was. Tom

The angled green line is exactly on the long axis of the moving bullet. From the point that the bullet exits the last branch until it disappears off screen, the bullet is at a 35 degree nose above the horizontal attitude and absolutely stable. Chris, Do you know the range of the shooter to the branches and to the target? In the dialog at the end of the clip it is stated that the bullet was deflected only about an inch from its intended course. He then says it would have continued on and hit the pavement. If it was only deflected an inch but would have hit the pavement, I have to wonder the distances they are using from rifle to branch, and branch to target. Tom

Absolutely, Bob! From the previous thread on this back wound, I see three major questions here: 1. velocity of the bullet post tree limb encounter (this allows calculation of the impact velocity) 2. trajectory of the bullet post tree limb encounter (this determines point of impact) 3. 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? Tom

Hello Gary, thanks for you response. Do you recall the approximate diameter of the branches used by TP? From the photos of DP I have no idea if they were 1"; 1/2"; 1/4" or whatever. It will be interesting to see how thick a branch was required to cause the type of damage to the bullet that you describe. The branch diameter would be necessary to estimate how much velocity was shed by the bullet during contact with a branch. Also, unless it was a hit at the exact center of the branch, the trajectory of the bullet would be altered. Did TP do any estimates of angles of deflection and velocity lost? I hope you can find them, and of course, thanks for looking! The bullets were flattened on BOTH sides of the long axis every time, or sometimes only on ONE side? I agree with you - Bob P. did a fine job explaining the open base of this ammo, which was a surprise to me. I had taken the "F" in "FMJ" literally. Ain't THAT the truth! It can't be said often enough. There are simply too many unknowns, and too many variables. The best that can be hoped for is to separate REASONABLE theories into categories, such as probable, possible, and unlikely. Tom

Gary, A quote from your Post #9: ....Tom's theoretical nuances of a tumbling bullet scenario, a scenario I might add that Tom actually tested... Tom

Since we're talking about the back wound...O'Connor has drawn several bullet fragments, and the sketch is labelled "bullet" fragments, does it seem peculiar that a FMJ bullet has 'fragmented' after penetrating only soft tissue? Tom

Hi Sandy, Glad to see someone else who is still trying to 'explain' the back wound. The thread you referenced just kinda ran out of steam... My question, and I don't know the answer myself, is; How thick a piece of wood is required to knock 1700 fps (I don't know how much velocity has been lost while traveling the first 85 ft.) off the velocity of a Carcano slug? Did that oak(?) tree located between "the window" and JFK have thick branches where the trajectory would have passed? Tom

Pat, After reading all of the above posts, I'm a bit confused as to where you stand today on the major issues involved, so I'm unsure how to 'take' some of your comments. Before I reply, would you mind answering a couple of quick questions? Q1: Do you agree that as of today, both Parkland and Bethesda doctors are in agreement that there was a large hole in the back of JFK's head? Q2: Do you agree that the Bethesda autopsy photo(s) depict an intact back of head? Thanks, Tom

Joannides was assigned as the go-between for the HSCA and CIA. To do so, CIA had to lie to Blakey et al regarding Joannides duties at the time of JFK's assassination. Even Blakey says that if he had known who he actually was, he would have been testifying under oath, not deciding what CIA information the HSCA was not allowed to see. If the judges were doing their jobs, they would admit that ANY info re "George" is in the public interest. Why it's almost as if they didn't want us to know what our own government was up to 50 years ago... Tom

Douglas, Thank you for that link. That brings me right up to date, and it also included some facts that I was unaware of. I wondered how I could possibly have missed it until I noticed the Oct 5th date. Apparently it was posted after I checked the site! Tom

Yes, I've already read all of the above... Now would be a good time to start answering my questions. Tom

Ramon, As you get deeper into this subject I believe you will discover that it is even more complex than it appears. Alvarez, who SURELY knows better, deliberately avoids a number of factors in his "jet effect" theory. Looking forward to hearing your response, and hoping you have uncovered some info that is new to me, Tom

Douglas, Do I understand correctly that the current status of Morley's FOIA is that the court has made the decision that CIA MUST turn over the requested documents, and even though CIA is legally required to do so, they are simply refusing to follow the law? Thanks for any info! Tom

Hiram, The most trouble-free way to create attachments here on this site, is to open a free Photobucket account. You can upload your photos to Photobucket and then create a link in your message on this site to the specific photo in your Photobucket account. Tom

Ramon, I have read all the posts, watched the videos, etc. Your hypothesis here is spread out over multiple posts, and you have not responded directly to questions from several members. Thus it is still unclear how your "Sucking Cup Effect" functions. Please state the forces at work here, and how they are created, step-by-step, beginning with a small entrance wound in the skull. A 'verbal' explanation will suffice. i.e. a video is not required... Tom

Just to toss in my 2 cents worth: The trail of fragments would be approximately cone-shaped with the apex of the cone representing the bullet's point of entry into the head. Tom

Jon, I think you're agreeing/not disagreeing with my point which is that although the math is simple, we do NOT know the values to plug into the equation to calculate the force applied to the body. IF we knew the force applied to the body, we still do not know how much force is required to rotate his head and body at the neck and at the waist. Without the results of these calculations we can NOT determine the response of the body due to this applied force. The only practical way to measure this directly would be utilizing a very recently deceased cadaver and high speed photography. If the above difficulties were overcome and a film of a bullet to the head was actually produced it would require the original unaltered z-film for comparison. It's fair to say that the extant Z-film is questionable at best... Tom

I went from E-1 to E-6 in six non-combat years 82-86 Reg. Army (Armor) and 88-90 FLNG (Infantry). So it's possible but unlikely unless theres a conflict. He did not go to Vietnam, and had never been in combat, so it seems kinda unlikely... Thanks, Chris! And to all, apologies for the OT! Tom