Tom Neal

Again, if it was a sliver of bone, how would it cause a neat 6mm hole in JFK's throat, as described by Dr Perry?

Ray,

I've already heard his explanation for this - I'm eager to hear if your response is similar to mine, which didn't affect his belief at all...

Tom

Tom, I just don't understand how a sliver of bone (If it were such) made a perfectly round hole in The President's neck and yet made rough slits in both layers of his shirt. Common sense says both cannot be true.

I'm with you all the way on this, Ray. I've been stating that for months and all I get is grief and unfounded speculation.

How do you feel about this "long slender bone fragment" that ran out of energy exactly as it completely exited the shirt, and "nicked" the tie? Where is this nick in the tie? As I stated earlier the only damage to the tie is a small rectangular area that was removed by the FBI lab for testing. This nick has been located by various theorists as on the side and on the front, and NOW it was obviously on the back, and the tie has been retied to relocate the "nick" that I don't see. Rather than let the evidence create the theory, the theory now creates the evidence. Sounds very WC to me.

If the tracheal wound was between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings, and the top of JFK's shirt collar was against the bottom of his thyroid cartilage (Adam's apple), I really do not have a problem seeing a projectile either entering or exiting JFK's throat, passing through his shirt collar and nicking his tie on the way by.

"...through his shirt collar..." Semantics?

There is no hole through his shirt collar. The slits are below it. Are you saying the slit is located at the same level as the throat wound?

In actuality, Tom, this is not quite how it is. The term "tracheal cartilage" is actually another term for "tracheal ring". During the performance of a tracheotomy, the only thing necessary to retract, in order to access the tracheal rings, is the thyroid gland itself which, in many cases, overlies the upper trachea.[/font][/color]

Bob,

I don't believe I ever said the tracheal cartilage had to be retracted. I was speaking of the Adam's Apple and used the word "cartilage" referring to the cartilage immediately below the Adam's Apple. This is what has to be retracted. I pointed this out myself not too far back.

If I DID say the tracheal cartilage had to be retracted, please point it out to me and I'll correct the statement. I DO know the difference between the two.

Again, if it was a sliver of bone, how would it cause a neat 6mm hole in JFK's throat, as described by Dr Perry?

Ray,

I've already heard his explanation for this - I'm eager to hear if your response is similar to mine, which didn't affect his belief at all...

Tom

I have a sound hypothesis for the path of the bullet through the body, and how the bone fragment was propelled out the front of the neck. I just haven't presented it yet.

I've asked you to present this "sound hypothesis" for months and months. Haven't heard even the vaguest description of it yet. What reason other than 'it isn't ready for presentation' could there be? If it isn't ready for presentation even now, then you concluded months ago that your theory is correct without any evidence to back it up. Not quite the Scientific Method is it?

You have stated that your previous back wound "hypothesis" is "conjecture' and that "you have never claimed it was anything else." Will this "sound hypothesis" include actual evidence or is it too 'complete conjecture?'

You will no doubt label the above as a "snarky comment", but these are YOUR WORDS I'm using, so it is a legitimate question. If this is also 'complete conjecture' I'm not interested. If it includes what you deem as "evidence" it should prove interesting...

BTW, do you have a response yet to my statement regarding your EOP/Front shot cause for the forward then back movement of JFK's head?

It was a long, slender shard of bone IMO. It hit the back of the tie knot, pushed the knot out with what little kinetic energy it had left, and then stopped. It nicked the tie where it hit.

No long slender shard of bone was found in the wound or in the vicinity of the wound. Therefore even to speculate that one existed requires a reasonable explanation as to how this wound could possibly have been created by a bone, AND how it could have done the things you require it to do. Without this you can say with equal assurance that is was a chicken bone from the snack he had during the limo ride...

The tie was subsequently loosened by somebody, then re-tied. Doing so relocated the nick from the back of the knot to the side.

This alleged "nick" is a hole with the blue fabric completely removed, exposing the white tie liner. So the "long slender bone fragment" slit the shirt, *removed" a piece of cloth from the tie without leaving a mark in the liner or any blood or tissue, and completely exited the wound.

The FBI Lab states that it tested a sample removed from the necktie. Their stated procedure is to remove the sample as close as possible to the suspect area. If this "nick" was caused by a bone fragment, where is the hole created when the fabric was removed from the tie? The evidence photo depicts both sides of the unknotted tie - a hole would be easily visible due to the white fabric lining the interior of the tie that was not removed. IMO, the alleged nick *is* the removed sample.

Note about the location of of tracheal rings: Tracheal rings are located in different places depending upon the person. For example, my first tracheal ring is located below my sternal notch when I'm holding my head upright.

The first one you can feel - possibly. In most tracheostomy procedures the tracheal cartilage must be retracted to allow access to the upper tracheal rings. How can anyone feel them through this cartilage?

The trachea begins at the base of the Adam's apple. Therefore you are saying your Adam's Apple is located at or below the sternal notch. ???!!!

Where is your evidence that JFK's 2nd tracheal ring was substernal? The stare of death photo clearly depicts the trach incision AND the upper half of the circular bullet wound in the margin of the incision which is located at the 2nd tracheal ring. It is located quite close to the base of the Adam's Apple despite the EXTREME retraction of the lower margin of the incision. The substernal notch is also visible, many inches BELOW the wound.

JFK's 2nd tracheal ring is just below his Adam's Apple. Given the size of tracheal rings, the wound is at most 3/8" below his Adam's Apple - not the cartilage below it. The shirt slits are well below the collar button (supply your own measurements if you like) and therefore below the lower edge of the necktie knot.

The photo I have posted and referenced many times of JFK speaking at a podium on 11-22-1963 wearing the *SAME* shirt and tie that he was wearing when shot clearly shows his entire Adam's Apple and cartilage is above the top of his collar. Verify this with the skin folds in his neck, here, and in the SOD photo. The shirt slits however are below the knot in his tie.

My estimate is the shirt slits are 1 1/2" lower than the throat wound, and if true these slits could not have been created by any missile departing the throat wound.

Last winter we discussed the throat wound at length, in that thread that had been started by Ashton Gray quite a while ago. At the time our discussion petered out, I felt that the evidence for a below-the-shirtline wound was more convincing than that for an above-the-shirtline wound. I found Ashton's two animated GIFs to be both impressive and persuasive.

As was discussed in the thread you refer to, the shoulders of the shirt are aligned with the shadow of the shoulders on the table - not with JFK's shoulders. As was discussed in the original thread and later, the shirt and tie are too high.

They indicate that the shirt slits were at about the same location as the throat wound.

IIRC Ashton still believes his GIF is correct, but acknowledges that the slits are too low to correspond with the throat wound.

Why don't you post the GIF as evidence so others can share your belief?

The slits were tested at the FBI Lab - no metal was found. No metal no bullet.

Harold Weisberg is the sole originator of the scalpel theory - no doctor or nurse ever claimed to have used a scalpel. Audrey Bell was the head nurse of the Trauma Room. When she arrived JFK's clothing was being removed. She states that she "grabbed a pair of scissors" and assisted in clothing removal. Nurse Margaret Henchliffe, a 10-year veteran of that TR, set up the equipment before JFK was brought in. No TR is without multiple pairs of scissors. No nurse would pass a scalpel that close to a patients throat to cut off a necktie. Dr. James Carrico demonstrated the procedure for removing the JFK's tie by forming his index and middle fingers into a "V" and making snipping motions. JFK's shirt was unbuttoned by Carrico and opened before the tie was cut - would the slits only overlap when the shirt was fully buttoned if the slits had been made with the shirt spread open? The slits are completely through the shirt for a length of 1/2" yet there is no corresponding cut in JFK's body. Look at the photo of the actual cuts made in the jacket and shirt to remove them. Try and do that many long cuts through a suit jacket with an ultra-thin scalpel which is NOT designed to cut cloth. There is no such thing as a clothing-cutting scalpel.

Alleging a bone fragment causing the slits requires a scenario in which this fragment is created and propelled through 1/2 the circumference of the trachea, subcutaneous tissue, the skin and the shirt, yet does not leave any mark whatsoever on the back of the necktie. Where is the entry wound for the bullet that created this alleged bone fragment? What path did the bullet travel? Without all of the above, this bone fragment isn't even conjecture - it's fantasy.

As I recall, the slits in the shirt are vertical, not horizontal. FWIW. But neither do I believe they were made by a scalpel.

You are correct! In my mind I was picturing the button hole not the slits...duh...

I was going through my Carrico folder to confirm one of his statements and spotted the shirt slits photo and realized my error. I came back to the site and found your post.

This will be the 6th change required to fix my mistakes in the above post, and one was even dumber than confusing horizontal and vertical! -- definitely time to call it a night.

Since you are already here, how about some comments on the rest of the post? e.g. Do you believe the slits in the shirt are at the same level as the throat wound? You can answer yes or no if you'd like, and I promise not to ask further questions on this issue...

This post is hitting the edge of OT for a back wound thread, but ties into "why" the back wound was raised, and "why" even with all the disinformation this explanation of the back wound still doesn't work.

[The throat wound] is now closer (but still too high) to align with the slits in the shirt located below the tie knot that allegedly were caused by an exiting bullet.

What created the shirt slits?

These shirt slits were tested for metal and none was found - not a bullet/fragment.

The slit is at least 1/2" and IMO probably 3/4" below the wound - not an exiting bone fragment.

The nurses did not create these shirt slits when they cut off the tie "with scalpels" - scalpels* were not used.

Carrico unbuttoned JFK's shirt himself, to listen to his chest *before* the shirt and tie were removed - he reported that he saw no shirt slits

Despite the fact that it was required, no one was allowed to examine the shirt at the autopsy. What unacceptable evidence would the shirt have revealed?

*The "scalpel" conjecture originated with Harold Weisberg alone, no doctor or nurse stated they used scalpels. [dumb mistake removed!]

IMO, the shirt slits were likely created to support the frontal exit of the back wound. An exiting bullet from the back wound had to create a hole through the tie and the shirt. These holes did not exist so they made a cut through the shirt. IMO the slit is too wide to have been caused by an object leaving such a small wound in the throat, and of course they have completely ignored the fact that there is no hole through the tie and there should be. Were they that dumb, that careless, or just that desperate?

All of the above information is evidence the back wound bullet didn't exit the throat. IMO, it fragmented, just as the head shot bullet did, and punctured the right lung causing all of the symptoms reported by the Parkland doctors as described by Bob in this thread.

We also know that Humes reported, in the autopsy report (Appendix IX of the WC Report), that the tear in JFK's trachea was between the 3rd and 4th tracheal ring, just below the larynx.

According to Perry and Baxter the tracheal tear was at the 2nd tracheal ring and between the 2nd and 3rd. Apparently it wasn't quite parallel to the rings and cut across the trachea at a very slight angle. So what is Humes motive for moving the tear downward 3/8" or so?

The Parkland doctors, who unlike Humes, were qualified to analyze a gunshot wound, had reported this as an entrance wound. Lowering the wound:

• Assures the wound is comfortably below the top of the shirt collar and therefore not an entry wound.
• It is now closer to an alignment with the back wound that they raised to create a compatible entry-exit path for a shot from behind.
• It is now closer (but still too high) to align with the slits in the shirt located below the tie knot that allegedly were caused by an exiting bullet.

Unfortunately, Tom, the same holds true in Canada as does in the USA. Climate change acceptance here is directly relative to how closely your sustenance is tied to the Oil Sands in Alberta.

Hi Bob,

Thanks for the response. Have you checked to see if your mail box is full? That produces a similar response...

That's sad. Since I posted the question, I found a few references to the above.

Since you guys were smart enough to prevent a 'Fox News Canada' I was hoping things were better for you.

The whole anti-science thing actually *reduces* your credibility if you cite your academic credentials. Additionally, if you obtained your degrees from a top university you are immediately labeled an "elitist" or even a "snob" and your credibility crashes. I have learned to keep my academic credentials to myself...

Oddly enough, when people seek a doctor, a lawyer, or a financial expert, their first question is "Where did you receive your education?"

Tom

DELETED

Hey Bob,

I tried to PM you with this, but I got a response that you are "unable to receive PMs." So...

Any chance I can get you to comment on my post:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22979&page=6#entry332273

TIA,

Tom

Personally, I've always been baffled by Humes continuing to search the thorax and abdomen for a bullet, or fragments thereof, long after the x-rays failed to show any such thing. Did he think the x-ray machine was broken? At what point do we call everything done by Humes by its proper name, that being bizarre?

Humes actions during the autopsy are puzzling to say the least. Even the following do not entirely explain his actions:

He was not qualified to do an autopsy on a gunshot victim, and was clearly out of his administrative element

He was clearly controlled even prior to the autopsy. e.g. when he was ordered by the SS to get off the phone while speaking to the most qualified autopsist in the country

He was ordered by Galloway not to touch the throat because it was "only a tracheotomy incision." Humes certainly wouldn't have defied Galloway, yet the Stare-of-death photos reveal that the lower half of the incision had been retracted down to JFK's sternum. Obviously Humes did this BEFORE Galloway's order. Humes had to have seen the torn trachea and knew it was a GSW. The high contrast of this image makes it impossible to determine, but I see no evidence at all of a trachea in this gaping hole. Did Humes remove it?

Denied access to the throat GSW, and faced with a back wound that was clearly an entrance hole that according to Boswell, Finke and others, he probed to a depth of two inches with his finger, and inserted a probe all the way to the pleura. From Humes statements he had a bullet hole all the way to the pleura that didn't penetrate the pleura, but found no bullet. IMO, he continued to root around in the internals ONLY because he had no idea how to end the autopsy without finding a bullet. With the discovery of CE-399 he had an out, and he ended the autopsy.

Personally, I find it impossible to decide what Humes actually knew prior to the autopsy...

Precisely, Tom. You summarize the situation very well.

As you say, the shooter is not expecting the 1 in 10,000 cartridge that is not going to propel the bullet at the expected 2200 feet per second, and is aiming at a spot that will accurately place only a bullet travelling that precise velocity.

Thanks, Bob!

Question fer ya - your earlier comments re expert v. amateur and my thoughts as to WHY your 'scientific explanation' and mine on this topic are not accepted by many members. IMO, the instant the statements begin to sound like science or even worse, physics, many readers immediately reject any info that follows as pompous BS.

I have noticed that when I and others make a statement, a too frequent response is 'all you need is "common sense" to know that is not true.' Hopefully not true in Canada, but here in the USA a STRONG anti-science bias exists. IMO, this is due to the the repercussions of "Climate Change." Eliminating or severely reducing carbon emissions for example would reduce the typical "record profits" of oil companies.

Again IMO, this anti-science bias began in earnest with NASA's study which was immediately classified 'because it would panic the public with information that wasn't true.' This expanded quickly into a 'you can't trust scientists' attitude, and the opinion of experts possessing a higher education is superseded by alleged "common sense" that completely contradicts science. Again IMO, this bias is the result of a carefully orchestrated and politically supported plan.

To my knowledge this corporate/political campaign is not in effect in Canada. And at last the question I have been leading up to: Do you find the same anti-science bias there as in the USA?

Although I refuse to 'dumb down' the science to a point that it interferes with the necessary comprehension and can even create a false understanding, I don't supply any math, science or physics credentials for two reasons.

1. It has been my experience that when I counter 'common sense' opinions with science it is not accepted and is actually counter-productive to communicating.

2. Far too many people think you MUST be lying regarding credentials because 'simple common sense' proves you wrong.

None of the above applies to 'Science sites' where I spend MUCH more time than I do at this site.

Tom

PS If the 'Thread-Starter' believes this post is OT, LMK and I'll remove it. My personal opinion is that EVERY thread-starter has the right to make this decision him or herself.

Hi Sandy

I'm still planning to respond to this. However, being a new hypothesis (or speculation), I find it very intriguing and I've been going over it in my mind the last few days as I work. You might almost say I am savouring it LOL.

I think by the weekend I should be writing something about this.

Bob,

I'm looking forward to finally finding out what it is about this "speculation" as Sandy NOW defines it that has you "savouring" it. If you can actually prove this conjecture is a viable explanation for the steep hole in JFK's back without resorting to highly improbable circumstances then you are WAY smarter than me.

In a discussion with several forum members via email, I was asked if I had a "rebuttal" of the document without all the back-and-forth contained in the posts. I do, and since you are going to respond, I've posted it here as a rough summary:

This speculation sets itself the stated task of explaining how the back wound bullet created the 45-60 degree downward hole that is 1/4" diameter and a minimum of 2" long as described by Humes.

This explanation is as follows: A bullet impacts JFK's back and fragments immediately into tiny bits. It then disperses due to its encounter with body tissues slowing enough to deflect off a rib at a 45-60 degree angle leaving the rib undamaged with no embedded metallic bits.

1. A bullet that fragments immediately upon impact and has slowed and dispersed such that it can deflect off a rib leaving no embedded particles is not going to guarantee a fatal wound. *If* it even existed in 1963, this type of bullet would not be used to kill JFK.

2. Tiny bullet fragments are forced to *disperse* due to their passage through body tissue in a cone-shape that becomes a cloud of metallic bits when their velocity becomes zero as seen in JFK's head x-rays and in the "pig photos." These tiny particles cannot create a 1/4" diameter coherent hole from the surface of the skin to a depth of 2" per the conditions set forth in this document. i.e. This bullet made "Humes Hole" not "Humes Perforation."

3. Perforations created by tiny fragments do not create a 'tunnel' that would admit Humes little finger, nor even a flexible metallic probe to the depth of the pleura as described by Humes et al.

4. This entry hole and its passage from skin to pleura, which is the single most important factor in proving this conjecture false is not described AT ALL in this document! If it had been described at all, any reader would immediately realize that a bullet that left a bullet-sized hole that extends from the surface of the skin to beyond the rib could not create this hole while simultaneously fragmenting into 'sand' prior to encountering a rib. This hole as described by Humes is precisely what this document seeks to explain. If you deny the existence of the hole which is integral to this document then the premise and the conjecture are both false.

5. A bullet that fragments into tiny bits PRIOR to encountering the rib as REQUIRED by this document will create cloud of metallic fragments as seen in JFK's head x-ray and the "pig photos." JFK's lung x-ray depicts no metal in that area, and only a few random specks that are allegedly dirt on the film.

DUPE...

I've grown tired of attempting to explain how it is ballistically impossible for a rifle bullet to make such a shallow wound, and still be able to hit its target. If you wish to continue to believe this foolishness, that is your business.

Bob,

Let me try to explain it. Amateur to amateur, in very simple terms.

Hey Bob,

I didn't know you were an amateur that required an explanation in simple terms! Stupid me considers you an expert!

BTW, what was that comment you made a few posts ago about the people who just don't get this SIMPLE concept?

Sandy,

You've already proven to me that you don't believe anything I say, so why don't you critique my explanation as to my Bob is 100% correct on this issue and doesn't require your "amateur" explanation?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22956&p=332008

Tom

Hi Tom

I don't really mind. Compared to many learned men in the field of ballistics, I would call myself an amateur, too.

I did call it a simple concept a while back but, when I thought about it a bit, I realized it might not be that simple to someone without knowledge or experience in firearms. It's like me and computers. My kids constantly tell me how simple they are, but I still break into a cold sweat every time I have to do something new on them.

Sometimes all it takes is a simplified explanation, such as Sandy presented, to help others grasp a concept. And, in the long run, isn't that what it's all about?

Oversimplifying can cause more problems than it solves. We'll see if it helps anyone that didn't get it before...

IMO, the issue is primarily that their mind is made up before they even begin reading - a slow bullet makes a shallow hole - everyone knows that; it's common sense! I think anyone here that makes the effort can understand your explanation and mine, so I didn't dumb it down.

The issue that I focused on with Craig in my response to him, was that the shooter is unaware that he is about to fire a defective bullet. He will be aiming at a target expecting to get the 2,000 fps typical velocity. When he gets a shot at say 1,000 fps the bullet will indeed make a shallow hole and cause less damage, but the bullet will fall far short of the targer.

The only way to hit the target at all is to aim the rifle much higher - higher than the sights are telling you - than you would with good ammo. If you do that, yes, you can hit the target at the slower velocity. But the shooter doesn't aim higher because he doesn't know he has defective ammo, so the bullet never reaches the target.

I told Craig if he had any issue with my statement to reply. He never did, so presumably that explanation sufficed.

Tom

I've grown tired of attempting to explain how it is ballistically impossible for a rifle bullet to make such a shallow wound, and still be able to hit its target. If you wish to continue to believe this foolishness, that is your business.

Bob,

Let me try to explain it. Amateur to amateur, in very simple terms.

Hey Bob,

I didn't know you were an amateur that required an explanation in simple terms! Stupid me considers you an expert!

BTW, what was that comment you made a few posts ago about the people who just don't get this SIMPLE concept?

Sandy,

You've already proven to me that you don't believe anything I say, so why don't you critique my explanation as to my Bob is 100% correct on this issue and doesn't require your "amateur" explanation?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22956&p=332008

Tom

Tom is accusing me of speculating. Here is my response:

If by accusation you mean supplying actual evidence that you are unable to refute other than with "over the top" analogies like "we went to the Moon in 6 years" and the ever popular "I don't think so" and "because I wanted to."

Yes, my hypothesis IS speculation!

At last; a full confession IN YOUR OWN WORDS! ONE MORE TIME: Speculation is NOT an Hypothesis!

BTW, you state that caps are "shouting" and that just 'turns you off completely'. My response that people raise their voice in real life, so what is wrong with doing that on line for a word, a phrase, or an even an entire sentence. You are expressing your exasperation with me by "shouting." Given the greater degree of exasperation you cause in me, ("Tom is accusing me of speculating" and 'that's all I have ever done.' "I never claimed that it was anything but speculation" (except in the title and numerous times in all your posts.)

Pardon me for 'falsely' accusing you of speculating when by your OWN statement you have done nothing other than speculate. My bad - RIGHT?

I did not select these definitions - they are the first google results that appeared...

definition of an Hypothesis:

"A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."

google results - definition of an Speculation:

"Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition. b. A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture"

"Yes, my hypothesis IS speculation!"

"I never represented it as anything else."

So where is the REQUIRED "limited evidence" that is NOT conjecture in your hypothesis? - oops! I mean conjecture than is titled an hypothesis but you have never claimed it was anything but conjecture?

The title of your thread is "...a (should be "An") hypothesis" not "speculation." Is this one of those "details" you state you "don't have to prove?"

Never? Shall we count the number of times you have used the word "hypothesis" (in addition to the title you REFUSE to change) in your posts? EVERY time you do so you are representing this speculation as an hypothesis!

So what? Speculation is used in science all the time, in the formation of new ideas. The hypothesis is an attempt to tie together some loose ends in a larger hypothesis. I don't provide any evidence (beyond my thought experiments) and I don't pretend to.

In science, Speculation, which requires NO EVIDENCE at all, is NEVER presented as an hypothesis which requires at least LIMITED evidence. When the author states: "I don't provide any evidence" he is stating that he had no hypothesis, yet you refuse to stop using the word hypothesis. This is misrepresentation, which I have pointed out numerous times, but you refuse to admit. When you continue to call it an hypothesis and then make statements, you are presenting these statements as evidence, when even you, NOW ANYWAY (you certainly didn't before), admit they are conjecture.

And while you try to turn this against me for accusing you of something you admit literally in bold text, why are you not countering my arguments to your "speculation"? When your speculation is shown as false because you can't counter it with actual evidence it's time to admit it is wrong, drop it, and move on. Yet you still are pushing your NOT A hypothesis.

Stop blaming me because you represented speculation as an hypothesis to make your statements carry additional weight, and your speculation has been EASILY proven IMPOSSIBLE.

"I made a mistake when I labeled the appendix of my hypothesis as "Supporting Images." I was glad that Tom pointed out that the pig images don't support my hypothesis, and I relabeled the appendix "Related Images." (At the time I typed the word "Supporting" I was using it like the word "Supplementary." I didn't recognize at the time that it could mean something entirely different from what I intended.

You say "the pig images don't support my hypothesis" - yet to you they are actually "Related." They can either support, contradict, or be irrelevant to your conjecture. By your own admission they don't "support", so that leaves contradict or irrelevant. Do you think they "contradict?" You certainly imply otherwise. What I pointed out was they are irrelevant. When I asked why you didn't explain the implications of these photos and left them in, you replied "Because I wanted to."

You expressed gratitude for my comment? You were clearly annoyed because I pointed out that this and your text were still misrepresenting its value because you stated 'it would be better if it were aimed at the bone' (this is a clear statement that these photos represented to some degree, what actually happened, but would have been "Better" if aimed at the bone. You refused to change this at all. Your statement that 'I believe the shot was faster.' fails to explain the SIGNIFICANCE of this fact, but you also refused to add this information for clarification.

Even calling it "related" or any of your choices is stretching the point too far. In your 'pig photos and text' you depict a bullet: that was only theoretical in 1963; would NEVER be used to inflict a fatal injury; traveled at a speed 1/4th the velocity of the back shot, came nowhere near the bone (which IS the point of your conjecture: that the rib deflected the shot downward at a steep angle) and unlike the several WIDELY scattered "dirt" particles on the JFK x-ray, left an unmistakable cloud of metallic debris.

So what was the related part? Rather than post info of a typical fragmenting bullet of that era, you post one that is at best misleading (SEE ABOVE). Even if you stated that this bullet bears no relationship whatsoever to my "Hypothesis" (as you regularly insist this is) readers will STILL remember what they saw because most of your post consists of these photos.

I did NOT make this up. In contrast to everything he said above, e.g. "Yes, my hypothesis IS speculation! I never represented it as anything else." this is his actual closing remark:

Having said that, I want to emphasize the point that this is only a hypothesis

Ignorance is bliss!

PART 2

It's a HYPOTHESIS, Tom. I don't need to provide evidence for every single detail of it. I DID provide thought experiments to support my theory.

"Every single detail?" What evidence have you provided for your overall theory? What details have provided evidence for. All I see are analogies and thought experiments to counter actual evidence.
A hypothesis has to have evidence beyond "I think" and speculation. It is used to determine the validity of an idea. When it has failed to stand up under scrutiny, it is time to let it go. Despite lack of support and evidence to the contrary, you are still stubbornly hoping that it will be accepted as a viable theory.

Nevertheless, I can say that frangible bullets DID exist in 1963. The only question is, how small a particle was being used. I CANNOT KNOW THAT. It was classified information.

The frangible bullets that are known to exist in 1963 broke into large fragments and small fragments. 100% of the bullet did not turn into dust-sized particles as required by your hypothesis. Anything beyond this tech is pure speculation. Look at JFK's skull x-rays. Those pieces and particles did NOT occur 1/2" after impact, and unlike the back shot, this bullet slowed down after impacting his skull. Do you REALLY think that if there had been a rib bone even 1/2" behind his skull that it would have deflected the other fragments without being damaged?

How likely is it these shooters were using ammo that was different enough to produce the head shot x-ray, and yet a shot to his back reacted completely differently? All that metal on the x-rays of his skull, and only a few scattered fragments in his lung that are described as dirt. WHERE did all the other metal go?

But we aren't talking the middle ages here. I would expect a good deal of sophistication in high-tech ammo development by 1963. We had men on the moon just six years later for heaven's sake.

Update: I forgot to add what I had stated earlier regarding bullets that immediately fragment into *TINY* bits:

1. WHY would anyone even WANT to develop a bullet of this type? It turns to powder almost immediately. Therefore, the fragments remain near the surface of the skin. At most you have a lot of tiny perforations in the subcutaneous tissue. It can't fracture a bone, and it can't penetrate deeply enough to even reach any vital organs, let alone cause fatal injuries. So how much time, effort and $ would be poured into development of this "weapon?" ("For heaven's sake.") This is your second desperate attempt to support this theory with an analogy that is completed removed from relevance to your "hypothesis."

2. *IF* this type of ammo even existed in 1963, WHY would it be used to shoot JFK? They undoubtedly meant to kill him, NOT give him an annoying bruise.


What is the relevance of this "analogy"? The lunar landing was a *National* program with the same priority as the Manhattan Project. How can this be compared with a bullet that no one would want developed? There is no similarity whatsoever.

6 years later? NASA had "Project Apollo" in the works in 1958. The Army submitted a workable plan for "Project Horizon" a military base on the Moon in 1952. The Rand Corp had been studying it since the 1940's. Von Braun had been working on a space station, a moon rocket while he was building V-2s. NASA purloined ALL of this earlier technology to get us to the Moon. They certainly didn't spend 24 billion dollars and employ 10s of thousands of employees, nor have a #1 priority as NASA did, to invent a bullet that NO ONE wanted.

You time frame is way off, and I still don't see the relevance in this analogy unless you think we went to the Moon riding on bullets that fragmented into dust that doesn't show up on x-rays...except for head shots...

You are right. I provided no evidence. And I never claimed to have provided evidence. I provided only an analogy and some thought experiments.

Actually you said you don't have to provide evidence of every detail. Where is your "evidence" of any detail or the big picture? All I see is analogy, thought experiments, and outright speculation.

Your theory requires an entrance hole at the site of a rib to deflect the fragments downward. Those present at the autopsy described a hole at least 1/4" in diameter and 2" deep, and stated that a metal probe was passed through the wound but stopped at the pleura. If the wound entrance is where you *require* it to be, why is there no mention of Humes finger or the probe striking a rib? Humes is at a loss to explain the steep downward trajectory. If he had encountered a rib during his probing, why did he not mention this likely explanation at any time?

Because people don't report every little thing they notice. Maybe Humes's probe touched bone when he angled it in one direction, but went down deeper when he angled it down more steeply. And he concluded that the deeper channel must be the true one.

"Every little thing?" Humes couldn't explain the downward track but "maybe" he touched bone and 'didn't report it.' Maybe he found more than one channel, was mystified as to why there was no exit, and 'didn't report it'? After how many decades of interviews and he never mentioned it? The other doctors never mentioned, nor anyone in the gallery, yet they speculated about blood-soluable nullets, and other exotic explanations.

How far are you going to go in an attempt to support this "hypothesis" which is actually no more than outright speculation?

Your theory also requires that the bullet fragment and disperse *before* encountering the rib. How far below the surface of the skin is the rib located? The bullet not only has to break up, but disperse; all within this VERY short distance. Is this even possible?

I don't think it has to disperse much before hitting the bone. Using my "throw a rock at a window" analogy, suppose you throw a handful of sand at the window from a VERY close range. I don't think the window will break anywhere near as easily as it would with a solid rock.

A rock and sand is your analogy to a bullet v. a fragmented bullet? You could at least use a rock and a fragmented rock. Your analogy also presumes that the bullet broke into sand-sized particles over a distance of probably 1/4" after the skin compressed before it was punctured. It is sheer speculation that a bullet could do this.

It has to fragment and disperse in what 1/4" of travel? 1/2"? Skin is tough stuff, and it's flexible. How far did the skin move toward the rib before it punctured? 1/4"? 1/2"? Since you are submitting "I think" as a "thought experiment," I think that that the bullet didn't travel far enough to fragment or disperse at all. I think that it would have noticeably damaged the rib before fragmenting.

END OF PART 1

Ok, let's look at it from strictly the perspective of a bullet that would "fragmentize" in a wound, as O'Neill put it. There is no report from Humes about this bullet fragmenting completely in the shallow entrance wound in JFK's back. If it did, it would be a simple matter for Humes to recover the fragments from this entrance wound with a pair of tweezers, as the thickness of the back at this point from outside chest to pleural lining is only about an inch. They would also show up on an x-ray of the back or chest.

According to Humes, though, he did not find any fragments in this entrance wound. If the bullet "fragmentized", just where did it do so? Humes reported the pleural lining of the ribcage to be intact, with no bullet hole (or fragment holes) in it.

Bob,

Do you believe that this bullet fragmented into 'powder' before it reached the rib?

Tom

PART 1 [split due to the limited number of "blocks of text" allowed with this editor]

I believe it was a much faster bullet. That's the reason I wrote "It would have been useful for this presentation had the bullet been aimed at the [pig's] bone and been of greater velocity."

You are saying that due to the two vastly different bullet velocities, this picture is NOT "useful for this presentation." Per this statement, you are obviously aware that what a bullet does at 500 fps does NOT indicate what it will do at 1,000, 1,500 or 2,000 fps. So why include it at all?

In what way is it "Related" information (as you have re-labeled your heading)? There is no highly dense cloud of fragments in the JFK chest x-ray as appear in all of your "Related" x-rays. There are only a small number of widely scattered 'dots' that allegedly are "dirt." The evidence is that the type of fragmenting bullets used in 1963 required passage through enough blood and tissue to be broken apart by hydraulic pressure. As I stated in our earlier "back wound" thread, I am concerned that there may not have been adequate tissue to fragment the bullet prior to the lung, let alone the much shallower rib. These pig photos can only serve to mislead someone into believing that the bullet that struck JFK fragmented as this one did.

I posted the pig images to give the reader an idea as to what a real frangible bullet wound looks like. Before seeing these images, I'd seen only damage done to gel-like materials..

They depict what happens with a "real frangible bullet" at 500 fps - NOT what a "frangible bullet" does at 2000 fps. See above re "misleading."

The frangible bullet hit Kennedy's back and began to fragment immediately after hitting the surface of the skin.

See preceding paragraphs. You stated that the pig bullet was traveling MUCH slower than this bullet, and that there was NO BONE (a 'soft' bone would be required) located just beneath the surface of the skin to provide evidence that the fragments would have been deflected. Therefore, you have provided no evidence to *directly* support this hypothesis.

Your theory requires an entrance hole at the site of a rib to deflect the fragments downward. Those present at the autopsy described a hole at least 1/4" in diameter and 2" deep, and stated that a metal probe was passed through the wound but stopped at the pleura. If the wound entrance is where you *require* it to be, why is there no mention of Humes finger or the probe striking a rib? Humes is at a loss to explain the steep downward trajectory. If he had encountered a rib during his probing, why did he not mention this likely explanation at any time?

Your theory also requires that the bullet fragment and disperse *before* encountering the rib. How far below the surface of the skin is the rib located? The bullet not only has to break up, but disperse; all within this VERY short distance. Is this even possible? See my response in paragraph below...

But as to whether frangible bullets made of fine particles were available in 1963, I could only guess what the military and intelligence agencies had developed.

So there is NO evidence that this type of bullet even existed in 1963, yet it is VITAL to your theory that the bullet fragmented into TINY fragments and dispersed after passing through just the skin. The only evidence you've provided is that a bullet containing "many more tiny fragments" than any fragmenting bullet known to exist in 1963, traveling at about 25% of a normal rifle bullet may fragment just below the skin. You have provided no evidence at all that even at this reduced velocity, hyper-frangible bullet fragments would deflect off a rib, yet his is also VITAL to your theory

END OF PART 1