Sandy Larsen

"A" makes a statement -- "B" "misunderstands." i.e. by definition of the word "misunderstand"; "B" "fail(ed) to interpret or understand the words or action..." When the word "misunderstand" is used by "A" in reference to communication with "B": 1. the statement of "A" is correct, and therefore "A" is BLAMELESS for the "misunderstanding." 2. "B" is solely responsible for the error in communication An apparent or actual miscommunication can be caused by: 1. "A" failed to properly express himself, thus "A" is at fault 2. "B" understood but "A" INCORRECTLY believes that "B" did not understand, thus "A" is at fault 3. "B" understood but his poorly worded reply to "A" indicates to "A" that "B" failed to understand, thus "B" is at fault 4. "B" failed to comprehend the properly composed statement of "A", thus "B" is at fault 5. Either "A" or "B" or "A" and "B" are looking for an argument... To acknowledge an *apparent* misunderstanding, use of the word "We" is highly recommended. The word "You" is not. e.g. "We are experiencing a communication breakdown, and I don't know why." Thus, a communication issue is presented, but NO BLAME is assigned to EITHER "A" or "B". This technique is most often referred to as "I'm OK, you're OK." Well, as I said before, I believe the word "misunderstand" merely denotes a case of Person A saying X and Person B interpreting it as Y, without regard for where any blame belongs. After all, how can one determine whether Person A said what he did clearly enough, or Person B didn't listen carefully enough? And even if one could, what purpose would be served in doing so? Just to point fingers? My attitude in general is that pointing to people's mistakes in interpersonal relationships serves no useful purpose. People make mistakes... that's life. Anyway, now that I know someone might take offense at the word "misunderstand," I will try to use it more carefully.

Thanks James. I have been frustrated because I had no idea, in particular, what the relative elevations might me. I have put a copy of these notes in my files.

Hi Roy Wieselquist, I've been your primary supporter in this thread for your throat-to-back trajectory theory. The theory looked promising to me. But right now it is suffering from an bullet-origin problem. You say that the slope of the trajectory to the throat was about 15 degrees, I believe. Robert says 20 degrees. It seems that the highest place a shot could be fired from was at the level of the RR tracks. Do you have any further information that could bolster your case in this regard? I've never been to Dealey Plaza. Visiting it on Google maps the other day left me with the feeling that the shooter might have had to shoot through the windshield at the height of the RR tracks. I think I saw a parking lot near the intersection of the RR tracks and the south-most lane of the roads underpassing them. I assume it is at the same level. In my mind the theory seems dead at this point. Can you revive it? Just askin'.

Speaking of offensive - after blaming me for the entire situation, your attempt at being humble is "offensive." IF you had left out every word above "I apologize for my snarkiness." this would be a reasonable apology. However, since you have chosen to assign me sole blame for everything but the snarkiness I must say this is the most self-serving "apology" that I've ever encountered. Let's just leave it this way. I believe we should have split the blame between us, and you know that it was all my fault. You can protest 'til Doomsday, but the facts will still be the same: You came up with 3 issues and stated all 3 were my fault alone. You might consider looking up "apology" in the dictionary so you can learn how to write one. From my end this is over, but it's not forgotten. Tom, I didn't realize that if you say somebody misunderstood you, that this means you are blaming them for the misunderstanding. That certainly wasn't my intention. I never place blame in cases of misunderstanding. I see no point in doing so. Please see the PM I will be sending you. I want to make things right. Sandy

Those are all very good points. In particular, I would never have considered reasonable a shot that requires going through a windshield I assumed that there must be a tall building on the south side of the street when this theory was first introduced to the thread. Without that I just can't see how the theory is supposed to work. As for my limited understanding of human anatomy, that's the reason I used the online interactive model.

At what time or Z-frame do you propose JFK's back entry occurred? What was JFK's posture at the time? What was the angle of the bullets trajectory as it passed through the throat wound and exited the back wound? Do you agree that the above data is required to evaluate your "back shot entry wound" theory? (You mean front-entry, right?) I've always thought the throat shot occurred behind the sign. So it's hidden and therefore II can't tell precisely which frame. I can't be sure about the posture at the time either, for the same reason. But sitting up straight would be my guess. (He was sitting up straight both before and after he was behind the sign. Roy says the angle was about 15 degrees. Right now I see a big problem with this theory... no suitably high bullet origin on the south side of the street. So I don't want to spend time trying to determine the angle, and so forth. But I will if somebody shows there is indeed a reasonable point of origin. Do I agree that the above data is required to evaluate the theory? Well naturally the more information that is known the better the evaluation can be. But I won't say the theory should be discarded if some of the data are unknown. That would be an unreasonable stance to take, a stance that isn't taken in regard to any of the theories. But you know this.

Something about my "absolutely not" response to your "doesn't it seem unlikely" questions seems to have set you off. I don't know. Actually it seems that you misunderstood some things I said. For example, it appears that you thought I was saying that you concluded something "out of thin air". When in fact, I was saying rather the opposite. (Though I found out, the hard way, that I need to be careful using the "conclude" word with you. Because for some reason that word didn't go over well with you.) Yeah, I think there must be a big misunderstanding here. And then some resulting snarkiness from both of us. I apologize for my snarkiness. And if I said something that is offensive to you, I must say that I certainly meant no offense. But I apologize nevertheless for that too.

Oh, absolutely. That's precisely how I understood what he said. He specifically said that they determined there were no large wounds on the back. Which makes me think that is what they were primarily looking for. Well, what do you know -- we CAN agree on something! I think we a agree on a whole lot more than you think. As I've said, the frangible bullet in the back is still my top theory. It's just, for some reason, you seem to have taken it personally that I am open to the throat-to-back theory. I don't mind you asking hard questions, and in fact I think hard questions should be asked. But I feel some animosity in your posts toward me. Granted I get a little snarky too, but that is my response mechanism talking. Something about my "absolutely not" response to your "doesn't it seem unlikely" questions seems to have set you off. I don't know. But I still like and respect you. Of course.

Yes, and we've ALL heard the controversy and the contradictory claims re the windshield. No longer any controversy, Tom. You can buy a DVD and see the hole for yourself. Doug Horne says: "Just obtain a factory-produced DVD of “The Smoking Guns,” by hook or crook (or E-Bay); put it in your DVD player; go to the specified time of 14:02 into the program; and then examine the 84 video frames, one at a time, on an HD big screen TV. You will find that video frames 1, 15, 31, 37, 47, 59, and 71 best depict the bullet hole. The 16 mm camera was hand-held, so there is some motion and some blurring of the images, and that is why some video frames are more clear than others. In my opinion, the best frames are #1 and # 71 in the windshield sequence." Plus Horne presents six credible witnesses of the hole, and gives details on how it disappeared. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/ Now, tell us about ALL those who claim to have seen a bullet hole in the back seat/trunk/ or where ever...Gee, there aren't any... Look, my house in San Jose was broken into and the armed burglar shot at us. We saw the hole in the window right away. It was very obvious. But it was weeks before anyone noticed we had holes in the wall as well. Even after discovering them we couldn't see them unless we got close up. So how does the bullet hole in the window lend creedence to your back entrance theory? The DISAPPEARING bullet hole in the window lends credence to my statement that we can't trust that the inspection would report bullets found in the back seat / trunk, as you claimed they would. If so, who stripped it that was in on the conspiracy or was ordered to lie? We don't know who stripped the car. It was stripped before it was received by the Ford Rouge plant in Detroit to be rebuilt. The Secret Service was in charge of the car when it was stripped.

Oh, absolutely. That's precisely how I understood what he said. He specifically said that they determined there were no large wounds on the back. Which makes me think that is what they were primarily looking for.

Based upon your above logic, because there's no evidence that Jackie pulled a gun out of her pocket and shot JFK in the back, this "theory" is also likely. Of course that "theory" isn't likely. No conclusion can be drawn from the absence of evidence. I'm pretty sure that is what Carl Sagan meant when he used the saying I quoted, I know it is what I meant. From the absence of evidence that a bullet entered the back seat, I drew no conclusion one way or the other. In contrast, you drew the conclusion that it "seemed unlikely." Now, lest we have to go another round of this seemingly pointless semantic-based discussion, let me explain, then, why I suggested a bullet could have gone through the back seat. I said it merely because -- given the theory under discussion -- the bullet had to go somewhere. Did I have evidence the bullet went through the back seat, like a picture of a hole? No. But neither did I have evidence that a bullet didn't go through the back seat, like a picture without a hole. So the bullet conceivably could have gone through the back seat. Which is something the theory may require. If "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" then it isn't evidence of existence either. I'm only aware that Sagan used this analogy when questioned about other life in the universe, which given its infinite nature becomes a statistical certainty. Is a back entry wound a statistical certainty? But obviously you can conclude that it's likely, ... When did I use the word "likely?" ... or if you want to quibble, not unlikely. When you asked, "doesn't it seem unlikely?" and I replied with "Absolutely not," I wasn't saying that it was therefore likely. I was saying that I disagreed with the "unlikely" assessment. Meaning that I considered it possible. (Possible, without the doubt that is associated with the word "unlikely.") Double negatives can be confusing, so I try to avoid them. But suppose I were to use the phrase "not unlikely" to describe my position. The meaning of that phrase, according to http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/not%20unlikely , is precisely the same as what I am trying to explain here. You also must conclude that the front exit wound is considerably smaller than the back entry wound. Can you provide evidence that this is "likely" to occur? Again you use the word "likely" to qualify my position... for what reason I know not. But from the accounts given it does sound like the back wound was bigger than the throat wound. I mean, before the throat surgery altered the wound. (I crossed off your words "exit" and "entry" because they are opposite of what the theory we are discussing necessitate, thus rendering the sentence confusing.) I have NEVER "concluded" frangible bullets were used. As I have stated in multiple posts, IMO, and with the current evidence that is the better of the possible choices. If that means I "concluded" then you and I are not reading the same dictionary. Tom, what have I said that is making you so defensive? I know that you have never concluded that frangible bullets were used. Neither have I. (Note that my sentence refers to both of us, not just you.) Now here is my sentence again "Just like you (or I) can't conclude out of thin air that a frangible bullet was used. But if the evidence leads us to no other choice, then of course we can conclude either of these." I didn't say here that you (or I) have concluded anything. I've only said that we CAN'T conclude it. In the second sentence, I say that we CAN conclude it. I didn't say we DID conclude it. Okay, I may have used the word conclude somewhere when referring to your list of most likely theories. But I certainly didn't mean by it that you've made final conclusions. I just used the word casually to refer to what your current beliefs are. Out of thin air? Do you think an FMJ made the throat wound and the back wound and didn't exit? Do you think that an FMJ disintegrated inside JFK's head leaving cone-shaped dust trails of bullet fragments? Of course I don't. Neither you nor I concluded anything out of thin air. However, the evidence led us to no other choice than to believe a frangible bullet must have been used. That is precisely what I said could happen in the second sentence you quoted above. Speaking of "out of thin air"... When you decide that a back entry may be more likely than a front entry with as you state 'no evidence' to back it up, who is conjuring "out of thin air"? When did I say that? I don't remember favoring either a front or back as an entry. You are referring to the back shot entry? I'd be curious to know how many here agree that this is "maybe even more likely." Yes, I was referring to the back entry when I commented on the frangible bullet theory. The reason I believed (at the time) that the front-to-back theory may be more likely than the frangible back entry theory is because it would explain why there was no bullet found in the body, without the difficulties a frangible bullet presents. That's all. Nobody has to agree with me. (And in fact, I no longer agree with what I said.) I also said that the new theory hadn't been thoroughly criticized. I now have more doubt about the theory because there seems not to be a suitable origin for the bullet... no tall buildings.

...where it would have been found by someone during the limo inspection ... Oh, really? Like the hole they found in the windshield? (Which had been seen by six credible witnesses, according to Doug Horne.) Oh wait... that hole subsequently disappeared, didn't it. Hmmm. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/ This is just one of the many reasons I believe someone in the Secret Service was complicit. ... or by the company that completely rebuilt the limo. The inside of the limo had been stripped before those folks got it.

Whenever I hear of an intact bullet just falling or rolling out of JFK or his clothing, or Connally, the phrase "planted evidence" flashes in my mind. What are the odds that a bullet cleanly pierces the flesh (or clothing) on the way out and just happens to stop right there. I'm sure it happens... but how often? Count me as skeptical. I think it's more likely, in this throat-to-back trajectory theory, that the bullet exited Kennedy's jacket, went through the back of his seat, into the trunk. Where it could hit something much more likely to stop it... steel. With so much blood all over, I can see how nobody spotted the hole in the seat. It would be interesting to know where a throat-to-back shot would have originated from. I just took a short trip down Elm Street in Dealey Plaza -- via Google Maps -- and I see no tall buildings from which a bullet could have originated. Roy said the downward angle of the shot had to have been around 15 degrees. I just can't see how that angle could have been achieved. I'd like to hear from Roy about this, given that he's the proponent of the theory.

I don't think so, Ron. The bullet had to be much higher up than that, up in the black area or even above that. For SS agent Glen Bennett to have witnessed the hole in Kennedy's jacket, it would have had to be above the top of the seat back. Still, this photo is useful. Look how thick that back cushion is. Suppose the back wound was located just slightly above the top of the back cushion. If so, it would be possible for the bullet to enter the cushion at an angle from its top. The "throat-to-back trajectory" theory isn't dead after all.

I'm inclined to believe the back wound was real. I mean, so what if no bullet for it was found? Same is true of the throat wound, and we know that wound is real.

Hi Cliff, I mentioned this a ways back in this thread. A number of responses were that Bennett "wasn't even looking at JFK" when the shot occurred; I was told to "see 'this'" photo and the Z-film. So I again looked at the indicated photos and as I already knew, GB who is sitting on the right side of the rear seat, is staring into the right rear quadrant EXACTLY as he should be according to all the SS testimony. i.e. That is their operating procedure. Personally I can't tell where he's looking from the Z-film as Zap is attempting to center JFK in the frame. Now if someone will tell me exactly WHEN the back shot was fired relative to these photos I can form an opinion. As I wrote earlier in this thread, GB states that he was looking to the right, heard a shot, immediately looked at the Boss and saw a shot hit him 4" below the shoulder, etc. ... o o o Well, now there is some evidence -- which I'd missed -- against the "throat-to-back trajectory" theory. I had assumed SS Glenn Bennett was one of those standing on the side rails. It's a whole new ballgame now that I know he was sitting. The bullet hole, four inches down from the top of the shoulder, had to have been above the top of the seat's back for Bennett to have seen it. Meaning the bullet couldn't have disappeared into the seat. It would have likely hit the trunk lid. And that would have left a dent, if not a hole. Does anybody know of any good photos of the trunk lid after the shots were fired?

No offense intended, but take it as you will: Was it reupholstered BEFORE it was examined? Yes, I know, you've stated repeatedly that everyone lied about everything, and I agree, but where we disagree, is that particular fact doesn't prove or disprove anything. As I have been repeating here, like virtually EVERY piece of evidence in this case someone could have lied and the evidence is worthless, so that fact can't be used to cherry pick evidence in support of a specific theory only. Is it surprising that the entire bloody interior was replaced? IF ONLY that rear seat was reupholstered, that would be circumstantial evidence of a bullet hole. Even considering the above, has anyone actually reported that a bullet hole was seen in the seat? And yes, IMO it is possible that a bullet hole existed in the seat back, but with no evidence to support it, doesn't it seem unlikely? Well, I wouldn't phrase it as "everybody lied about everything." In fact I give the benefit of the doubt to most witnesses, and accept their testimonies if there is corroboration. I think Humes lied only because he was ordered to do so by a superior officer. Some of the autopsy photos are obvious fakes. I don't know enough about the x-rays to doubt them. Many things tell me that somebody in the Secret Service was complicit in the crime. And it is my firm belief that stripping the car down right away was intentionally done to suppress evidence. I thought that long before this "throat-to-back theory" entered my mind. So, for a bullet hole in the rear seat not to have been reported wouldn't come as a big surprise to me. It is precisely what I would expect. You ask, "... with no evidence to support [a bullet hole in the back seat], doesn't it seem unlikely?" Absolutely not. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, as Carl Sagan used to say. Sure, I cannot conclude out of thin air that a bullet went through the back seat of the car. Just like you (or I) can't conclude out of thin air that a frangible bullet was used. But if the evidence leads us to no other choice, then of course we can conclude either of these. With what I know now, this latest theory (latest in this thread) seems just as likely, or maybe even more so, than the frangible bullet theory. On the other hand it hasn't been thoroughly criticized. I see no reason at this time to count it out.

Sandy, I'm not hostile to the "neck to back" trajectory. I'm stating that you and others are dismissing the back to front trajectory by stating evidence that allows EITHER to be true. For example, as I said, no one has come up with a believable path for a wound from back to throat, but you are perfectly content that a track exists in the opposite direction. There are pros and cons for each, so I do not understand why you are immediately accepting a back exit as a revelation. Where did the bullet go if it exited the back? And yes, AFTER your immediate acceptance of the back wound as exit, you asked where the bullet went. Isn't this a considerable weight of evidence AGAINST a back exit? But there is a huge difference between a front-to-back trajectory and a back-to-front trajectory that eliminates the latter from consideration. And that is, for the back-to-front trajectory to occur, the shooter would have had to shoot into the back of the limo (and hope it hits Kennedy). Isn't that right? In addition, I think he'd have to be lying on the ground, or at least kneeling. I suppose there could have been a shooter inside the trunk of the vehicle. As for where the bullet went after the throat-to-back shot, I suggested elsewhere that it went through the back of the seat into the trunk of the car.

I'm with you on this Tom. I agree that we shouldn't discount the back wound as being real just because those preparing the body for transport either didn't see it, or saw it but didn't make it a point to bring it to the authorities' attention.

Whenever I hear of an intact bullet just falling or rolling out of JFK or his clothing, or Connally, the phrase "planted evidence" flashes in my mind. What are the odds that a bullet cleanly pierces the flesh (or clothing) on the way out and just happens to stop right there. I'm sure it happens... but how often? Count me as skeptical. I think it's more likely, in this throat-to-back trajectory theory, that the bullet exited Kennedy's jacket, went through the back of his seat, into the trunk. Where it could hit something much more likely to stop it... steel. With so much blood all over, I can see how nobody spotted the hole in the seat.

That seems reasonable, but I'm not so sure after looking for a clear path using this online three-dimensional skeleton: http://www.3dtoad.com/human_skeleton_torso.php If you rotate the torso just right, you can see a clear path from between the second and third ribs of the back to the throat area above the sternum. It appears to me that there is even a larger path between the third and fourth ribs.

Counting the marks on here, I find there are roughly 30 markings made in centimeters. As there are 2.54 cm. to the inch, 30 cm. divided by 2.54 = 11.81 inches. John D., thanks for posting this photo of the ruler. It will come in very handy. Robert, your count of 30 divisions corroborates my belief that it's a 30 cm ruler. We can also see a chamfer on each corner that needs to be taken into account. In addition, I believe there is a tiny margin from the point of chamfer to the zeroth division mark. Be careful using the ruler as a guide, though. The center of the picture is at the middle of the four fingers. The further away from that you get, the more the divisions will be compressed due to perspective. I have come to the same conclusion that it is likely a 30cm ruler.Can you re-state your results as to how far apart the 'bullet hole' in the back (per the photo) and the holes in the jacket and shirt are? IF you are interested in further measurements you MAY find the reference points stated in Boswell's HSCA testimony of interest: Tom: I'll redo my analysis, taking this new information into account, when I can find the time. BTW, your link appears to be broken. I'm also going to try and find what the standard metric size is for shirt buttons. The collar is unusually narrow... did somebody say it is a French design? That same person had a name for this style of shirt. Does anyone recall that? (I will look for it if nobody recalls.)

The back seat was indeed reupholstered. A piece of the original leather was up for auction a couple years ago. Here is the item description: "Original piece of leather from President Kennedy's limousine that drove him through Dealey Plaza and down Elm Street where he was fatally shot on 22 November 1963. A haunting item, literally cut from the limousine in which the President sat when he was assassinated. Known as the ''SS-100-X'', the limousine from that day was customized by the Cincinnati company Hess & Eisenhardt, which began customizing presidential cars during the Truman administration. The company went to great lengths with Kennedy's convertible, lengthening it and reinforcing it, and even raising the seat so there could be a better view of the President. After the assassination, the limo was taken back to the White House garage where it was inspected for evidence. Eventually, it was sent back to Hess & Eisenhardt where it was refurbished for future use by Presidents Johnson and Nixon. Today, the limo is on display at the Henry Ford museum in Dearborn, Michigan. Leather piece is midnight blue in color and measures 9'' x 11.75'', with uneven edges as it was clearly cut away from the seat. ''P.R.C.P'' is written on back suede in pen in unknown hand. Leather has two circular holes most likely from a fastener or bolt to hold the leather in place. With two signed letters of provenance, one from the car upholsterer's daughter, another from his nephew, to whom he gifted the leather. LOA from his daughter reads in part, ''...The limousine in which he was riding was returned to Hess and Eisenhardt to be completely refurbished. My father was one of the two men who reupholstered the interior of the car. Though most of the leather interior had been removed, some of the leather on the back of the back seat just below the boot remained. As the remainder of the interior was removed and discarded, my father asked and was given the small piece of leather...'' The second letter, written by his nephew, reads in part, ''...it was my uncle's job to remove what remained of the old leather upholstery, as the secret service had basically cut away almost all the carpeting and leather as a large portion of both were blood stained. However, the leather attached to the boot of the car was still intact. Rather than throw this away, my uncle saved it...'' Also with a copy of the obituary of the upholsterer, stating his employment with Hess & Eisenhardt. Overall, near fine." [Emphasis added.]

Tom, Maybe I'm misreading your post, but you seem to be hostile to this neck-to-back trajectory theory. Nearly all the objections and points you make could likewise be applied to the theories you're seriously considering yourself. I didn't see you making these objections about those. Please see my comments below: WC, HSCA and Doug Horne...who could be lying or mistaken, so that leaves you with no theory at all. I had more in mind the source of the information when I asked "according to whom." I'm certainly not gonna believe something just because the WC or HSCA said it. WC, HSCA and Doug Horne...who could be lying or mistaken, so that leaves you with no theory at all. That wouldn't leave me "no theory at all." In all of our theories there is some evidence or testimony that we question. Of course they could. That's the problem with this case. We KNOW they were ordered to lie. We don't KNOW if it's JFK in the photos. We don't KNOW if that's HIS shirt. We don't KNOW when the holes were first observed. We don't KNOW if the holes are fake. We don't KNOW if they line up with the back wound. We don't KNOW if the back wound is real. Do you see the point? All we can do is look at the probabilities of each and rate them accordingly. Of course I see the point. We have to use our best judgment when deciding what is more likely to be true. But why are you picking right now -- with me asking if we can believe the reported thread direction -- to make this point? Why not any time before now, when other things have been questioned? If the shot entered the throat and passed out the back wound, they would have been able to probe it from either direction. But they couldn't. But of course they could be lying about that, also... But you don't know that the doctors couldn't probe (find a path) between the throat and back wounds. If such a path existed, that is something they most certainly would have kept to themselves. For such a path would have destroyed the official narrative. I remember reading testimony from a witness who said that those who were in charge the autopsy would tell the doctors, "No, don't do that." Probing for a path from the T3 wound to the neck wound would certainly have been a good time for them to say, "No, don't do that." If that is the actual path then what about the probable fracture up around C7/T1? It would require an additional shot. One to damage T1 and another to exit at T2 or T3. That's a good point. Have you asked yourself this same question regarding the theories you are seriously considering? Like a frangible bullet entering the back wound at T3? If the bullet DID exit at T3 it would have done so at a downward angle and would have likely ended up in the seat back. I haven't heard that happened. Yes, that's an important point. I made the same point in post #334. It would be helpful to know if the back seat were reupholstered when the car was cleaned up. Everything about the back wound is a guess. Every theory has several reasons to reject it. If that's your criteria to dismiss a theory then you have to dismiss ALL of the theories regarding this wound... Huh? Are you directing that at me? The only back-wound theory I have dismissed is the bullet-hit-a-tree-limb theory. At the moment I favor the frangible bullet theory. I am now considering the throat-to-back trajectory theory. And I've put the fabricated-wound theory on hold. On the closeup photos I'd say, yes. Is it 100%? Of course not. I don't THINK that it's as easy to alter the direction of those holes as you think. Especially if you think they are real, and were made by the passage of a supersonic bullet. I believe that I personally could reverse the direction of those threads, if I had something that could momentarily liquefy coagulated blood. It would no doubt have the forensic experts scratching their heads, but I could do it. Is the evidence that the shot was an exit wound more likely than the evidence that it was an entrance wound? Well the back wound was larger than the throat wound. It was apparently big enough for Humes finger to fit in it. It seems to fit an exit-wound description. BTW, the fibers in he throat area of the shirt were bent outward, indicating an exit. wound Yet a good majority of researchers, it seems, believe the throat wound is an entrance. So my questioning the validity of reported fiber direction isn't what one should call far-fetched. Don't you believe the throat wound might be an entrance yourself? I do.