Sandy Larsen

Here's an interactive 3D recreation of Dealey Plaza from which you can explore various shooter points:

http://blogs.esri.com/esri/arcgis/2013/11/22/jfinteraktive-the-assassination-of-john-fitzgerald-kennedy/

Thanks for that, Ollie. I just wish I could get it to work on one of our computers here.

David V.P.,

I read some of the material you linked to. Why don't you present here on the forum the new information about the punch holes on the money order?

David H., did you see that? About the possibility that the holes punched into the money order replaced what would have been bank stamps?

I don't know if that is the purpose of the holes, but it will be interesting to find out. I'm amazed that I never noticed the holes before. There are some rectangular ones and some round ones.

I actually punched some EBCDIC cards myself when I was college. EBCDIC, introduced in 1964, replaced whatever code that is on the money order.

Sandy

Going over the HSCA interviews with Lt. Lipsey (aide to Maj. General Wehle and present at the autopsy) and Jerrol Custer (x-ray technician at Bethesda that night), I have come up with another theory that might explain all of JFK's wounds. Unfortunately, my theory requires there to have been at least six shots fired, and I am not sure if even the use of suppressors on three of those shots could have made it sound as if there were only three shots. Also, this only accounts for the wounding of three people (JFK, Connally and Tague) and does not account for the crack (hole) in the windshield or the dented frame above the windshield.

First, I should state that I believe all of the evidence points to JFK being shot twice in the head, with one bullet entering in the right (or possibly left - that theory is far from dead) temple and one bullet entering low and to the right on the rear of JFK's head. I believe the back of the head was the first bullet to enter, and that the large wound created by the temple shot partially obliterated the rear entrance wound in the skull. However, I shall be calling into question the true location of the rear head wound, as Lt. Lipsey tells some very interesting things about this wound and the throat wound to the HSCA.

In order to make this theory work, the majority of bullets, excluding the one from the front, had to originate from behind and fairly high up. All bullets fired had to be frangible bullets, although likely of a fairly primitive construction strongly resembling frangible range bullets (M37 Magistri) made for the 6.5mm Carcano.

To begin, it is my theory that a frangible bullet hit JFK's back at about the level of T3, entered the top of his right lung and disintegrated. While the bullet would have disintegrated totally into powder, thus stymieing any search for bullet fragments, the jacket itself would not have disintegrated, and the fact they found no jacket fragments has always bothered me.

A frangible bullet, likely the last shot, also entered JFK's right temple, although there is also a lot of information pointing to the fact this bullet entered the left temple. Either way, the large blowout in the rear of JFK's head was created by this shot. While it may not seem possible for a shot to the right temple to cause a blowout in the right rear of the skull, my experience hunting deer with hollow point bullets has demonstrated that the large hydraulic pressure created by such a bullet will cause the skull to blow out in unexpected places. For example, a shot entering the side of the head that one would expect to exit the opposite side of the head actually causes the top of the head to blow off. An exit wound also does not mean an intact bullet actually exits from that sight. In fact, in the case of a frangible bullet, I would be surprised if any part of the bullet exited through an "exit" wound.

Now, the throat wound and the bullet that entered the rear of JFK's skull. The throat wound, as we all know, has been the most difficult to explain. I will present a theory that attempts to explain what occurred with the throat wound.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that a bullet struck the rear of JFK's head and entered just to the right of the External Occipital Protuberance, something very obvious comes to light, as can be seen in this x-ray:

External Occipital Protuberance (EOP) designated by arrow.

X-ray showing location of cervical vertebrae, EOP and throat.

Note how low in the rear of the skull the EOP is, and how the surface of the skull is actually sloping inwards at this point. I have always assumed the bullet entering just to the right of the EOP would have made a clean entrance wound and, if it broke up, would have remained inside of JFK's skull. However, seeing the location of this entrance wound on an x-ray, and considering the distinct possibility many of the shots came from high up on a building to the rear of the limo, I am not so sure the entire bullet remained inside JFK's skull any more.

Here are some of the clues I have been contemplating; most of which emerged with the release to the public of HSCA interviews in the 1990's.

In Lt. Lipsey's interview, he related that most of the time spent in the autopsy he observed was spent in trying to locate the bullet that entered JFK's back. As the autopsists were quite convinced the shots from behind were all from high up, it was believed this bullet may have ranged downwards in JFK's torso. However, Lipsey also goes into some detail describing a bullet that entered the lower rear of JFK's head. While never really pinpointing the exact location of this entrance wound, Lipsey finally relays that it would be about where the rear hairline meets the neck, which is considerably lower than the EOP. Lipsey then states that the autopsists were quite convinced that, because of the steep angle the bullet was travelling at, this bullet, or a fragment of it, continued on and exited the right side of JFK's throat. I believe, looking at the x-rays above, this may be a distinct possibility.

Jerrol Custer was the x-ray technician on duty at Bethesda the night of JFK's autopsy. He, too, was interviewed by the HSCA, and he made one observation that has bothered me since I first read it. In his interview, he stated the x-rays purported to be of JFK's neck were not the ones he remembered seeing. The ones he recalled showed many metallic fragments in the vicinity of cervical vertebrae C3/C4. Looking again at the x-rays above, we can see the location of C3/C4 is directly in line with a bullet path originating at the EOP and exiting at the throat, just below the Adam's apple.

Once again, this would require that a frangible bullet had been used in this shot, as I have no doubt a full metal jacket (FMJ) bullet would have easily passed through his neck (including the vertebrae) without leaving fragments behind. I also believe the design of this frangible bullet would have been somewhat primitive, as compared to modern frangible bullets, and would not have been 100% powdered lead inside the jacket. Rather, it might have resembled the 6.5mm Carcano M37 "Magistri" frangible range bullet, pictured below:

6.5mm Carcano M37 Magistri frangible range bullet on right.

As the cutaway above shows, this bullet was of an odd construction. Inside the copper alloy, two-piece jacket, there was sand in the base of the bullet, powdered lead above the sand and, above that in the nose of the bullet, was a solid pellet made from lead or "maillechort". Was this pellet what made the throat wound, described as being from 3-8 mm in diameter by Parkland surgeons, while the powdered lead, sand and bullet jacket were deposited on bone at C3/C4?

The only fly in the ointment here comes, once again, from another HSCA interview. Thomas Robinson, one of the enbalmers from Gawlers Funeral Home who prepared JFK's body following the autopsy, reported that, as viewed from inside JFK's empty skull, every bone in JFK's face appeared to be broken. While this statement hardly seems to be supported by the "stare of death" photos of JFK, it must still be taken into consideration.

From my experience hunting, it seems unusual that a shot, entering the right temple and causing a blowout in the right rear of the skull, could cause such extensive breakage of bones in JFK's face, although I may be underestimating the explosive force of the bullet used.

One explanation may be that the EOP wound was not as neat as described in the autopsy and, considering the oblique angle it struck the rear base of the skull, the frangible bullet might have broken up penetrating the skull and sent part of the bullet into the skull, and part on its way to C3/C4.

Another explanation may be that the bullet entered the skull at the EOP, disintegrated shortly after entry, and parts of it either exited the base of the skull or exited through the "foramen magnum", the large opening at the base of the skull through which the spinal cord enters the cranial cavity.

Unfortunately, these last two possibilities place the wound slightly higher than the hair line wound, and do not line up anywhere near as nicely with C3/C4 and the throat wound.

Robert,

As I read your theory, I kept waiting for the part where you tell us what happened to the bullet to the back. That part never came. So I re-read your theory and saw the following paragraph of yours:

In Lt. Lipsey's interview, he related that most of the time spent in the autopsy he observed was spent in trying to locate the bullet that entered JFK's back. As the autopsists were quite convinced the shots from behind were all from high up, it was believed this bullet may have ranged downwards in JFK's torso. However, Lipsey also goes into some detail describing a bullet that entered the lower rear of JFK's head. While never really pinpointing the exact location of this entrance wound, Lipsey finally relays that it would be about where the rear hairline meets the neck, which is considerably lower than the EOP. Lipsey then states that the autopsists were quite convinced that, because of the steep angle the bullet was travelling at, this bullet, or a fragment of it, continued on and exited the right side of JFK's throat. I believe, looking at the x-rays above, this may be a distinct possibility.

Is this paragraph the place where you're telling us what happened to the bullet to the back? That is, as part of your theory, are you saying that the fragments from the bullet to the back "ranged downwards in JFK's torso," and some fragments from the EOP bullet went down to T3/T4? (BTW, I don't know if I can refer to frangible pieces/powder as fragments. But you know what I mean.)

If so, that strikes me as odd. That fragments from one bullet (EOP) end up "replacing" fragments I expect to see (at T3/T4) from a different bullet (T3). (I hope you know what I mean by that.) Not impossible... just a bit of a twist.

If not so, please let me know where I went wrong... what happened to the bullet to the back.

I didn't realize that if you say somebody misunderstood you, that this means you are blaming them for the misunderstanding.

"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.

Dictionaries are wrong -- Got it!

Surely you know that the meaning of a word often has subtle differences depending upon the ethnicity, ancestry, customs, norms, etc., of the locality where it is used.

Where I grew up, "spring fever" meant that you were lethargic. Where I later lived it meant the opposite... that you were energetic. And different dictionaries at the time gave different definitions.

In college, we used the word "moot" to mean something was irrelevant. Yet the dictionary I had defined it as debatable.

I'm sure dictionaries have improved since then, but I'm also sure that subtleties remain.

Anyway, the meaning of "misunderstand" as I gave it is how I learned it. If you want to know precisely what I meant, you should use my definition. If you choose to continue using your definition for what I was trying to say, then there is nothing more I can do.

I didn't realize that if you say somebody misunderstood you, that this means you are blaming them for the misunderstanding.

"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.

Sandy,

Clearly first hand knowledge of the Plaza is best, but an acquaintance with the geography and topology of the Plaza can be sufficient. See Image below:-

What many people do not realise is that the Plaza is a mirror image. The North and South dimensions are the same.

a) From the wall of the TSBD to the edge of the North pavement of main street is 300ft.

From the wall of the Post office to the edge of the South pavement of main street is 300ft

c) All the streets - outside the plaza - are 60ft wide. Inside the plaza they are 40ft wide.

d) From the wall of the post office to the wall of the TSBD is 660ft.

e) Elm and Commerce Streets from the bottom of the TUP to the edge of the western pavement on Houston street are 495ft. People have been known to comment that Commerce is longer: it is not.

d) Main Street from the bottom of the TUP to the edge of the western pavement on Houston street is 425ft.

The height of Houston street is 429.66ft above sea level. If we take that as 0 we can then do comparatives.

e) the bottom of the TUP is approximately 24ft lower than Houston. 404.91 HASL

f) The total height of the TUP including the handrail is 1ft lower than Houston street. 428 HASL

g) The North Car Park is 3ft lower than Houston Street. 426 HASL.

h) North and South Car Parks are the same height.

i) The track across the TUP is 2ft lower than that of the car parks

j) To seriously calculate trajectories and their angles you need to know the height of Elm Street at any specific point. The best source for that is Robert West's survey of Dealey Plaza along all his calculations of various trajectories.

k) Elm Street curves throughout its length. Although the car essentially drove down the middle of the street it also turned with the road. So at any Zapruder point you need to know what was the height of Elm street at that point; what was the curvature of the road and what implications of the position of the occupants to the source of your shot. These points have major implications as to whether any shot could be successful.

I suggest you need to know these details if you are to do any serious calculations and especially trajectory angles.

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'.

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.

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

Sandy,

There is a fatal error with your throat-entrance-back-exit idea.

You may be right that such a rotation may give you a clearance - though I doubt it. Robert is on very sound ground pointing out the impediment of the spinal column.

You doubt a clearance based on what? Did you actually rotate the 3D skeleton I linked to and look for one? If so, did you not see the clearance? I did.

Actually I was being polite. I am not convinced with your understanding of the geometry of human anatomy.

However there is a further impediment. If the source of the shot is from the north of the plaza then the direction of the bullet would be towards the left side of the body and not the right. Only a shot from the south of the plaza would allow the bullet to continue in a rightward direction.

We haven't even discussed the direction of the trajectory yet. Roy Wieselquist, who was the one to bring this theory up, said that he believes the shot came from the south. For this theory to work, there needs to be a "tall" building in that direction. I believe Roy has one in mind.

There is no building in the south plaza that would could be a source for such a shot. If Roy Wieselquist has the Post Office in mind that is just just complete nonsense and displays a complete misunderstanding of Dealey Plaza topology. Sherry Fiester “Enemy of the Truth” did promote a theory whereby the shooter was firing from the TUP. She is a highly qualified forensic scientist who has published on the JFK assassination. However - from my perspective - she lacks an understanding of trajectory analysis. I do not criticise her blood splatter analysis: I am not qualified to do so.

However firing from the south towards the car has an impediment that Sherry was never prepared - in the conversations that we had - to accept. In firing towards the car required that the shot - or shots - now had to avoid Bill Greer, Nellie Connally and John Connally. The danger presented to these individuals was created by the fact the JFK had moved his position and was limiting any possible successful through shot. One of Sherry's possible locations required the bullet to pass through Jackie Kennedy. At Z 312 Jackie is covering JFK if you are firing towards the car from the TUP.

There was even the issue of elevation and whether there was sufficient elevation to even make such a shot. What needs to be borne in mind is that a shot being fired from the north of the plaza then the the car is not an obstacle. However a shot from the south then the car becomes a severe obstacle. Where - to some degree - a shot from the north of the plaza presents an open target. But a shot from the south presents a closed target. Before reaching the target the shot has to first pass through the windscreen and then find a passage between the other occupants - and obstacles such as the divider between the Secret Service and the passengers - and the target JFK. It is just not possible.

And that does not even account for the fact that no witness claimed shots flew the central grassy area in the plaza where witnesses were positioned and were even taking pictures.

Put simply. Say the source of the shot was from the GK then - even if it actually avoided the spine - it would exit on JFK's left side and not his right side.

Yes, of course.

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.

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.

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.

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.

However, the question is: based upon his statements, do you believe that CARRICO is saying that the 'feel the back' check could have missed a 1/4" hole in JFK's back?

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.

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.

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.

The inside of the limo had been stripped before those folks got it.

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.

However, the question is: based upon his statements, do you believe that CARRICO is saying that the 'feel the back' check could have missed a 1/4" hole in JFK's back?

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.

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.

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?

Sure, I cannot conclude out of thin air that a bullet went through the back seat of the car.

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.)

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

...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.

Thank you, Ron Ecker #338. "...military man who told David Lifton..." When I read that, I knew it was at the back of Best Evidence, and my copy fell open to one of the many dog-eared pages. Chapter 29, The Assertion of Adm. David P. Osborne, p 645. 2nd P: "The HSC reported Osborne's assertion that he 'thought he recalled seeing an intact slug roll out from the clothing of President Kennedy and onto the autopsy table; at the outset of the autopsy.'" The next page Osborne stated, "I had that bullet in my hands."

p590 is the first appearance of "The Osborne Allegation." I believe; haven't had time to go over it much.

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.

Sandy,

There is a fatal error with your throat-entrance-back-exit idea.

You may be right that such a rotation may give you a clearance - though I doubt it. Robert is on very sound ground pointing out the impediment of the spinal column.

You doubt a clearance based on what? Did you actually rotate the 3D skeleton I linked to and look for one? If so, did you not see the clearance? I did.

However there is a further impediment. If the source of the shot is from the north of the plaza then the direction of the bullet would be towards the left side of the body and not the right. Only a shot from the south of the plaza would allow the bullet to continue in a rightward direction.

We haven't even discussed the direction of the trajectory yet. Roy Wieselquist, who was the one to bring this theory up, said that he believes the shot came from the south. For this theory to work, there needs to be a "tall" building in that direction. I believe Roy has one in mind.

Put simply. Say the source of the shot was from the GK then - even if it actually avoided the spine - it would exit on JFK's left side and not his right side.

Yes, of course.

Notice the large white blotch on the back of the seat where JFK sat. That is presumably reflected sunlight. Why would it be reflected that way in that place? Could the blotch have been put there to hide a bullet hole?

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.

SUMMARY:

1. "determined there were no large wounds which would be an immediate threat to life there".

Clearly, Carrico is stating that he was looking for LARGE wounds only. Does a 1/4" bullet hole count as a LARGE wound?

2. Replying to Specter's question as to where the blood originated: it certainly could have been a back wound, but there was no way to tell whether this blood would have come from a back wound[/u]

Based on the above statements, it is my strong opinion that Carrico believes a back wound could easily have gone undetected at Parkland.

Opinions, please...

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.

This would have had to occur on the plane -- or else Secret Service Special Agent Glenn Bennett was one of the master-minds of the cover-up.

This is his contemporaneous notes written while flying back on AF1:

The chain of possession for the clothing is clear, not so for the autopsy photos.

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?

The back seat was indeed reupholstered.

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.

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.

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.

At the moment I rate GB's testimony as reasonable, while I continue to explore the statement that "if the back wound was real, it HAD to have been observed at Parkland." Really? The doctors did NOT have the opportunity to see it, so their lack of confirmation means nothing. The nurses may have had the opportunity to see it, but I've heard no reason as to why they would be looking for additional wounds, and in their Q&A testimony with Specter, the only time it's certain that he specifically asks is in reference to removing JFK from the limo.

Margaret Hinchcliffe/Henchcliffe stated in an interview 30 years later, that she observed the back wound. Now due to the time interval this may be questionable, IF it's counter to any statements she previously made. I have yet to find anything in her Q&As where she was specifically asked if she saw any additional wounds when they cleaned blood off the body. This statement is not conclusive, but is evidence favoring the back wound. It shouldn't be totally dismissed as some are doing.

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.

Thank you, Ron Ecker #338. "...military man who told David Lifton..." When I read that, I knew it was at the back of Best Evidence, and my copy fell open to one of the many dog-eared pages. Chapter 29, The Assertion of Adm. David P. Osborne, p 645. 2nd P: "The HSC reported Osborne's assertion that he 'thought he recalled seeing an intact slug roll out from the clothing of President Kennedy and onto the autopsy table; at the outset of the autopsy.'" The next page Osborne stated, "I had that bullet in my hands."

p590 is the first appearance of "The Osborne Allegation." I believe; haven't had time to go over it much.

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.