Sandy Larsen

Are you aware that one witness (at least) later described to a researcher how the autopsy physicians were at one point probing all over the place, trying to figure out the path(s) of the bullet(s)? Unfortunately I don't remember who it was that gave the interview, and I don't remember if they were probing primarily from the throat wound or back wound. But I'm pretty sure the person said they did try to see if there was a path from the back wound to the throat. Or if such a path was possible. The reason I make a point of this is perhaps it explains why Humes probed through to the pleura. Having probed everywhere else, why not there too? Upon read the description of this probing, I came away with the impression that it was a far-from-methodical thing. More like frantically looking for an explanation.

But I do believe the shot may have come from the TSBD.) Sandy, One of Connally's wounds at the least. chris (I don't know why the image doesn't show up in what I'm quoting above.) Thanks Chris. I did not know that any official concluded and stated that the magic bullet (or any bullet) came from the west end of the building. I've suspected for some time that shots were fired from there, as others have and as a few witnesses claimed. I personally believe that either the TSBD was a CIA front, or that it's owner, D.H. Byrd, was CIA. (Byrd had CIA associations, though I can't name them off the top of my head.) Of course, Dr. Shaw's claims contradict the magic bullet theory. But them, most everything does.

Dr. Peters did insert a right chest tube, as you noted on page 1 of this topic. So of course an incision was made there. As for the left side, I don't know. Maybe Humes (falsely) reported such an incision being made on both sides in an attempt to make it sound like doing so was standard practice and nothing to ask questions about. Because an incision on just one side naturally would indicate something being wrong... on just that side. Dr. Humes would mislead like this because the presence of a collapsed lung would have been problematic to the WC. I have two questions related to this, for you Robert: 1. How could the Parkland doctors have known which lung, left or right, was affected based upon symptoms they saw, like agonal breathing? Dr. Jenkins said that there was "obvious tracheal and chest damage." What kind of chest damage would indicate which lung is affected? 2. Jenkins said there was "obvious tracheal ... damage." Could this damage have been the cause of the Kennedy's pneumothorax, rather than something from the back wound? After all, Jenkins himself said, "...a tracheotomy tube was put in. This is one way of avoiding pushing air out through a fractured trachea and down into each chest cavity, which would cause a pneumothorax or a collapse of the lungs"

Tom, I quoted some of Humes back-wound testimony early on in the thread, which does not say anything about probing deeply with his finger. HOWEVER, in the course of things I came across further testimony from Humes on the back wound. I was surprised that he would testify twice, so I remember looking to make sure it was WC testimony, not HSCA. Now, I could be wrong, but I remember seeing that it was indeed WC testimony. I mean, that was the reason for my surprise. Anyway, I wonder if that might be the testimony you're thinking of. I sure wish I would have posted it. I didn't because it contained nothing relevant to the thread at the time. But I really should have, just for general reference. You go on to say: [Humes] states that he was able to "probe the bottom of [the back wound] with his little finger." That's also what Jenkins says. But Jenkins elaborates by saying that, to him, that meant that the wound had to have been very shallow. Precisely your conclusion, and mine. Then Jenkins continues by saying Humes used a probe. So apparently the wound continued on beyond the shallow part. Right? I guess this oddity is what Robert was getting at when he asked why Humes would use a probe after finding a bottom. In my mind I just assumed that a fragment could travel beyond where the majority of the bullet stops.

Sandy, It may or may not matter in this specific case, but a pneumothorax is not a punctured lung. It is a wound through the pleura that allows air, blood, fluid, into the sac that contains the lung. When the lung is collapsed during exhalation, air and fluid fills the space around the lung and the lung cannot re-expand during inhalation. Yes of course. I actually meant punctured lung.... oops, I mean collapsed lung (see, there I did it again) but miswrote it.

As it turns out, it looks like Doug Horne misspoke when he said that James Jenkins could see Hume's little finger push on the pleural membrane. Here is what Jenkins said in an early interview (his first, I think) with David Lifton. From Best Evidence: [Jenkins] remembered very clearly Humes’ probing the back wound with his little finger. “What sticks out in my mind,” Jenkins told me, “is the fact that Commander Humes put his little finger in it, and, you know, said that.... he could probe the bottom of it with his finger, which would mean to me [it was] very shallow. .... I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe.... through the pleura [the lining of the chest cavity]. .... You could actually see where it [the probe] was making an indentation.... where it was pushing the skin up. .... There was no entry into the chest cavity.... no way that could have exited in the front because it was then low in the chest cavity. This resolves (to my satisfaction) a number of problematic things. First, it means that there is no reason to believe that Humes probed deeply with his finger, and so the question of how his finger could possibly fit becomes a non-issue. Second, if the official size of the wound (4 mm by 7 mm) is correct or near that, Humes could not have probed very deeply at all, and yet was able to hit bottom. Which means the wound was very shallow indeed. This could be a important clue as to what exactly made the wound. Third, apparently Humes did indeed probe the pleural membrane with a probe, just as he (and at least one other autopsy physician) had testified. This gives me more confidence in Jenkins as a witness.

I just found what Paul O'Connor had to say regarding the above drawing. Doug Horne wrote: Paul O’Connor told the HSCA staff that after he returned to the morgue after some period of time, after being ordered to leave, he was informed by one of his Navy colleagues that an intercostal bullet (i.e., a bullet taken from the tissue between two ribs) had been found and removed. This [witness A being unaware of what Witness B saw] all indicates that some Navy personnel were banned from the morgue during certain procedures performed early that night: namely, post-mortem surgery to sanitize the crime scene. According to the official story, only two bullet fragments were recovered from the body, both from the head. Yet at least 16 fragment were actually found. Horne wrote: Tom Robinson told the ARRB staff in 1996 that he was shown a vial or test tube containing about 10 small metallic fragments; Dennis David has consistently stated ever since 1979 that he held in his hand, and typed a receipt for, 4 bullet fragments that night, which constituted more mass than one bullet, but less total mass than two bullets. This supports the notion that fragments were indeed found in the shallow back wound. And not only that wound, but in the neck wound as well. Because, according to Horne: ....x-ray technician Jerrol Custer did see a bullet fragment fall from the thorax onto the examining table. (I wasn't aware of this before reading what Horne wrote here: http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html ) For completeness sake, I'll record here the apparent existence of a complete bullet -- irrelevant to this discussion -- that was also reportedly found. Horne wrote: ....the infamous Belmont FBI memo from 11/22/63 stated that there was a bullet lodged behind JFK’s ear, which the FBI was going to obtain.

This is going to get very technical but I will try to simplify things as much as possible. o o o So, getting back to the back wound, if the frangible bullet had "come apart" in the shallow back wound, there would have been much more damage visible than just a tiny entrance wound. I am saying the entire bullet went through the pleura and entered the lung, disintegrating there. Remember the hundreds of tiny metallic particles seen in the x-rays of JFK's skull? Obvious evidence of a frangible bullet that has disintegrated. Thanks for explanation... very interesting, and useful. I had wrongly assumed the frangible bullet wasn't jacketed. If you're right about the frangible bullet disintegrating in the lung, that would contradict a good deal of testimony from the three autopsy physicians. For example, that the pleura was intact and that x-rays of the chest revealed nothing. No surprise there. (BTW, I just discovered that pneumothorax (punctured lung) is nowhere to be found in the official autopsy. And that there are no chest x-rays. Gee, I wonder why.) Your theory also contradicts James Jenkins, who said he saw the pleural membrane as Humes probed it with his finger, and that it was intact. If Jenkins is the only witness to have seen and reported that, then he could be mistaken and your theory could be right.

Tom, I got the same impression you did from the video. The commentator at first seems to be saying that the branches didn't make much of a difference, only to conclude a moment later that the shot missed its target and hit the pavement instead. I think that maybe the script writer for the show didn't quite get it and mis-wrote that part. As for the position of the target (the so called "witness panel"), to me it looked to be placed perhaps a couple yards beyond the array of branches. And I assumed that's where it was during the test. Assuming that to be the case -- a 1 inch deflection 2 yards out -- then the deflection at 25 yards would be a 12 1/2 inches. That might have still hit the president had the sniper been aiming for the head and if the deflection happened to have been downward. Or it could have hit someone else in the car or the car itself. Who knows. Regardless, the results of this test aren't very useful for the back wound case. I think Robert is right, that the bullet was still traveling too fast to have resulted in a shallow back wound.

Humes testified to the WC that the wound was 4 mm by 7 mm (5/32" x 9/32") in size, with the long axis being parallel with the long axis of the body. I'm 6' 2" with a large build, but not large hands. My pinkie is pretty much the same size as yours, Tom. It's hard to believe the bullet hole would easily stretch far enough for a finger to probe more than 1/4" or so deep. Perhaps Humes lied and made the wound out to be smaller than it really was. Or maybe Jim Jenkins lied about seeing the pleura indent as Humes probed with his finger. Or maybe the flesh could be stretched enough for a finger to be inserted.

I think your frangible bullet scenario makes a lot of sense, particularly given that Kennedy had a punctured lung seeming to have come from the back wound, yet no noticeable puncture through the pleura. I think a tiny fragment must have punctured the pleura. (Please let me know if there's a problem with this statement.) If it can be shown or reasoned that the velocity of a standard bullet would have been much less than the 380 fps in my analysis -- say below 250 fps -- then I would definitely favor your theory over the one I adopted from Purvis. Your comment on the speed of Ruby's bullet sank in after all. Well, the problem is that I doubt any bullet, even a frangible bullet, would break apart after only penetrating an inch in flesh and then stopping. Frangible bullets require much more velocity and travelling through a few inches of flesh, lung or brain matter to make them break up. Of course, I have no idea how a frangible bullet would have been constructed in 1963, and I won't discount the possibility of a particle of that bullet escaping. But I thought it was your belief that a frangible bullet is what caused the back wound. I thought that that was how you explained that there were no fragments found. Now you're saying you doubt that could be the case because the bullet wouldn't fragment. Please explain. Maybe I misunderstood or read too much into what you said. Also, wasn't your point, when posting the testimony about the collapsed lung, to support the idea of a bullet particle having passed through the pleura? (I don't remember your actually stating that. But there had to have been some point in posting that information. I suppose.)

Welcome to the insanity that was the autopsy conducted on JFK's corpse at Bethesda, Maryland. Do you see a problem with Jenkins' description of probing the wound and Humes' description of the same process? According to Jenkins, he saw, from the inside of JFK's empty chest cavity, Humes' finger making an indentation in the parietal pleura membrane. This is the membrane lining the inside of the chest cavity that is visible once the lungs are removed. Why is Humes discussing the use of probes and his concern they might make a false track in the back wound? The wound, at least according to this story, obviously went as far as the thin membrane known as the parietal pleura. If Jenkins had looked closely enough, he might have been able to see Humes' fingertip through the membrane. Would he not have mentioned this to Humes? What was there left to probe, anyways? The first slight push of a metal probe and it would have been inside the chest cavity. "Jenkins also recalled seeing a bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the top, or apex of the right lung)." Here we go down the rabbit hole. Look closely at the diagrams below for a few seconds: Hopefully, I have not overwhelmed you with all of these diagrams. The purpose of showing them is to highlight the very strange observation made by Jenkins; that being the bruising he observed at the top of the middle lobe of JFK's right lung. As can be seen in the 2nd to last diagram, the top of the middle lobe ends well below the 4th thoracic vetebra, or T4. The diagram above this one shows thoracic vertebra T3 to be on a level with the top of the right lung, and this is where many witnesses at Bethesda reported seeing the entrance wound in the back. So, if the top of the middle lobe of the right lung is way down near thoracic vertebra T5, how could Jenkins see bruising of the top of the middle lobe if, according to the WC, the bullet entered JFK's back at the level of vertebrae C7/T1? An entrance wound at T3 would still be too high to account for this bruising. There is a possible explanation for this. The visceral pleura, the membrane inside the parietal pleura, is a continuous membrane that completely envelops the lungs. It is also continuous with the membranes that separate the lobes of the lungs. This part is known as the "fissures" of the lungs, and they effectively separate the lobes of the lung into separate, isolated units. If bleeding were to occur in the top lobe of JFK's right lung it could, by gravity, collect at the lower part of this lobe, where it would be prevented from going into the middle lobe by the membrane. Is it possible Jenkins mistook pooling blood in the bottom of the top lobe for bruising in the top of the middle lobe? Many WC supporters would jump on this and tell us yes, this is possible, but the blood was from the bullet passing ABOVE the right lung, on its way to the throat wound. The theory is that the shock wave surrounding the bullet, as it passed through the neck, would rupture blood vessels in the top of the lung, and this would account for the blood. Close, but not quite. I have seen many deer shot through the base of the neck with high powered rifles, although it is not really fair to compare this to the assassination, as these shots were all made with soft tipped bullets. Yes, the shock can actually rupture blood vessels in the top of the lungs, as well as blood vessels going to the front legs. The big difference is that when the lungs are removed, the bruising to the tops of the lungs is quite obvious, unlike what Jenkins described to Horne. The thing to remember about the autopsy is that there were many lies told about it, and that, as the saying goes, within every lie is an element of the truth. For example, between Humes and Jenkins, only one of these two can be telling the truth about probing the back wound. Yet, if we use our imaginations, could it not be possible both of these men are telling a lie, with just enough truth mixed in to make the story work? Thanks Robert for going to the effort of explaining this. You say: "The thing to remember about the autopsy is that there were many lies told about it, and that, as the saying goes, within every lie is an element of the truth." I for one take Humes testimony, if it contradicts someone else's, with a grain of salt. Not that I think he's a xxxx. I think he was boxed into a lie by a higher ranking officer.

Bullet fragments?? What bullet fragments? This is the first time I've heard that fragments were found in the back wound. Is O'Connor just postulating here, or did he (and others) actually see the fragments? It does look like he's trying to explain the bruise to the right-lung fissure that Robert has discussed. (P.S. Thanks for posting this new-to-me diagram.)

Hi Sandy, Glad to see someone else who is still trying to 'explain' the back wound. The thread you referenced just kinda ran out of steam... My question, and I don't know the answer myself, is; How thick a piece of wood is required to knock 1700 fps (I don't know how much velocity has been lost while traveling the first 85 ft.) off the velocity of a Carcano slug? Did that oak(?) tree located between "the window" and JFK have thick branches where the trajectory would have passed? Tom Hi Tom, I have no idea as to how thick a block of wood or limb would have to be in order to to reduce the speed of a 2000 fps bullet to 380 fps. Or if there were branches thick enough to do so in the line of fire. The answers to those questions would be useful in determining whether or not this scenario could explain the shallow back wound. The purpose of my question to Robert is to see what it is about my simple analysis that he objects to. He apparently has a lot of experience with guns, an so I value his opinion. Let me point out that my analysis involves only undeniably correct scientific principles. So his objection can only be with either my assumptions or my simplifications. (I simplified the problem so as to get a first order approximation. A more rigorous analysis is beyond what I'm willing t devote to solving this. But I do believe that my approximation would be reasonably close to reality.) Robert has already pointed out that the bullet was likely traveling a velocity lower than the 380 fps I assumed for my analysis, and he presented a fairly convincing frame of reference supporting his case.

I think your frangible bullet scenario makes a lot of sense, particularly given that Kennedy had a punctured lung seeming to have come from the back wound, yet no noticeable puncture through the pleura. I think a tiny fragment must have punctured the pleura. (Please let me know if there's a problem with this statement.) If it can be shown or reasoned that the velocity of a standard bullet would have been much less than the 380 fps in my analysis -- say below 250 fps -- then I would definitely favor your theory over the one I adopted from Purvis. Your comment on the speed of Ruby's bullet sank in after all.

At first glance it appeared to me that all the witnesses to Kennedy's gaping wound, in Dr. Aguliar's list, are medical professionals. However, having now glanced through it more thoroughly, I see that it is a list of all witnesses. Two of the witnesses in Dallas are Secret Service agents. In Bethesda two are FBI, two are Secret Service, and a few are military men, all of whom witnessed the autopsy. But still, the large majority of the 46 are medical professionals. I'm glad to have helped in some way. The list/article is really quite comprehensive, not only in the number of witnesses, but also in how the various testimonies played out over the years. I find it so valuable that I've copied it to my hard drive, just in case it ever disappears. It's not comprehensive. He deliberately excluded those viewing Kennedy in the plaza, or in the limo outside Parkland. They described a wound, or pointed to a wound, on the top or side of their heads. Are you saying that Dr. Aguliar deliberately included only those who said the wound was in the right-rear area? This is how Dr. Aguliar describes his list: It was not the author's intent to list every comment ever made by every witnesses, but rather to gather the earliest, and presumably most reliable, accounts for inspection. FWIW, when I said "comprehensive" I didn't literally mean every single person who got a glance. I meant the professionals whose job it was to take care of the President, whether pre- or post-assassination. BTW thanks for describing your thought process and history regarding this subject, group-think, etc. I skimmed through your work on this some time ago and thought it was pretty far out there. (Maybe because I am SO not into group think myself! Quite the opposite really, not unlike most WC critics I'm sure.) Not to say I don't see any validity in it. I'm sure, for example, that doctors are inclined not to contradict each others if at all possible. But I think you can tell which of them are just going along with each other and which know what they saw and will stick to their guns. Even so, I value even more the (early) testimony of technicians and nurses because they don't have a code not to contradict others. I've studied David Lifton's research carefully and, with all that in mind, I see very little contradictory testimony between the witnesses at Parkland and those at Bethesda. The reason being that -- I believe -- different individuals did indeed see different head wounds, depending upon when they were admitted to the autopsy room, and depending upon what assumptions they made when they first saw the body. For example, some may have thought the autopsy was just beginning, while others may have thought it was already in progress. More specifically, those who thought the autopsy was just beginning when in reality Humes had already cut open the cranium saw what they thought to be an enormous wound, like the top half of an egg lopped off.

From what we know of the autopsy proceedings, the only probe used by Humes in examining JFK's back wound was his little finger. o o o Humes mentions the probe(s) in his WC testimony (see below). According to ARRB's Douglass Horne: [Autopsy technician] Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound in JFK's upper posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He recalled Dr. Humes sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes' finger making an indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes' probing from the other side, where the right lung would have been before its removal. The pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the top, or apex of the right lung). Jenkins also recalled that the back wound was 10 centimeters lower than the tracheotomy site in the anterior neck. HUMES WC TESTIMONY Commander HUMES - I--our previously submitted report, which is Commission No. 387, identified a wound in the low posterior neck of the President. The size of this wound was 4 by 7 mm., with the long axis being in accordance with the long axis of the body, 44 mm. wide, in other words, 7 mm. long. We attempted to locate such wounds in soft tissue by making reference to bony structures which do not move and are, therefore, good reference points for this type of investigation. We then ascertained, we chose the two bony points of reference we chose to locate this wound, where the mastoid process, which is just behind the ear, the top of the mastoid process, and the acromion which is the tip of the shoulder joint. We ascertained physical measurement at the time of autopsy that this wound was 14 cm. from the tip of the mastoid process and 14 cm. from the acromion was its central point-- Mr. SPECTER - That is the right acromion? Commander HUMES - The tip of the right acromion, yes, sir, and that is why we have depicted it in figure 385 in this location. This wound appeared physically quite similar to the wound which we have described before in 388 "A," with the exception that its long axis was shorter than the long axis of the wound described above. When the tissues beneath this wound were inspected, there was a defect corresponding with the skin defect in the fascia overlying the musculature of the low neck and upper back. I mentioned previously that X-rays were made of the entire body of the late President. Of course, and here I must say that as I describe something to you, I might have done it before or after in the description but for the sake of understanding, we examined carefully the bony structures in this vicinity well as the X-rays, to see if there was any evidence of fracture or of deposition of metallic fragments in the depths of this wound, and we saw no such evidence, that is no fracture of the bones of the shoulder girdle, or of the vertical column, and no metallic fragments were detectable by X-ray examination. Attempts to probe in the vicinity of this wound were unsuccessful without fear of making a false passage. Mr. SPECTER - What do you mean by that, Doctor? Commander HUMES - Well, the defect in the fascia was quite similar, which is the first firm tissue over the muscle beneath the skin, was quite similar to this. We were unable, however, to take probes and have them satisfactorily fall through any definite path at this point. [Emphases added.]

A more logical way of comparing a 587 fps bullet to a 380 fps one is to say that it is is 54% faster. Since the kinetic energy carried by a moving object is related as a square of its velocity, the 587 fps bullet will have 237% (1.54^2) the energy of the 380 fps bullet. Perhaps that explains the difference in the damage done. Or perhaps not. But that's beside the point. As I stated in my analysis, I merely read somewhere (or was told by someone) that the speed of the bullet would have had to be about 300 fps to do what little damage it did. So that is the assumption I made for the analysis. Conclusions are no better than the assumptions made. If you have a better idea as to what the bullet velocity must have been, I would love to hear it and would be happy to re-analyze using the new data.

Thanks guys for your replies. I'm happy to see that there are indeed some plausible explanations for the back wound. I'll get to the other ideas in turn. Right now I'll focus on Tom Purvis's theory. The key to this problem's solution (assuming a traditional lead bullet was used) is that the bullet became slowed down, not as far away as the TSBD, but close enough to Kennedy that it would have dropped only a few inches before hitting him. (Because slow bullets drop so far as to render them too inaccurate at long ranges.) With that in mind I will test Purvis's theory. I believe that the WC concluded that the nearest distance a shot was possible was at about 170 ft from the TSBD. From a diagram in this link http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/3966/dppluschartsupdated1111.gif I've determined that the tree was located about half way between the TBSD and Kennedy at that point. So the bullet traveled about 85 ft at the slow velocity. I've read that back wound looked consistent with a bullet traveling perhaps 300 fps. So I'll use that figure. We can determine the approximate drop based upon these two figures. (Approximate because I will be ignoring wind resistance and the fact that the gun was shot at a downward angle, among other things.) FORMULA The distance an object drops due to gravity is given by the formula d = (g * t^2)/2 where * denotes multiplication, / denotes division, and ^ denotes “to the power of” (so t^2 is t squared). g = 32 is a constant. It is the downward acceleration of an object due to gravitational pull. Its units are ft/s^2 (feet per second squared). t is the time the object is allowed to drop. We don’t know offhand what t is, but we can calculate it from the distance the bullet traveled toward the target. It is calculated from the equation t = D / v where D is the distance the bullet travels toward its target and v is its velocity. Substituting this equation into the formula above ,we get d = (g * (D/v)^2)/2 CALCULATION The distance D is 85 ft and the velocity is 300 fps. Plugging those into the formula we get d = (32 * (85/300)^2)/2 d = 1.28 ft So a 300 fps bullet would drop 15.4 inches, which is 15.1 inches lower than a where a 2000 fps bullet would hit. (I used the same formula to determine that a high speed bullet (2000 fps) would drop about 0.3".) CONCLUSION For my conclusion I will use a bullet velocity of 380 fps instead of the 300 fps I used above. The reason for doing so will be apparent. If the shooter were aiming for the head and hitting a limb slowed the bullet down to 380 fps, it would hit the back about where it hit Kennedy. I can't take into account bullet deflection or tumbling, but the calculation here shows that we’re in the right ballpark. Purvis may be on to something. (BTW, I don't believe a Carcano shot that bullet. I don't believe Oswald shot any bullet. But I do believe the shot may have come from the TSBD.) In order to believe your theory would work requires ignoring everything I know about bullets in flight. It also requires believing that slowing a bullet from 2000 fps to 300-380 fps, by having it travel through a tree branch, will not de-stabilize the bullet to the point it will begin tumbling. Sorry, I happen to know better. P.S. Your mathematics are impressive but, it is just as easy to use an on line ballistics calculator to calculate bullet drop. I didn't know that I had a theory. But sure, why not, I'll take ownership. I own only what I have stated, not everything Purvis may have believed. As I stated in my simple analysis, there were things I wasn't taking into account. And I specifically stated that "I can't take into account bullet deflection or tumbling." I guess I should have also mentioned that I'm am not a ballistics or gun expert... I just figured that is what folks would believe by default.. (But, FWIW, I do know physics.) Since you are apparently an expert, let me ask you this. Suppose you fired a 2000 fps bullet horizontal to the ground, it travels 85 feet, at which point it transits a block of wood just thick enough that it exits with a velocity of 380 fps. It continues to travel another 85 feet and finally hits a second block of wood. Both blocks of wood are massive and are held securely to the ground. My question for you is this: What would be the expected distance measured between the horizontal line of fire and where it hits the second block? (The reason I specify a horizontal line of fire and that the blocks of wood be securely fastened is to simplify the problem. That is standard practice for making first-order approximations.)

"....going out on a limb." LOL

Robert, Wow, Kennedy had a collapsed lung! I did not know that. I can't believe others haven't made a bigger deal of this information. It makes a big difference in how I think about the wounds. Autopsy witnesses said that Humes probed the back wound but found that the pleura had not been penetrated. So you must be saying that there was indeed a hole in the pleura, it's just that it was a tiny one that the probe wouldn't fit through. Is that right? BTW I found a good thread for me to review your and Cliff's beliefs on the back wound: For Cliff Varnell: Where did the Bullet in JFK's Back go? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21592 I skimmed over some of it and one thing you said surprised me. You said that you thought the throat wound was an exit for one of the particles from the base-of-the-skull frangible bullet. (If I understood you correctly.) What mabe you decide the particle came from that bullet? Why not from the back-wound frangible bullet? The particle would have had to make quite a sharp turn had it come from the base-of-head bullet. Also, why not postulate that the throat wound was a shot from the front and was a frangible bullet. Oh, I remember now... you argued that there would be more blood if that shot came from the front. Maybe. Or maybe the bullet (from a frontal shot) fragmented after passing though the esophagus, and the blood splatter was contained therein. Do you believe all the bullets used were frangible? If so, how do you explain the bullet that reportedly was found behind the ear in Bethesda? (This bullet seems to be rarely mentioned.) Why do you think that frangible bullets would be used to kill Kennedy?

Cliff, I for one wouldn't be surprised if one of those "high tech" weapons was used. But I don't know of any evidence supporting the idea. I would consider the idea more seriously if no other plausible explanation for the back wound--using traditional guns and bullets--could be conceived I read about the poison dart weapon shown to the Church Committee, here http://www.wanttoknow.info/a-CIA-shellfish-poison-dart-gun-causes-heart-attack In the article it is said that the poison dart is the width of a human hair and only 1/4" long. So tiny that it is almost undetectable. It is said that it leaves no trace and causes what appears to be a heart attack. This implies that it wouldn't leave an easily detectable mark on the body. Of course, a hole was left on Kennedy's back. So are you thinking that the gun delivery system has a slug? Compared to the cane and umbrella delivery system, which wouldn't have a slug.

One downside to Purvis's theory is this: Why would the shooter be trying to land a shot between tree limbs?

Thanks guys for your replies. I'm happy to see that there are indeed some plausible explanations for the back wound. I'll get to the other ideas in turn. Right now I'll focus on Tom Purvis's theory. The key to this problem's solution (assuming a traditional lead bullet was used) is that the bullet became slowed down, not as far away as the TSBD, but close enough to Kennedy that it would have dropped only a few inches before hitting him. (Because slow bullets drop so far as to render them too inaccurate at long ranges.) With that in mind I will test Purvis's theory. I believe that the WC concluded that the nearest distance a shot was possible was at about 170 ft from the TSBD. From a diagram in this link http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/3966/dppluschartsupdated1111.gif I've determined that the tree was located about half way between the TBSD and Kennedy at that point. So the bullet traveled about 85 ft at the slow velocity. I've read that back wound looked consistent with a bullet traveling perhaps 300 fps. So I'll use that figure. We can determine the approximate drop based upon these two figures. (Approximate because I will be ignoring wind resistance and the fact that the gun was shot at a downward angle, among other things.) FORMULA The distance an object drops due to gravity is given by the formula d = (g * t^2)/2 where * denotes multiplication, / denotes division, and ^ denotes “to the power of” (so t^2 is t squared). g = 32 is a constant. It is the downward acceleration of an object due to gravitational pull. Its units are ft/s^2 (feet per second squared). t is the time the object is allowed to drop. We don’t know offhand what t is, but we can calculate it from the distance the bullet traveled toward the target. It is calculated from the equation t = D / v where D is the distance the bullet travels toward its target and v is its velocity. Substituting this equation into the formula above ,we get d = (g * (D/v)^2)/2 CALCULATION The distance D is 85 ft and the velocity is 300 fps. Plugging those into the formula we get d = (32 * (85/300)^2)/2 d = 1.28 ft So a 300 fps bullet would drop 15.4 inches, which is 15.1 inches lower than a where a 2000 fps bullet would hit. (I used the same formula to determine that a high speed bullet (2000 fps) would drop about 0.3".) CONCLUSION For my conclusion I will use a bullet velocity of 380 fps instead of the 300 fps I used above. The reason for doing so will be apparent. If the shooter were aiming for the head and hitting a limb slowed the bullet down to 380 fps, it would hit the back about where it hit Kennedy. I can't take into account bullet deflection or tumbling, but the calculation here shows that we’re in the right ballpark. Purvis may be on to something. (BTW, I don't believe a Carcano shot that bullet. I don't believe Oswald shot any bullet. But I do believe the shot may have come from the TSBD.)

I made a misstatement in an earlier post, as bolded here: At first glance it appeared to me that all the witnesses to Kennedy's gaping wound, in Dr. Aguliar's list, are medical professionals. However, having now glanced through it more thoroughly, I see that it is a list of all witnesses. Two of the witnesses in Dallas are Secret Service agents. In Bethesda two are FBI, two are Secret Service, and a few are military men, all of whom witnessed the autopsy. But still, the large majority of the 46 are medical professionals. I'm glad to have helped in some way. The list/article is really quite comprehensive, not only in the number of witnesses, but also in how the various testimonies played out over the years. I find it so valuable that I've copied it to my hard drive, just in case it ever disappears.