Sandy Larsen

David,

Well I hate to be the one to burst your bubble... but... here is what I found.

The rectangular holes turns out indeed to be a Hollerith code, which consists of 12 rows of holes. The hard part in decoding the holes was determining which row was X and which was 9 (the two extremes). It turns out that one row at the top has no holes, and two rows at the bottom have no holes. Once I figured that out the rest was easy. The encoded "message" begins with the rightmost hole in the above image. (Its hard to see the holes for the first two and the fourth characters, but they can easily be seen on the front side of the money order.)

Here is the decoded message:

2202130462 P -

So what is this? It's the issue number of the money order, as printed on its front side!

As for the round holes, they represent a five digit number. One of the following four, I believe:

13256

65231

86743

34768

This could be a routing number for the post office that issued the MO. It doesn't have enough digits to represent a particular account at a particular bank (account number + routing number). And it certainly doesn't have enough digits to represent a check reference number that a federal reserve bank might stamp on a check.

So the problem still stands that a Carcano rifle wasn't paid for with this money order. Nor was anything else.

Ray,

To me it looks like the guy is standing behind the truck.

But I think you're posting this in the wrong thread.

Hi Sandy,

If you enlarge the photo, you will see that he appears to be in the back of the truck.

I posted it here because you were talking about shots from the South Knoll.

Ohhh, okay! Thanks. Yeah, that gives me a better idea as to what the south terrain looks like.

Strange that one minute this flat bed truck has a man in the back, then it has a cover.

Ray,

To me it looks like the guy is standing behind the truck.

But I think you're posting this in the wrong thread.

At Z190, before the front bumper of the limo reached the Stemmons sign, someone on SGK could have fired (with a sound-suppressor of course) a shot that entered the president's throat, grazed his right lung, and exited his back.

Roy, I'd like to see a diagram showing how that could be done. A cross sectional view of the plaza showing how a trajectory from the south knoll could possibly hit JFK's neck without hitting the windshield or the bar the runs across and above the passenger/driver partition.

Well, as you pointed out, there are some definite problems with my theory, such as the angle from EOP to C3/C4 to throat being a bit on the steep side, and Jenkins claim that he could see the probe pushing up against the pleura, but not actually finding a path through it.

Here's a thought: Given the angle of the EOP, could the bullet have hit near the bottom of the skull, around the superior nuchal line, created a small hole through the skull through which a fragment of the bullet entered, while the remainder of the bullet broke up and was deflected downward toward C3/C4? (Sorry if this sounds like another magic bullet.)

(BTW, don't feel compelled to respond if I throw out a silly idea. Ones like this one are meant to hopefully trigger thoughts in your mind that are more reasonable than mine.)

I wonder what it was that "convinced" the surgeons that a fragment of this bullet is what exited the throat. Knowing that would be helpful.

I've always had trouble with Jenkins' stating he saw a probe pushing the pleural lining and how he viewed this from the inside of the empty pleural cavity. In his HSCA interview with Andy Purdy, he describes it as an 8 inch metal probe, and that 2-4 inches of this probe was inserted into the back wound. It is my belief that there is simply not 2-4 inches of tissue, between the skin and the pleural lining, and this is confirmed by Jenkins telling Purdy that the only way this probe could be inserted was almost straight downward or, as he put it, at a "...fairly drastic angle downward so as not to enter the cavity."

Here's a thought (that I may have already stated long ago): Humes is told just prior to the autopsy that, among other things, he is not to find a collapsed lung. So when he's looking for the back-wound bullet fragments, he intentionally pushes the probe in the wrong direction, through intact muscle, just to show whoever's watching (Jenkins) that the pleura (and thus the lung) wasn't penetrated. But then, this would be a part of the "charade" idea.

Again, just throwing ideas out.

Considering the overlying muscles of the back and the intercostal muscles between the ribs together do not amount to any great thickness, my question is, why were they attempting to probe this wound with a metal probe? A basic knowledge of human anatomy is enough to tell us that an entrance wound between the vertebrae and the shoulder blade, at the level of T3, is directly over the top of the right lung, and does not have to travel through very much flesh to get to it.

And why would the probe be forced straight down, likely parallel to the rib cage? Did someone think JFK was shot from a helicopter? This, combined with the very shallow depth of the tissue they were probing (before they would have put the probe into the pleural cavity), tells me something very odd was going on here.

This is slightly off topic but, does anyone know what became of the section of the rear of JFK's head that Clint Hill observed lying on the back seat of the limo?

P.S.

Interesting point you made, Sandy, about the lower quality of the portable x-ray machines. Would this be compounded by the fact the portable x-ray machine they used might have been a late 50's (or older) model? That would certainly explain the oddity of slicing up all of the organs in their search for a bullet. Call me stupid but, why not just take the organs to the stationary x-ray unit and get a better look?

The reason a stationary x-ray machine produces better images than a portable is because they can produce higher energy x-rays than portable units can. To produce higher energy x-rays, an x-ray system needs two things: 1) A higher-power power supply unit, and 2) a way to cool an x-ray tube that will be hotter. A stationary x-ray machine has a very bulky and heavy power supply that resides in a nearby cabinet. And it has a bulky and heavy heat sink attached to the tube.

With today's technology, a higher-powered power supply unit could definitely be designed to fit inside a portable x-ray machine. So MAYBE today's portables are better than those of the 1950s/60s. However, if cooling the tube is the limiting factor, then no, today's portables probably aren't much better.

Unfortunately I don't know if the limiting factor in the older portables was the power supply or the cooling of the tube. So I can't answer your question. based on those factors. However, the mere fact that they had and used portable machines back then, and complained of their resolution just as they do today, makes me think that the performance of portables probably hasn't changed much. Because I'm pretty sure the performance of stationary ones hasn't either. Tube technology for traditional x-raying was pretty mature in the 1950s/60s.

Interesting point you made, Sandy, about the lower quality of the portable x-ray machines. That would certainly explain the oddity of slicing up all of the organs in their search for a bullet. Call me stupid but, why not just take the organs to the stationary x-ray unit and get a better look?

Robert and Sandy,

In my post #317-806 on 11-04-2015 I pointed out that the radiology techs stated that the portable x-ray machine was low resolution and only good enough to find bullets or large fragments. I stated the same conclusion that you did. i.e. Why chop up the lungs looking for bullets/fragments when you could send the right lung with one of the techs to use the available high-res x-ray machine? Unless of course your goal was to destroy the evidence of a perforated lung with dust-like "particles that look like metal but are actually dirt" to quote Ebersole and the HSCA. And of course the sole x-ray of the lungs has disappeared from the archives.

Tom

Tom,

Thanks for bringing up again the info on the portable x-ray machine. I couldn't remember who had posted it and I'd forgotten the details (low resolution, etc.)

Do you know if the portable unit was used for all the x-rays? It seems likely, as I don't recall any mention of JFK's body being moved, for example to be x-rayed with a regular machine.

However, we need to keep in mind that there was a period of time (about an hour?) when Humes had the body before the gallery was filled and the official autopsy began. The so-call pre-autopsy autopsy period that most people are unaware of. A regular x-ray machine might have been used then.

A regular x-ray machine would have definitely produce better images than a portable. Though, as I understand it, a portable would work fine for areas with less mass, like the limbs. Maybe even so for the lungs, given that much of that area is air.

Tom said:

Why chop up the lungs looking for bullets/fragments when you could send the right lung with one of the techs to use the available high-res x-ray machine? Unless of course your goal was to destroy the evidence of a perforated lung with dust-like "particles that look like metal but are actually dirt" to quote Ebersole and the HSCA.

Because of Lt. Lipsey's testimony that the surgeons spent a large portion of the autopsy looking for the back wound bullet, I'm not ready to (preliminarily) conclude that the purpose of slicing up the organs wasn't to find bullet fragments from the back wound. But the part about dust-like particles looking like metal to a radiologist, Dr. Ebersole, certainly grabs my attention, particularly in light of this frangible/exotic bullet discussion. Unexposed film in hospitals doesn't get dirty. There had to have been something in the body capable of blocking x-rays enough to make a noticeable image on the film, IMO.

Robert said:

Call me stupid but, why not just take the organs to the stationary x-ray unit and get a better look?

Impatience? X-rays had already been taken... some people don't like to do things twice.

Or maybe they figured the first x-ray of the lungs was good enough, if it's the case that a portable x-ray machine give a reasonably good image of the less-massive lung area.

I'm just throwing these ideas out.

Why couldn't the Dallas post office have simply run out of their supply of blank U.S. Postal money orders shortly before Oswald purchased his M.O. on March 12th? It's fairly obvious to me that that is what happened.

Does John Armstrong really think that the Dallas post office had an unlimited supply of money orders on hand at all times? How silly.

At some point, the supply of money orders would run low and the Dallas post office would replenish its stock. And when they do get fresh stock, the serial numbers are, of course, going to be much higher than the ones they just ran out of, since they are "U.S. POSTAL MONEY ORDERS" with unique serial numbers attached to each one and are being continuously supplied to post offices and other institutions all around the entire country, not just the Main Post Office branch in Dallas, Texas.

Why on Earth is my above "Ran out of stock and simply replenished their supply with money orders that obviously would have much higher serial numbers" explanation not even to be considered by conspiracy theorists like John Armstrong?

~big shrug~

------------

More:

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html

I agree with David on this one. Not that I know for sure that what he described is what happened... only that what he described could have happened. And so there is no reason to suspect foul play in this regard.

Now, if somebody were to show that all post offices across the country could not have used 118,000 money orders over the given time period, then a cloud of doubt could again be cast on this.

Rather than point to other other problems found with Oswald's purchase of the gun, I think we should stick with the topic given here. Does the code punched on the money order represent the processing of the money order at a federal reserve bank.

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..

Robert,

I like your theory for a number of reasons. I can't think of any testimony that contradicts it, and it does seem possible to me that the bullet did as you describe.

But I'd like a little more info about the following: Isn't the angle from the EOP, through the skull, and down to C3/C4 too steep to have come from the TSBD? After fragmenting, could the particles have deflected to this steeper angle?

One of your concerns is how the skull got broken up into so many pieces, including some in the face. This doesn't concern me because I believe pre-autopsy surgery was done in order to obfuscate any wounds from the front. There was a gaping wound in the back at Parkland and it was obfuscated elsewhere by enlarging the blowout to cover the whole top of the head. (Right side only, that is.) How would one do that? With a saw? How about a chisel and hammer? The latter would look more convincing as a wound. I studied this topic (two caskets, three entrances, pre-autopsy surgery) in great detail and came away convinced of it. (Not in full agreement with DSL, but close.) How the various witnesses to the autopsy were brought in at various times helps explain why some people saw a blowout in the back and others saw the top of the head missing. Different witnesses saw different wounds in Bethesda. But they all included the missing occiput area.

Anyway, if you're open to that idea, the great damage to the head isn't hard to explain.

After reading Best Evidence I came away not trusting what Humes said. But as time has passed and I've read the testimony of others, like Lt. Lipsey, things have gradually started to fit together and I have come to believe that Humes was more honest than what I had originally imagined. (Though I never thought he was all that bad... just that his every step was being controlled.)

This is how I have come to accept the EOP entrance wound as being real. The fact that Humes held his ground for so long before giving into the HSCA regarding the BOH wound being at the EOP and not the cowlick area. Why would he do that if it was one of the lies being told?? (If you haven't read that testimony it's pretty interesting. One congressman was saying they were all "nuts" for letting the tape recorder run during Humes's objections.)

Now that I'm being exposed to the complexities of the shots not having exits, the frangible bullets make sense. Though I don't know what to make of the jackets not being found. Maybe they were jacket-less? There actually were reports of a few fragments being removed from the body (NOT official reports). Could these have been jacket fragments? I don't anything about that stuff, but it sounds ridiculous, mistaking copper for lead.

As for the back wound, I've wrestled with the fact that they cut the organs up when they could have simply x-rayed them. But recently it occurred to me that maybe they x-rayed the organs *before* the dissection looking for the fragments. They couldn't find any because (in their way of thinking) they were using a low-powered portable machine. I've fixed many of my radiologist friend's x-ray machines over the years (I'm an electrical engineer) and I know they always want me to get the repair done quickly because the images from the portable machine aren't very good.

So anyway, they take poor x-rays, don't see anything, and assume they didn't find bullet fragments because of the poor images. So the decide to dissect and cut up the organs. They don't x-ray the organs *after* the dissection simply because they already did, and they think they can find fragments by slicing the organs. It doesn't pan out and they scratch their heads wondering where the bullet went.

One thing I like about your theory is that it actually agrees with what Humes really did and what Lipsey actually saw. According to Lipsey, the surgeons were certain the EOP bullet exited the throat. and it did (in a way, according to your theory). The surgeons couldn't find the back wound, as they shouldn't (according to your theory). The top of Kennedy's head was blown off with "surgery to head," and Humes has to make up a pretend bullet entrance and exit, both in the hole area. This according to Lipsey. But of course this is because of the pre-autopsy surgery. The bullet really entered one of the temples and fragmented, blowing out the back of the head.

Why didn't they (including Jenkins) not see a hole in the pleura? Because... I don't know. If somehow the bullet could have disintegrated before entering the pleural cavity, the tiny particles could have penetrated the pleural cavity and lung, and the tiny holes in the pleura go undetected. But from your lessons on frangible bullets, it seems that could not have happened. So this remains unsolved. And the copper jacket problem remains unsolved, though maybe they were necessary for some reason.

I'm running these peripheral thoughts by you and the others, hoping they might trigger ideas to go along with your new theory.

Well Jean Davison must be a "somebody" in the LN crowd. I found her post in alt.assassination.jfk and she got a reply from our pal John McAdams:

John McAdams, On 6 Nov. 2015:

Another Armstrong thing shot to hell.

David Von Pein destroyed the "mailed at a distant mailbox" thing.
David, if you are lucking, you might post the link (I'm too lazy to go
find it).

.John

David, I'd like to take a look at your "mailed at a distant mailbox" destruction page. Can you give me a link?

JEAN DAVISON SAID:

"The money order wasn't cashed" debunked....

It has long been argued that since the money order for Oswald's rifle lacked a bank stamp on the back, it was never cashed. For instance here:

http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html

Recently Brian Castle debunked that claim on the reopenkennedycase.org forum by making an observation that seems obvious now but that no one seems to have noticed before.

QUOTE:

"The scuttlebutt is that the money order was never cashed or deposited in any US bank.

However.... take a look at the money order. Here's a picture:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/Vol17

See the little holes in the paper? They're "punch holes", made by a "keypunch machine". In the old days, there was no ASCII and the computer people commonly used a "Hollerith code" for punch cards.

The idea is, that WHEN the money order or check is processed by the bank (or a clearing house), it's run in a BATCH along with a thousand other checks, and each batch is handled by a keypunch operator with a keypunch machine [......]"

UNQUOTE

You can read the rest here:

http://reopenkennedycase.org/about-that-money-order

Bravo, Brian Castle, well done!

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thank you, Jean. And thank you, Brian Castle.

Great jumpin' Jehosaphat, David!

When I suggested you bring this new find up in the forum, I had no idea you were gonna declare outright victory -- that the Oswald money order not-being-cashed thing had been debunked! What I meant was that you should present the new evidence and let the members study it. I mean... you guys haven't even deciphered the code yet!

Well, never mind. I just think you're jumping the gun. Don't you?

Anyway, now that you've brought it up, I'll give it a go myself.

P.S. Who's Jean Davison?

Robert,

As I read your theory, I kept waiting for the part where you tell us what happened to the bullet to the back.

...please let me know where I went wrong... what happened to the bullet to the back.

Perhaps you should take the time to re-read my post. I was proposing that part of the bullet entering at a downward angle at the EOP (external occipital protuberance) might have impacted at C3/C4 (cervical vertebrae or neck), not T3/T4 (thoracic or upper back vertebrae).

Oops! Yeah, that's where I got messed up. You wrote "C3/C4" and my mind read "T3/T4."

Different smal topic: the wild-goose chase I might've caused Sandy RE a possible hole in the backseat that JFK had his back pressed against. I believe that if a Sherlock Holmes, with magnifying glass and most sensitive fingers, were to get a hold of that exact piece of material, he would have trouble finding the damage caused by that missile that entered throat, exited back.

I saw a nice, color, profile-view of the presidential limo today and was going to post it. Unfortunately it got lost between then and when I finished a chore my wife had gotten after me to do. (That's what happens when you're not looking and you have a curious five-year-old around.)

I was surprised to see how high JFK's back rose above the back cushion. I mean, it was really high, seeming not to match other images, like those from the Z-film. I wanted to get Robert's opinion on how far above the cushion the back wound would have been, based on that photo. To my untrained eye it looked way too high for a bullet to have entered the top of the cushion. To me it looked like a bullet would have hit the trunk lid.

FWIW.

From looking at that photo I realized I'd never really taken a good look at the limo before. Because I'd never noticed that bar running across the top of the car (it appears to be part of the passenger/driver partition thing). My reason for mentioning this (other than revealing my ignorance, ha!) is that it reveals yet one more obstacle to a potential shot from the front. Including Roy's shot from the left-front.

Not looking good for Roy's Theory. Sorry Roy.

Good thing Robert has a theory.

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.