Sandy Larsen

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.

I've seen a couple of estimates on what the speed of the bullet hitting Kennedy's back must have been to make such a shallow wound. Using those figures I calculated how far the bullet would have dropped had it been fired from the TSBD at such low speeds and was surprised at the result. The bullet would have dropped over 20 feet! In other words, a sniper would have had to aim 20 feet high in order to hit the president. Not believing that figure, I did the same calculation for a high-speed bullet, and found it would have dropped around 3 inches. Now that seemed reasonable, and it gave me confidence that my calculation for the low speed bullet was correct. (The reason for the huge difference between a high-speed and low-speed bullet is that the calculation has a square in it. So a bullet that is a that is, say, a fourth the speed will drop sixteen times as far.) Since then I've been trying to figure out how to explain the back wound. I can't. Are there any prevailing theories on how the back wound came to be? After having read several of the posts on this relevant thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22173&hl=%20back%20%20wound&page=1 I'm left with the feeling there are no prevailing theories. Which is odd, if true, given that researchers have had fifty years to think about it.

Something i'd love to know: I wonder what the ratio would be - of all legitimate observers - who describe, in general terms, a "large wound" to the in the rear to those who say say the basic opposite. Wonder if there's an organized list of these two lists. o o o If you're asking if there's a comprehensive list available of everyone seeing Kennedy after the shooting, and what they recalled of his head wounds, the answer would be no. The closest thing to that is chapters 18c and 18d of my website. o o o The best, most comprehensive list I've seen of medical professionals who witnessed the gaping head wound is the one written by Dr. Aguliar in his 1994 article titled "John F. Kennedy's Fatal Wounds: The Witnesses and Interpretations from 1963 to the Present: http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm (Maybe it covers other wounds as well... I don't recall.) Nearly all 46 of these Parkland and Bethesda witnesses initially described the gaping hole as being located at the right rear of the head. Though a number of them changed their minds later on, for example after viewing the autopsy photos. (Who wouldn't, after seeing the back-of-head autopsy photo? Oh yeah... the ones with true conviction, those who place more value in integrity than in "going along." IMO) Aguliar's list documents when and how these witnesses changed their testimony over time. It's obvious to me that initial testimony is more likely to describe the truth than is later testimony, given that it can be colored by external influence over time. It's also obvious to me that medical professionals would be highly reliable witnesses when it comes to the wounds they see. Because of these factors I determined some time ago that the gaping hole indeed must have been where most the medical professionals placed it. And that anything or anybody suggesting otherwise is suspect. Therefore, the autopsy doctors must be wrong, and the back of head photo must be wrong. For me that's a hell of a lot easier to believe than 40 medical professionals being wrong, especially given the extremely suspicious nature of the assassination. The autopsy doctors are wrong because they followed the orders of corrupt superior officers. The back-of-head photo is wrong because it has been altered or fabricated. Neither of these statements is hard for me to believe.

David, this makes it sound like you don't buy the Harvey & Lee hypothesis. Is that the case? I've only just begun reading (the free version of) Harvey and Lee. But some posts I've seen made by David Josephs, where Oswald was in two places at the same time, look rather convincing. If there are some compelling facts that argue against the theory, Id like to hear them. In particular, facts that essentially disprove the theory. (BTW, at the moment I see the "Harvey & Lee" concept as being distinct from "the other Oswald was in the TSD" and "the other Oswald shot Tippit" concepts. I haven't studied enough to form an opinion on any such connections.) Martin: please email me at dsl74@cornell.edu Thank you. DSL I have the same question that Martin Blank posted. Well, the part about when Final Charade is expected to be published. Have you answered this question anywhere? I'm anxious to read the book, having already been convinced of what you put forth in Best Evidence. BTW, I spent a month debating Best Evidence conclusions with a friend of mine who is an LN. By the time the debate ended, I had him reduced to claiming that virtually no eye witness gives useful testimony, compared to photos and x-rays which are undeniably accurate. He even had to concede that both the Ida Dox drawings and the(alleged) autopsy photos trump the Humes autopsy results and testimony. (I don't think I would be amiss in labeling him an ideologue rather than a truth seeker.) I had to do an awful lot of studying and fact checking in order to participate in that debate, and it is because of this that I became absolutely convinced that you are, at the very least, mostly right. I wish that those researchers who disagree with you would do the same. Or remain neutral on the subject.

Thanks Kathy!

I apologize if this is the wrong place to post this. I couldn't find what seemed to be an appropriate place. I'm a new member and the photo I sent was too big. That is, it was from head to toe, making it impossible to see my face. So I cropped the photo around my face and tried to upload it. It appears to be uploading fine but it doesn't appear in the avatar frame. I found and read instructions posted by John Simkin. He says that the photo must be no larger than 64 x 64 pixels. So I fixed that. But it still doesn't work. The upload process is straightforward, so it seems I'm doing everything right. I'm baffled. Please help.

I was born in Payson, Utah on Nov. 18, 1955. I received both a BS and an MS degree in Electrical Engineering at Brigham Young University. I cofounded New Wave Instruments with a friend of mine in 1984 and later bought him out. I married late in life and had my one and only child when I was 55. I am a lifelong seeker of truth, and in fact that seems to be my hobby.