The Trach Incision -

[Robert Prudhomme]

I have been trying in vain to locate something but, so far, I have not had any luck. Somewhere, I believe I saw a detailed description of the wound to the right side of JFK's trachea; visible on the right side of the neck structure in the above diagram.

The description I believe I read stated the tear in the trachea was on a descending plane between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings; visible in the above diagram below the larynx. In other words, from left to right, the tear went from the 2nd tracheal ring to the 3rd tracheal ring. As can be seen, this would indicate a bullet (or other projectile) travelling downward at a fairly steep angle from left to right.

The fact that the thin layer of skin over the trachea is directly in contact with the trachea means that, regardless of the angle downward, the projectile will exit the throat at the same place it exits the trachea.

Tom

A line drawn that begins just under the rear base of the skull and passes between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal ring (passing through C3/C4 vertebrae on the way) measures approximately 42° from the horizontal. Of curse, it is difficult to know the exact position of JFK's head, relative to his neck and to a horizontal plane, at the moment this projectile struck him, and the figure of 42° has a great deal of latitude to it. While it would seem impossible to deflect a bullet from its original 20+° path to this steep angle, remember that the bullet may have struck just slightly above the base of the skull. Striking here, it could be burrowing through the scalp and surface of the skull bone, robbing it of velocity and energy. This could also have the effect of making JFK's head tilt slightly forward, presenting a new angle of bone and scalp to the bullet and allowing it to travel further.

I do not agree with Pat Speer's thinking that this had to be a low velocity bullet. Frangible bullets are designed to wreak havoc by travelling through semi-liquid matter; ie. brain and other organs. A frangible bullet, especially one of 1963 vintage, could easily break apart after striking the vertebrae at C3/C4.

 

 

Edited December 14, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

Once again, Tom.

What proof is there that the projectile exiting JFK's throat was travelling on a horizontal plane?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 12/13/2016 at 5:54 PM, Tom Neal said:

Well thank you Sandy.

As I have stated repeatedly, a grazing or tunneling bullet MUST be on a tangential trajectory relative to the skull. Taking the EOP area and applying a tangential trajectory, measure the angle of depression. From what location could this trajectory be achieved? Is this a viable trajectory?

First, let me point out that -- generally speaking -- I take seriously testimony in the WR and HSCA volumes that is either damaging or unnecessary for the official story. Therefore, the following items regarding the EOP wound, as testified by the autopsists, are ones that I tend to believe:

• There was a 6 x 15 wound in the scalp.
   
• But existence of a corresponding hole in the skull isn't so clear-cut. I question its existence.
  
  True, Humes did say there was such a hole. But in HSCA discussions and some handwritten autopsy notes that were crossed off, there was considerable hemming and hawing regarding that hole.
   
• It looked to the autopsists like the bullet entered the scalp, tunneled underneath it, and skidded along the  skull. They thought, therefore, that the bullet hit tangentially.

Second, Dr. Boswell revealed that the supposed EOP hole was on the margin of the intact skull, and that the supposed hole was made whole when a LARGE occipital fragment of skull was put in place. Now, Pat Speer has pointed out that Boswell made a mistake in that testimony. Pat says that Boswell was referring to an exit wound at the top of the head, not the EOP entrance. But I showed Pat that Dr. Finck TWICE corroborated what Boswell had said!

So I believe that there was indeed a LARGE occipital fragment, AT THE AUTOPSY.

Dr. Boswell revealed that this large, occipital fragment was brought in during the autopsy. This begs the question, how did this fragment exit the cranium before the scalp was reflected? Obviously there had to have been a blowout in the occipital region for the bone to escape. Not a big surprise for most of us here.

The Harper fragment was a large fragment from the occipital area. It's doubtful that there were two large occipital fragments, so I believe that the Harper fragment is the one Boswell said was brought in during the autopsy. (I've already put forth a hypothesis explaining how it was not found till the following day in Dealey Plaza.)

Third, Jerrol Custer reported seeing fragments of a bullet in JFK's neck in the neck x-ray (which is now missing), around C3/C4 IIRC.

It is these three things that make me believe that a bullet from behind may have hit tangentially near the EOP, tunneled under the scalp, skidded down the occiput, and entered the muscles of the neck. The bullet may have fragmented when it first impacted the skull, which would have reduced the momentum of each piece, making deflection as opposed to penetration more viable.

On the Z film it appears that a bullet hit the back of the JFK's skull immediately before the grassy knoll bullet hit the right temple. I would like to believe that the EOP shot occurred at this point in time. But IMO the trajectory angle relative to the skull is far too steep for the scenario I describe here to have occurred.

At the moment it seems that the EOP bullet must have hit when the limo was hidden behind the Stemmons sign in the Z film, and the bullet originated from a west window high up in the TSBD. I believe that the trajectory angle from there relative to the skull could have been shallow enough for the described tunneling and skidding to occur

This alleged EOP wound was used as "proof" that the back of the head blowout was caused by an entering bullet which I don't think anyone but LNs believe. Where is the evidence of the hole that existed when the now missing skull fragment was placed into the opening? Should we believe the existence of this alleged hole?

I don't believe there is ANY credible evidence of a hole existing near the EOP. The IS early evidence that it wasn't much of a hole, in the heavily revised handwritten autopsy notes:

"situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5cm to the right & slightly above the eop is a puncture (lacerated) wound tangential to the surface of the scalp measuring 15X6 mm. In the underlying bone is a corresponding puncture wound through both tables of the skull which exhibits shelving (bevelling) of the margins of the inner(?) table of the bone when seen from the inner table aspect of the skull."

Why would the entrance wound be originally described as a "puncture" wound? I think it's because the autopsists were trying to see a hole where there really wasn't one. Just a tiny hole where a sliver of bone was missing.

There IS WC testimony of an EOP hole, of course. But I believe that was an invention of the autopsists designed to show that the bullet entrance was on the rear of the head. (The beveling was said to be on the inside of the EOP hole.)

Are you proposing that this bullet struck the edge of the opening in the skull and then tunneled? How does it do that? After entering the skull does bullet exit the skull and only then begin to tunnel?

I believe I answer that above.

Pat Speer states that the trajectory to the head to throat exit is only 45 degrees downward. He also states it was a "low velocity" bullet. So where was this gunmen firing from, and why would they send a guy with a pistol which would only work at close range (and no one noticed Speer's shooter) to kill JFK?

There may be some validity to the 45 degrees that Pat talks about. But I haven't studied it in enough detail to know if I agree with his thoughts about this. I don't take the low velocity bullet thing seriously.

This -45 deg trajectory would place the tracheal wound ABOVE the throat exit wound.

My hypothesis has a bullet fragment hitting the transverse process of a vertebrae, and a piece of that shooting out from the throat. So  this has no bearing on my hypothesis.

The distance between skin and trachea is enough that it would be noticeable. Did anyone comment about this as evidence of an ascending or descending trajectory?At the time of the tracheotomy they believed the throat wound was an entry wound, and the bullet ranged down into his chest.

Does this fit with a shot from behind descending at a 45 degree angle when it exited the throat? How was the damage to the tip of the lung caused with this angle?

My hypothesis has a second bullet fragment, or a bone fragment from the first bullet fragment, causing the bruised lung.

As I've already stated, BP fails to support his beliefs, yet insists I have nothing because I won't respond to his *demands* until he answers any of MY questions. By his own logic, he also has "nothing." WHERE is the evidence that the trajectory from trachea to throat wound was at a significant downward angle from back to front?

I'm no longer going to waste my time digging through my files for evidence that has already been ignored. Show me contrary evidence and it would be worth my efforts...

As I have asked many, many times of you EOP enthusiasts, what is the initial trajectory angle of a tangential strike at the EOP site? From what shooting location could this angle be achieved? Both of these questions have been totally and completed ignored, yet you can't have an EOP entrance, throat exit without them.

 

Edited February 5, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Micah Mileto]

2 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

1. Relevance? Are you claiming that this shot was planned to occur as you suggest? If not, then degree of skill is not a factor. Why a "Texas" sharpshooter? Are they always better than shooters from elsewhere?

Because saying "what are the odds that the bullet would do that" is a nonsense argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

2 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

2. Fine. I was giving an example using his angle. Substituting a trajectory of approx 45 degrees changes nothing as 45 degrees is not the only trajectory that fails. Would any trajectory between 35 and 55 degrees be viable?

The only 45 degree statement that I recall was Humes analysis of the back entry wound trajectory. I believe he stated 45-60 degrees downward, but he also agrees that the same entry exited the throat - hardly 45 to 60 degs downward.

"A few deflections." Don't you find that rather vague as evidence that this event occurred or was even probable? Speer certainly indicates that it DID happen this way.

He also stated that it was a "low velocity bullet." How many rifles fire a "low velocity bullet"? Why would anyone who was determined to kill JFK fire a low velocity bullet? This STRONGLY implies the use of a handgun. To guarantee reasonable accuracy requires close range. A close range shot would produce a flatter trajectory and require an even greater deflection of the bullet.

The back of the brain wasn't very damaged, according to official records. The right cerebellum was only slightly damaged. Sure, such a sharp angle wasn't possible from a straight trajectory, but then again we know this wound wasn't an average wound by it's 15x6mm elliptical shape. Deflection happens when hitting such a carved part of the skull. Who knows exactly how it happened? There is ample evidence that a bullet entered the EOP, slightly damaged the right cerebellum and brainstem, and smashed the base of the skull.

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Tom Neal said:

WHY would it deflect "a lot" rather than punch a hole in the skull? The grazing blow everyone is proposing produces only a small force. A small force is not going to deflect a high speed bullet "a lot."

I don't propose that the force between the bullet and the skull when the bullet is skidding is necessarily small. It is sufficiently strong to change the direction of the bullet by a few degrees.

Anyone care to show the physics involved here? You know, equations and stuff like that. e.g. How much force would be required to deflect a bullet more than a degree, and could a tangential collision provide adequate force to produce a perpendicular component that would deflect a bullet significantly?

Sandy, you have an engineering degree; in a tangential collision, is the majority of the applied force *along* the velocity vector or perpendicular to it?

We need to be careful when using the word "tangential." It has different meanings depending upon the context. If we said "tangential collision" to a physicist,  he'd likely say there's no such a thing.

For a collision taking place at an angle (which is close to what I think of when someone uses the word tangential with gunshots):

The force applied to the target will be F sin (angle) where F is the force of the bullet along the velocity vector, and "angle" is the angle between the velocity vector and a plane tangential to the target. Thus, for a flat target, the angle would be 90 degrees for a straight-on shot.

Tom,

Collision analysis is generally not an easy task. Only the simplest cases can be evaluated mathematically. Computer simulation is used in many other cases, but this method is limited by the availability of objects which have been modeled. Experimentation is still widely used for many mechanical problems. I understand that wind tunnels are still used to analyze aircraft, for example.

But there are some basic concepts that can be explored that might be helpful.

The obvious one for our purposes would be the question, why is it that sometimes a bullet will penetrate an object and other times will be deflected.

The two extremes in exploring this question would be 1) a perfectly perpendicular shot, and 2) a perfectly tangential shot. In the former you'd be shooting straight at the object, and in the latter you'd be shooting close to parallel with the surface of the object, but at the slightest of angles so that the bullet barely grazes the object.

It's obvious from these extremes that the straight-on shot would more likely penetrate the object than the tangential shot. The reason being that the straight on shot is more likely to break through the object on impact. Now, having said that, it shouldn't be assumed that a straight-on shot cannot be deflected. It can... as long as it doesn't break the object. (BTW, for this discussion I am assuming that the bullet and object are resistant to being deformed.)

The thing to learn from this is that the narrower the angle the bullet is shot at an object, the more likely it will be deflected rather than penetrating the object. (I know... this is pretty intuitive/obvious.)

Things get more difficult in cases where the bullet and/or object are deformable. For example, if a deformable bullet is shot at an object BUT doesn't break through it, it will deform to some degree and deflect at a reduced speed. (If the bullet's energy is fully consumed in deforming the bullet, it will stop.)

In real life there are many more variables than these and analysis becomes very complex.. I will stop here.

Edited December 14, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Mark Knight]

If I recall the theory of the late Tom Purvis, he believed that the third shot from the TSBD was fired when the limo was at the Altgens location. According to his theory, JFK had already fallen forward in the seat, and the bullet tunneled upward from the hairline to the EOP, and exited the top of JFK's head.

Where I disagreed with Purvis was... with Hill running toward the limo, there's no way such a shot came from the alleged "sniper's nest" in the southeast corner of the TSBD.  If such a shot came from the TSBD, it must have come from the southwest window... negating the concept of a lone gunman.  The survey work done in Dealy Plaza originally seemed to conform to this scenario.

It was only in attempting to "prove" the SBT that this third shot at the Altgens location...simply disappeared.

 

Chris Davidson, could you chime in here and make sure I'm correctly stating Purvis' theory?

[Chris Davidson]

Mark,

This is what Tom wrote:

Third shot down in front of Altgens.  Bullet went through coat collar at edge of colllar, struck at edge of hairline at base of JFK's neck, tunneled through soft flesh of he neck due to the well forward and almost head down position of JFK, struck in the EOP vicinity of the skull, passed through the mid-brain of the skull and exited in the frontal lobe.
Then continued forward to strike JBC in the right shoulder as JBC lay across the open area between the jump seats with his body pulled up into the fetal position.
The bullet penetrated through JBC's chest, exited the chest, and went on to strike and enter the left inner thigh of JBC.

[Mark Knight]

4 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Mark,

This is what Tom wrote:

Third shot down in front of Altgens.  Bullet went through coat collar at edge of colllar, struck at edge of hairline at base of JFK's neck, tunneled through soft flesh of he neck due to the well forward and almost head down position of JFK, struck in the EOP vicinity of the skull, passed through the mid-brain of the skull and exited in the frontal lobe.
Then continued forward to strike JBC in the right shoulder as JBC lay across the open area between the jump seats with his body pulled up into the fetal position.
The bullet penetrated through JBC's chest, exited the chest, and went on to strike and enter the left inner thigh of JBC.

Thanks, Chris!

 

[Sandy Larsen]

56 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Mark,

This is what Tom wrote:

Third shot down in front of Altgens.  Bullet went through coat collar at edge of colllar, struck at edge of hairline at base of JFK's neck, tunneled through soft flesh of he neck due to the well forward and almost head down position of JFK, struck in the EOP vicinity of the skull, passed through the mid-brain of the skull and exited in the frontal lobe.
Then continued forward to strike JBC in the right shoulder as JBC lay across the open area between the jump seats with his body pulled up into the fetal position.
The bullet penetrated through JBC's chest, exited the chest, and went on to strike and enter the left inner thigh of JBC.

Apparently Tom Purvis didn't think the magic bullet theory was magic enough.

[Tom Neal]

Bob, as I have repeated all of the above to you too many times to count, I don't know why you would ever accept this horizontal trajectory, but since you came up with an actual angle (42-degrees) for the first time and are looking for possible paths on a diagram, I'll share the above. Obviously you haven't seen a tracheotomy performed. As I've stated before, I have. The above diagram only includes musculature, I have left off the subcutaneous layers and skin. The skin of the throat does NOT lie on top of the trachea, and the angle between the two wounds may be discerned. Sandy, You used the term "tangential" yourself, if you don't like it, don't use it. IMO it is far more accurate in describing the wound than any other term used. A "tangential wound" is not the same as a tangent line in geometry, but we are referring to wounds, so how could confusion result? e.g. Kemp Clark's description of a POSSIBLE cause of the missing occipetal bone was a "tangential wound" caused by a bullet traveling parallel to the missing dish-shaped skull piece. The bullet would have struck one edge of the "dish" first and then the opposite edge, removing the piece of skull. Clark is using correct terminology, and I will continue to use the word "tangential" as it applies to trajectory and/or wounds. I note that both you and BP are now stating that the skull deflection was only "a few degrees." That's quite a dramatic change from your previous beliefs. Read the statement in the upper left corner of my diagram, including the source. Now explain or produce a diagram of a bullet or whatever that hits the skull near the EOP, is deflected only a few degrees downward and hits the trachea at the wound location. Include a further deflection off a vertebra if you still believe that would produce the LARGE angle required. For Sandy and Bob, you can propose all the VAGUE theories you want regarding deflecting bullets and bone fragments, but neither one of you has produced a trajectory from a shooter to skull, to bone to trachea to exit wound. If you can't do this, you don't have a theory or whatever term you want to use. Now Bob, if your 42-deg angle traj from skull to vertebra is also the angle from shooter to skull, where is the shooter located that would produce this trajectory? As an example, the line of sight from the 6th floor was 20 degrees. If the angle from shooter to skull was on the order of 20-deg, what turned the trajectory from 20 to 42 degrees - scalp and skull shape? Scalp is not going to affect the direction of a high-velocity bullet, nor produce any noticeable velocity reduction. A high-velocity bullet on a downward trajectory is not going to follow the ascending curve of the skull. The force are all wrong here. The bullet would simply nick the skull (producing a hole in the scalp) and continue on its original trajectory. Sandy/Bob, which impact produces the most force on the bullet - a shot parallel to the ground that perforates the skull at a 90-deg angle, or a shot on a descending trajectory that inflicts a tangential wound at the skull? Do the math, and it's not difficult in this case, to calculate the force of a direct head-on collision of bullet and occipital skull. Take this force ( F=mA, or even linear momentum) and apply it PERPENDICULAR to the velocity vector as it existed prior to the collision. Despite the unquestionably GREATER force here, the original trajectory is altered by less than one degree. Thus, the tangential collision would produce a considerably SMALLER deflection angle. If the skull can't turn the bullet even a single degree, how much of a change in the angle could the impact with a vertebra produce? There is considerable disagreement if there was any damage to a vertebra at all, and no one has proposed anything more than slight damage. No sharp turns were performed by any projectile PRIOR to the tracheal injury. Only bullets at the end of their trajectory, with velocity almost spent make sharp turns.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Micah Mileto]

On 12/14/2016 at 9:15 AM, Mark Knight said:

If I recall the theory of the late Tom Purvis, he believed that the third shot from the TSBD was fired when the limo was at the Altgens location. According to his theory, JFK had already fallen forward in the seat, and the bullet tunneled upward from the hairline to the EOP, and exited the top of JFK's head.

Where I disagreed with Purvis was... with Hill running toward the limo, there's no way such a shot came from the alleged "sniper's nest" in the southeast corner of the TSBD.  If such a shot came from the TSBD, it must have come from the southwest window... negating the concept of a lone gunman.  The survey work done in Dealy Plaza originally seemed to conform to this scenario.

It was only in attempting to "prove" the SBT that this third shot at the Altgens location...simply disappeared.

 

Chris Davidson, could you chime in here and make sure I'm correctly stating Purvis' theory?

There is absolutely no way the EOP wound can connect to an exit wound on the top right side of the head. Such a trajectory would cause more damage to the cerebellum/back of the brain than the official materials show.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Micah Mileto

[Pat Speer]

Wow, this is quite the thread.

A couple of points.

1. I lay out a long coherent argument explaining why I don't "trust" the early statements of the so-called Parkland witnesses in chapters 18c and 18d of my website. In those chapters, I present the early statements of these doctors, and then discuss their subsequent statements. I have re-posted that material many times on this forum, most notably in discussions with James Fetzer and David Lifton. In this thread, it became apparent to me that some believe ALL of the Parkland witnesses from the beginning until current times, have claimed the low back of the head was missing. So I posted a section in which I present the statements of the other doctors to comment on the head wounds, whose statements, by and large, do not support that there was a wound low on the back of the head. I wasn't trying to fool anybody into thinking those were all the doctors. And I believe I am owed an apology.

2. Bullets are deflected upon entry into bone, and even glass, when entering at an angle. The bubble top, let's remember, was considered quite a deterrent even though it wasn't bullet-proof. 

3. The advantages of firing a low velocity rifle bullet fired from a hidden location at close range were discussed in the CIA's Manual on Assassination.

4. The largest bone fragment on the x-ray created on the night of the autopsy has a beveled edge,. It was presumed to have been part of an exit from the top of the skull. If I'm following this correctly, at least one person on this thread is proposing that there was NO exit from the top of the head on the body at the autopsy. So where did this bone come from? Mantik and Horne et al claim this bone was blown from the top of the head, but that Jackie closed the hole up, or some such thing. So that it wasn't observed at Parkland. Does this make sense?

5. As far as the suspicion the Harper fragment was examined on the night of the autopsy, and then flown back to Dallas so it could be discovered in a location forward of the limousine at the time of the shooting, wow... That's a new one. With huge holes. 1. How did they know it would get discovered? Harper was a medical student. He knew it was bone. Was Harper part of the plot, or was it just dumb luck that he stumbled across the bone and knew it might be skull? And then turned it over to the FBI? And wait, if it was arranged that he find the fragment, why did "they" let him have it studied and photographed by others who believed it to have been occipital bone? 2. And, oh yeah, if it really was occipital bone, as has hereby been proposed, then why doesn't it look anything like occipital bone? As demonstrated multiple times on this very forum, the inner aspect of the Harper fragment bears no resemblance to the inner aspect of the occipital bone. Dr. Mantik, moreover, now admits this, and has taken to claiming it coulda been occipital bone, because, y'know, Kennedy's Addison's disease coulda just deformed his skull, so that the inner ridges were no longer visible. Does anyone here believe that?

6. At one point on the other thread Ray Mitcham presented a quote from Audrey Bell in which she said the head had to be turned to the side so she could get a look at the wound on the back of the head. This statement was in total contradiction to Bob Prudhomme's claim the wound could be seen with the body laying flat on its back. I don't think  anyone picked up on this. So, which is it? Was Audrey Bell telling the truth? (If this was discussed on the other thread, I apologize.)

Edited December 16, 2016 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Tom Neal said:

Bob, as I have repeated all of the above to you too many times to count, I don't know why you would ever accept this horizontal trajectory, but since you came up with an actual angle (42-degrees) for the first time and are looking for possible paths on a diagram, I'll share the above. Obviously you haven't seen a tracheotomy performed. As I've stated before, I have. The above diagram only includes musculature, I have left off the subcutaneous layers and skin. The skin of the throat does NOT lie on top of the trachea, and the angle between the two wounds may be discerned. Sandy, You used the term "tangential" yourself, if you don't like it, don't use it. Note that I didn't say I object to using the phrase "tangential wound." I said we (plural) have to be careful using the word tangential with wounds because it might mean something different than what we might expect. For example, I've seen "tangential wound" used to describe the blowout at the top of Kennedy's head. Clearly a misuse of the word. As I read what you said in your post, I got the impression that your idea of a tangential wound is one from a glancing shot where just a tiny force is applied to the object being shot. I may be wrong, but I think that a tangential wound is one where the projectile hits at an angle and deflects (or skids) off the surface rather penetrating. The amount of force the projectile applies to the object can be considerable and it would still be considered a tangential wound because the projectile didn't penetrate. IMO it is far more accurate in describing the wound than any other term used. A "tangential wound" is not the same as a tangent line in geometry, but we are referring to wounds, so how could confusion result? e.g. Kemp Clark's description of a POSSIBLE cause of the missing occipetal bone was a "tangential wound" caused by a bullet traveling parallel to the missing dish-shaped skull piece. The bullet would have struck one edge of the "dish" first and then the opposite edge, removing the piece of skull. Clark is using correct terminology, and I will continue to use the word "tangential" as it applies to trajectory and/or wounds. I note that both you and BP are now stating that the skull deflection was only "a few degrees." That's quite a dramatic change from your previous beliefs. I've never thought that the change in direction was great. (I do recall you characterizing my hypothesis that way.) I've never given a detailed presentation of my hypothesis. I've only summarized my thinking. So I've never talked about degrees of deflection. Read the statement in the upper left corner of my diagram, including the source. Now explain or produce a diagram of a bullet or whatever that hits the skull near the EOP, is deflected only a few degrees downward and hits the trachea at the wound location. Include a further deflection off a vertebra if you still believe that would produce the LARGE angle required. That statement in the upper left corner of the diagram is wrong. If a projectile hits an object obliquely,  a deflection will occur in all but the most idiosyncratic cases. The only question is the degree of deflection. For Sandy and Bob, you can propose all the VAGUE theories you want regarding deflecting bullets and bone fragments, but neither one of you has produced a trajectory from a shooter to skull, to bone to trachea to exit wound. I've given rough ideas of the trajectories in my theory. Not rigorous to be sure. If you can't do this, you don't have a theory or whatever term you want to use. Now Bob, if your 42-deg angle traj from skull to vertebra is also the angle from shooter to skull, where is the shooter located that would produce this trajectory? As an example, the line of sight from the 6th floor was 20 degrees. If the angle from shooter to skull was on the order of 20-deg, what turned the trajectory from 20 to 42 degrees - scalp and skull shape? Scalp is not going to affect the direction of a high-velocity bullet, nor produce any noticeable velocity reduction. A high-velocity bullet on a downward trajectory is not going to follow the ascending curve of the skull. The force are all wrong here. The bullet would simply nick the skull (producing a hole in the scalp) and continue on its original trajectory. Sandy/Bob, which impact produces the most force on the bullet - a shot parallel to the ground that perforates the skull at a 90-deg angle, or a shot on a descending trajectory that inflicts a tangential wound at the skull? These forces are very difficult to solve. For example, in the case where the skull is hit straight on (90 degrees), how are you going to calculate the deceleration of the bullet upon hitting the skull? Deceleration depends upon a number of factors, like the resulting movement of the head, the flexing of the bone, deformation of the bullet, etc. And you need to know the deceleration in order to calculate the force (F = m a). As a general rule, of course, smaller forces are involved in tangential shots. Do the math, and it's not difficult in this case, to calculate the force of a direct head-on collision of bullet and occipital skull. Take this force ( F=mA, or even linear momentum) and apply it PERPENDICULAR to the velocity vector as it existed prior to the collision. Despite the unquestionably GREATER force here, the original trajectory is altered by less than one degree. Thus, the tangential collision would produce a considerably SMALLER deflection angle. Huh? If the straight-on bullet were deflected at all (because it didn't penetrate the target and didn't lose all its kinetic energy in the collision), the deflection angle would be 180 degrees! The tangential bullet with a smaller force would indeed produce a smaller deflection. But even, say, a whopping 20 degrees of deflection would be considerably smaller than the 180 degrees. If the skull can't turn the bullet even a single degree, how much of a change in the angle could the impact with a vertebra produce? There is considerable disagreement if there was any damage to a vertebra at all, and no one has proposed anything more than slight damage. No sharp turns were performed by any projectile PRIOR to the tracheal injury. Only bullets at the end of their trajectory, with velocity almost spent make sharp turns.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, Tom Neal said:

Bob, as I have repeated all of the above to you too many times to count, I don't know why you would ever accept this horizontal trajectory, but since you came up with an actual angle (42-degrees) for the first time and are looking for possible paths on a diagram, I'll share the above. Obviously you haven't seen a tracheotomy performed. As I've stated before, I have. The above diagram only includes musculature, I have left off the subcutaneous layers and skin. The skin of the throat does NOT lie on top of the trachea, and the angle between the two wounds may be discerned. Sandy, You used the term "tangential" yourself, if you don't like it, don't use it. IMO it is far more accurate in describing the wound than any other term used. A "tangential wound" is not the same as a tangent line in geometry, but we are referring to wounds, so how could confusion result? e.g. Kemp Clark's description of a POSSIBLE cause of the missing occipetal bone was a "tangential wound" caused by a bullet traveling parallel to the missing dish-shaped skull piece. The bullet would have struck one edge of the "dish" first and then the opposite edge, removing the piece of skull. Clark is using correct terminology, and I will continue to use the word "tangential" as it applies to trajectory and/or wounds. I note that both you and BP are now stating that the skull deflection was only "a few degrees." That's quite a dramatic change from your previous beliefs. Read the statement in the upper left corner of my diagram, including the source. Now explain or produce a diagram of a bullet or whatever that hits the skull near the EOP, is deflected only a few degrees downward and hits the trachea at the wound location. Include a further deflection off a vertebra if you still believe that would produce the LARGE angle required. For Sandy and Bob, you can propose all the VAGUE theories you want regarding deflecting bullets and bone fragments, but neither one of you has produced a trajectory from a shooter to skull, to bone to trachea to exit wound. If you can't do this, you don't have a theory or whatever term you want to use. Now Bob, if your 42-deg angle traj from skull to vertebra is also the angle from shooter to skull, where is the shooter located that would produce this trajectory? As an example, the line of sight from the 6th floor was 20 degrees. If the angle from shooter to skull was on the order of 20-deg, what turned the trajectory from 20 to 42 degrees - scalp and skull shape? Scalp is not going to affect the direction of a high-velocity bullet, nor produce any noticeable velocity reduction. A high-velocity bullet on a downward trajectory is not going to follow the ascending curve of the skull. The force are all wrong here. The bullet would simply nick the skull (producing a hole in the scalp) and continue on its original trajectory. Sandy/Bob, which impact produces the most force on the bullet - a shot parallel to the ground that perforates the skull at a 90-deg angle, or a shot on a descending trajectory that inflicts a tangential wound at the skull? Do the math, and it's not difficult in this case, to calculate the force of a direct head-on collision of bullet and occipital skull. Take this force ( F=mA, or even linear momentum) and apply it PERPENDICULAR to the velocity vector as it existed prior to the collision. Despite the unquestionably GREATER force here, the original trajectory is altered by less than one degree. Thus, the tangential collision would produce a considerably SMALLER deflection angle. If the skull can't turn the bullet even a single degree, how much of a change in the angle could the impact with a vertebra produce? There is considerable disagreement if there was any damage to a vertebra at all, and no one has proposed anything more than slight damage. No sharp turns were performed by any projectile PRIOR to the tracheal injury. Only bullets at the end of their trajectory, with velocity almost spent make sharp turns.

 

 

 

[Micah Mileto]

Doesn't the elliptical 15x6mm shape mean the bullet was possibly dropping/yawwing?