A Criticism of DVP

[Kenneth Drew]

I can't say I KNOW exactly what happened, and neither can Robert P.

I think your speculation is essentially correct, though of course I don't know either. I do find it hard to imagine that the conspirators would initially plan to blame a military-style ambush on one person. What I think they would do is "identify" one of the ambushers, which is why they spent so much time and effort setting up Oswald beforehand. (The unconfirmed story that some "lost" Oswald luggage was found at the Mexico City airport after the assassination would fit right into such a scenario.) What is harder to figure is who messed up.

Who messed up? Probably no one. There was most likely a plan that LHO would flee the SBD and, as directed, go to the Texas Theatre where he would do one of two things, either meet a contact that would take him to leave the country and dump him into the Gulf, or engage in a shootout with the police, otherwise why would over 20 police officers go to the Theatre to arrest a guy that had only slipped in without paying . Hardly sounds like a felony. So many policemen converged, LHO just gave up. Did someone make a mistake? Only if they had that planned differently and the plan didn't work.

[Cliff Varnell]

I can't say I KNOW exactly what happened, and neither can Robert P.

I think your speculation is essentially correct, though of course I don't know either. I do find it hard to imagine that the conspirators would initially plan to blame a military-style ambush on one person. What I think they would do is "identify" one of the ambushers, which is why they spent so much time and effort setting up Oswald beforehand. (The unconfirmed story that some "lost" Oswald luggage was found at the Mexico City airport after the assassination would fit right into such a scenario.) What is harder to figure is who messed up.

Who messed up? Probably no one. There was most likely a plan that LHO would flee the SBD and, as directed, go to the Texas Theatre where he would do one of two things, either meet a contact that would take him to leave the country and dump him into the Gulf, or engage in a shootout with the police, otherwise why would over 20 police officers go to the Theatre to arrest a guy that had only slipped in without paying . Hardly sounds like a felony. So many policemen converged, LHO just gave up. Did someone make a mistake? Only if they had that planned differently and the plan didn't work.

If Oswald had been gunned down rather than captured he could have been packaged as a Castro agent, inviting the invasion of Cuba..

Dead men don't cry patsy.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hate to break up the party but I am going to bring things back to dealing with Greg Burnham's question: Where did the bullet that entered JFK's back go? For the sake of logical argument, I believe I have successfully ruled out the possibility of the back wound being shallow, as a result of a rifle bullet with a drastically reduced velocity.

Assuming the back wound was caused by a high powered rifle, we now have to deal with the mystery of why the bullet did not pass through JFK's chest and exit out the front of his chest.

I am going to discuss a type of bullet known as a "frangible" bullet. This is a very unique type of bullet that is often confused with fragmenting bullets but, the truth is, this bullet belongs in a category all its own.

It is my contention that the frangible bullet that entered JFK's back struck no bones, yet came to a complete stop within 3 inches of the entry point, and disintegrated into hundreds of dust like particles in the process in the soft tissue of the right lung.

While this may sound incredible, it will be more than believable once the mechanics of a frangible bullet are understood. Once the mechanics are understood, I will examine the medical evidence for clues indicating a wounding of JFK's right lung. I will also examine the medical evidence regarding the head wound, and look for similarities between the two, as I believe there was a good chance the same type of bullet struck JFK in the head.

And all this with the constant rantings from the LN corner, and non-stop attempts by others to hijack this thread.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Something to ponder; below is a photo of a block of lye soap, cut away to reveal the results of a .223 frangible bullet, manufactured by Dynamic Research Technologies, fired into it at a range of 100 yards. Notice there is no exit trail, and that the entire bullet stays within the 4 inch cavity.

[Ray Mitcham]

Bob, Did you read what Paul O'Connor said to William Matson Law,about the back wound?

Paul O’Connor

O'Connor: “Dr. Finck had come over from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology at Walter Reed Army Hospital. He was a forensic pathologist and he strongly objected to Commander Humes doing what he did. He took a sound. Now a sound is a probe, a metal malleable, non-rigid probe. Malleable means you can move it hack and forth and bend it a little bit and trace a bullet path through the body. Now, there are high-powered weapons that will drive a bullet straight through a body and a rigid probe will trace its path all the way through. We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal muscles - the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other side of the body.”

Law: “You can be reasonably sure of that?”

O'Connor: “Absolutely.”

Law: “It was just from the probe then?”

O'Connor: “Oh yes.”

Law: “And these doctors knew that?”

O'Connor: “Absolutely.”

Edited May 29, 2015 by Ray Mitcham

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hi Ray

More smoke and mirrors, although we are getting a little closer to the truth. Look at this diagram below:

The parietal and visceral pleura are two very thin membranes, with fluid between them. Paul O'Connor is asking us to believe a bullet with a muzzle velocity of 2000+ fps "bounced" off of the pleural membrane. Sorry, I just don't buy it, any more than I buy into Humes' shallow back wound.

"So we didn't know the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later." If the bullet stopped at the pleura, what does this statement mean?

Edited May 29, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Cliff Varnell]

Hi Ray

More smoke and mirrors, although we are getting a little closer to the truth. Look at this diagram below:

The parietal and visceral pleura are two very thin membranes, with fluid between them. Paul O'Connor is asking us to believe a bullet with a muzzle velocity of 2000+ fps "bounced" off of the pleural membrane. Sorry, I just don't buy it, any more than I buy into Humes' shallow back wound.

Why would anyone buy the assumption JFK was hit with a high powered weapon?

"So we didn't know the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later." If the bullet stopped at the pleura, what does this statement mean?

[Robert Prudhomme]

There was the odd clue that a rifle was used to kill JFK:

1. The sounds of rifle fire were heard in Dealey Plaza that day.

2. Gov. John Connally suffered what were diagnosed as gunshot wounds.

3. JFK was almost certainly struck in the head by a bullet from a rifle.

4. James Tague was struck in the cheek by a fragment of concrete, as the result of a bullet striking the curb just east of him.

I know you believe other exotic weapons were used that day but, for the sake of argument, I am assuming the wound made in JFK's back was made with a high powered rifle, and am attempting to explain the nature of this wound from the perspective of that assumption.

If you would like to discuss these other exotic weapons, why not start a thread about them, and extend me the courtesy of not diverting this thread?

[Kenneth Drew]

Robert, your 'assumptons' are as good as any other 'theories', but none of it is now or ever has been provable. The Warren Commission was only concerned with showing that LHO did it with one rifle and 3 bullets. That's all the 'evidence' they allowed in. I don't believe there is any evidence of your version of a frangible bullet in JFK's lung, there may be but since you didn't produce any, I'm guessing not. I've not seen any evidence from you as to where this bullet was fired from, with it's downward angle, I'm guessing you're going to say one of those building roofs that border on Houston, or maybe the fire escape from the Dal Tex, but in either case, there's not much evidence. I'm only throwing out theories I think you're eventually going to throw out but seem to be too wrapped up in your plumbing work to be able to get around to it.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I guess, according to your thinking, there's a good chance JFK was not even killed that day.

[Kenneth Drew]

Well, I'm kinda thinking that the preponderance of the evidence is going with. that he was, in fact, killed that day. And I fully expect that you are going to show us the clear evidence of that frangible bullet melting in his right lung. Please be sure to explain where the shot came from that entered at the 45 degree + or - angle. Oh, and what kind of weapon fired that bullet.

[Robert Prudhomme]

The Frangible Bullet

It is important to have a clear and concise understanding of what a frangible bullet is, and how it performs in soft tissue, or the entire point of my argument will be lost on you.

To begin with, a frangible bullet is a type of hollow point bullet, and relies on the same hydraulic features in a wound as the hollow point bullet does.

On right, .303 British Mk. V hollow point, early 1900's. First mass produced hollow point bullet. On left, .303 British Mk. II bullet modifed as "dum dum" bullet, late 1890's.

Contrary to popular belief, hollow point (and frangible) bullets do not break up or disintegrate when they hit skull bone. I used hollow point bullets in a .308 deer rifle for a while, and they made the same neat little entrance wound in a deer's skull as the soft tipped bullets I normally used.

Once inside the skull (or lung), the open cavity at the nose of a hollow point bullets acts much the same as trying to drag an open pail through water. The open cavity fills with soft tissue and liquid and accumulates an extremely high hydraulic pressure as more tissue and liquid packs it into the cavity. As the nose is made of malleable material, this cavity begins to open up, like the petals of a flower, and more tissue and liquid is captured. Depending on the design of the bullet, it can either open up to a mushroom shape, or the nose can be peeled right back to the base. In the latter, the bullet often breaks up into many pieces and the entirety of the bullet stays in the wound, with no part exiting.

This massive expansion which, of course, inflicts a terrific amount of damage and in many cases prevents the bullet from exiting, is the prime reason urban law enforcement agencies choose to employ hollow point bullets. They have great stopping power, and collateral damage is limited.

Before going further, I want to point out that the bullet that struck JFK in the back and the one that struck him in the head may have both been nothing more exotic than hollow point bullets, but I doubt this. The existence of hundreds of dust like particles, seen in the x-rays of JFK's skull, speaks of something a little more exotic than a hollow point. Lead is malleable, not brittle and, while a hollow point may break into fragments, it does not turn to dust.

So, what kind of bullet turns to dust in a wound? One that was dust to begin with, of

course.

Up next: The Frangible Bullet & Connally's Wrist Wound

Edited May 29, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Kenneth Drew]

We are all holding our breath for the next chapter. Is this mystery going to run all through the summer or will we know what happened to this mysterious bullet at the conclusion of this soliquy? Will your plumbing work tie you up all weekend or could you finish Chapter 2 by Sunday night?

I hope you have a sense of humor.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[Robert Prudhomme]

I do have a sense of humour, Kenneth. I hope you don't mind these long winded posts by me. The problem is, it is a fairly complicated topic, and cannot be dismissed in a couple of sentences. I know some readers are already familiar with hollow point and frangible bullets, and a lot of these explanations are wasted on them. However, I am trying to reach the reader without an in depth knowledge of firearms and ballistics, and if I don't explain everything, the gist of my posts will be lost on them.

[Cliff Varnell]

There was the odd clue that a rifle was used to kill JFK:

1. The sounds of rifle fire were heard in Dealey Plaza that day.

So? How does that preclude the use of a non-conventional weapon for the back and throat wounds?

2. Gov. John Connally suffered what were diagnosed as gunshot wounds.

So?

3. JFK was almost certainly struck in the head by a bullet from a rifle.

So?

4. James Tague was struck in the cheek by a fragment of concrete, as the result of a bullet striking the curb just east of him.

So?

I know you believe other exotic weapons were used that day

What I believe is irrelevant. The fact is the autopsists the night of the autopsy -- with the body in front of them -- thought JFK may have been struck with an exotic weapon,

but, for the sake of argument, I am assuming the wound made in JFK's back was made with a high powered rifle, and am attempting to explain the nature of this wound from the perspective of that assumption.

Ah. For the sake of argument, you say.

Hate to be the one to tell you this, Robert, but you have a bad habit of stating your speculative conclusions as facts.

If you would like to discuss these other exotic weapons, why not start a thread about them, and extend me the courtesy of not diverting this thread?

You, sir, are the one who asked -- "What happened to the bullet that caused the back wound?"

Don't ask the question if you can't handle the answer.