Any prevailing theories on the back wound?

[Chris Davidson]

Tom,

Yes.

How about a back wound at 3.27ft above the pavement.

If this photo represented JFK in the limo, would the chalk mark appear to be 3.27ft above the ground?

Remember, the top of JFK's head was measured at 52.78 inches above the ground.

chris

[Robert Prudhomme]

The clip I posted was the most comparable to a carcano. imo

This was 90 micron powder loaded into a frangible bullet? I expected small buckshot...

Would this powder even appear on an X-ray taken by portable equipment manufactured prior to 1963???

Tom

I would imagine it would, Tom, although there is no reason to assume that a lethal frangible bullet in 1963, when they were still in the developmental stage, would be made from the identical materials as these ultra-modern frangible bullets.

Below are two views of Italian issue M37 "Magistri" 6.5x52mm Carcano frangible bullets, manufacture date likely in the 1930's, although collectors have M37 cartridges with headstamps dated as late as 1953:

Before you all get excited, thinking we've found the bullets that killed JFK, I should explain that this type of frangible bullet was designed as a "safe" bullet for shooting in indoor and urban ranges. One of the properties I neglected to mention about all frangible bullets is that they will also disintegrate to powder when they impact something hard like concrete, steel or rock; meaning there is no danger from ricochet. This feature, plus their incomparable stopping power, is making frangible bullets very attractive to urban law enforcement agencies.

The M37 Magistri frangible range bullet was a very odd bullet indeed. As seen in the top photo, the copper alloy bullet jacket was made in two pieces (soldered together I believe though I am not certain), plus there was often a deep groove at the cannelure, seen just above the mouth of the cartridge in the top photo. This tells me that, on impact and penetration, there was a good possibility the bullet jacket would quickly be in three pieces. Consider the potential of this information when considering all of the WC's evidence regarding bullet jacket material recovered from the head shot.

What is even stranger is the internal construction of this bullet. Just inside the nose of this bullet is a tiny pellet made from lead or "maillechort" (copper/nickel alloy). Behind that, the middle section of the bullet is made from compressed lead powder, the fineness of which I have been unable to determine. Behind that, the base of the bullet jacket was filled with sand.

The M37 frangible bullet weighed only 108 grains (sand being much less dense than lead), compared to the standard Carcano FMJ bullet at 162 grains. To keep the velocity of the M37 bullet the same as the FMJ bullet, the gunpowder charge in the cartridge was reduced.

As can be seen in the lower photo, the nose of this bullet is not complete, and the lead/maillechort pellet can be seen through the small opening. I am not sure of the purpose of this opening but, I am told the pellet served to break up the bigger jacket on impact, and to fracture the bullet's core into dust.

God only knows what effect would be obtained by shooting this bullet into a skull or lung but, I believe drilling a tiny hollow point into the open nose of the M37 Magistri bullet would give us something quite similar to the hollow point frangible bullets seen in Chris' video.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Tom Neal]

How about a back wound at 3.27ft above the pavement.

If this photo represented JFK in the limo, would the chalk mark appear to be 3.27ft above the ground?

Remember, the top of JFK's head was measured at 52.78 inches above the ground.

Everyone's in bed, and I can't do these measurements accurately without assistance.

The only measurement I can take is from the floor to where the chalk mark would be on me while seated (I'm 1" shorter than JFK) is 3' 5" above the floor. So I'd say 3.27" is too low...

Tom

[Robert Prudhomme]

this is a significant point. bullets do not strike objects and maintain their same trajectory. period. (except for melons placed on ladders by hollywood sleight-of-hand artists).

if the shooter were anywhere on target and the bullet struck the tree branch en route (some say one hit the traffic-signal) then i do not believe for an instant that it would have stayed true enough to hit K. No way.

I agree Glenn, that is significant. And is one reason I've dropped the idea that a bullet hitting JFK's back could have been slowed down enough to make a shallow wound.

There are just too many problems with the idea:

• A sniper probably wouldn't have attempted to make a shot through tree limbs in the first place.
• Hitting a limb would have changed the trajectory. And the bullet would still have more than 25 yards to go, thus multiplying the effect of the new trajectory. Hitting another limb could have corrected the trajectory, but that's a highly unlikely possibility.
• Even if the bullet managed to hit JFK's back, what are the odds that it would make a shallow wound, stop short of the pleura, and THEN disappear?

Okay, on the last point, instead of disappearing the bullet might have fragmented within the flesh, and Humes could have put on an act (part of the "charade" Robert suggested) and made everybody believe there was no bullet to be found. But if that were the case, Humes would have done the same had a frangible bullet lodged itself within the lung. There is no reason to believe the highly unlikely scenario bulleted above when a a much-more likely scenario exists -- the frangible bullet one.

As such, I would revise Tom's list of possible scenarios accordingly. He wrote:

At the moment I [Tom] can only accept two possible scenarios:

1. The pleura and probably the lung were punctured, and Humes et al are lying to protect the LN scenario

2. Some form of an 'exotic bullet' penetrated his back and then broke up to such a degree that it left little or no trace. "Ice bullets", "blood soluble bullets", mercury bullets, etc. have been mentioned. On the one hand I don't see any reason to dismiss them as a possibility, but on the other hand, I don't know if they could inflict the shallow back wound we seem to be dealing with.

To this I would tentatively add a third possibility, in red here:

At the moment I [sandy] can only accept three possible scenarios:

1. The pleura and probably the lung were punctured, and Humes et al are lying to protect the LN scenario

2. Some form of an 'exotic bullet' penetrated his back and then broke up to such a degree that it left little or no trace. "Ice bullets", "blood soluble bullets", mercury bullets, etc. have been mentioned. On the one hand I don't see any reason to dismiss them as a possibility, but on the other hand, I don't know if they could inflict the shallow back wound we seem to be dealing with.

3. A frangible bullet disintegrated and lodged itself within the right lung.

My reasons for making #3 tentative are two-fold. First, I want to know how it is that technicians interviewed by researchers made no mention of the collapsed lung. Second, I'd like to know how the frangible bullet just happened to fragment precisely before entering the lung. Or if it's possible for lung tissue to cause the bullet to break up

Robert, can you comment on this?

Tom, have you ruled out #3?

As I pointed out earlier, a frangible bullet designed for lethal purposes has a hollow point nose that is the key to making this bullet disintegrate back into the metal powder from which it was made. As it travels through flesh (or organ material) the frangible bullet's hollow point nose fills with semi-liquid material. Due to the velocity of the bullet, this semi-liquid matter exerts an enormous hydraulic pressure on the nose of the compressed metal powder bullet core. Within a few inches of penetrating only flesh, this high pressure will cause the bullet to disintegrate into a cloud of metal powder that will literally destroy everything around it for a 2-3 inch radius.

As I stated earlier, the frangible bullet would not have begun disintegration until it had actually entered the lung. This is true of head shots with frangible bullets, in which all that is usually seen on the exterior of the skull is a small neat entrance wound.

Dynamic Research Technologies Inc. .223 calibre frangible bullet fired into block of lye soap from 100 yards. No exit.

bump

[Tom Neal]

...there is no reason to assume that a lethal frangible bullet in 1963, when they were still in the developmental stage, would be made from the identical materials

as these ultra-modern frangible bullets.

Thanks for the info, Bob.

I wasn't making that technological leap -- I'm trying to keep things as low-tech as possible. Now that you've opened the door, what are your thoughts as to the minimum size of the fragments for a 'typical' 1963 era frangible bullet? I'm sure CIA people had access to 'better' than typical frangibles, but if low-tech would do the job, why make it more complex?

Tom

[Robert Prudhomme]

...there is no reason to assume that a lethal frangible bullet in 1963, when they were still in the developmental stage, would be made from the identical materials

as these ultra-modern frangible bullets.

Thanks for the info, Bob.

I wasn't making that technological leap -- I'm trying to keep things as low-tech as possible. Now that you've opened the door, what are your thoughts as to the minimum size of the fragments for a 'typical' 1963 era frangible bullet? I'm sure CIA people had access to 'better' than typical frangibles, but if low-tech would do the job, why make it more complex?

Tom

Fragments that might possibly show up as "hundreds of dust like particles" in an x-ray of a skull?

[Tom Neal]

what are your thoughts as to the minimum size of the fragments for a 'typical' 1963 era frangible bullet?

Fragments that might possibly show up as "hundreds of dust like particles" in an x-ray of a skull?

That's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear.

X-ray #9, the elusive Chest X-ray taken with heart and lungs still in the body, and X-ray #7 Abdomen and Lower chest also with heart and lungs is described by Dr. Ebersole and the HSCA Panel as having "many dirt artifacts which appear to be metal but are not."

Ain't THAT a surprise?

Tom

[Robert Prudhomme]

Frangible 6.5mm Carcano cartridge on extreme right, adjacent to 6.5mm Carcano armour piercing round:

Note sand in base of bullet jacket, compressed lead powder above that, and lead/maillechort nose pellet above that. Note also reduced gunpowder charge in cartridge, as compared to armour piercing round beside it. Judging from this photo, the lead powder appears to be fairly coarse, and I wonder if my source was mistaken about the lead powder being compressed, as the material in the middle appears to be quite loose.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

what are your thoughts as to the minimum size of the fragments for a 'typical' 1963 era frangible bullet?

Fragments that might possibly show up as "hundreds of dust like particles" in an x-ray of a skull?

That's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear.

X-ray #9, the elusive Chest X-ray taken with heart and lungs still in the body, and X-ray #7 Abdomen and Lower chest also with heart and lungs is described by Dr. Ebersole and the HSCA Panel as having "many dirt artifacts which appear to be metal but are not."

Ain't THAT a surprise?

Tom

Yup, I'm shocked, I tell you, SHOCKED

[Robert Prudhomme]

Did any of the other x-rays have these "dirt artifacts" on them, BTW?

[Tom Neal]

Did any of the other x-rays have these "dirt artifacts" on them, BTW?

Funniest thing...there's no mention of dirt on ANY of the other 14 x-rays... AND enlisted tech Edward Reed explained that the film was removed from all the cassettes, and they were cleaned every Thursday.

I'm only about 1/2 through the x-ray section from Volume II of the ARRB report, so I can't say for certain.

Something else that I JUST learned: John Ebersole, a Radiation Therapist, was the ACTING Chief of Radiology on 11-22-1963. For some reason CAPT Brown, Chief of Radiology just happened to be out of town that night. Ain't it A-mazin' how many top officials were unavailable on 11-22-1963, and were replaced by 2nd or 3rd stringers? Why it's ALMOST as if they knew something was going to happen that they wanted no association with...

[David Lifton]

Could a 'deformed' bullet inflict the type of back wound reported? (length and diameter of Humes' little finger)

FWIW, my little finger is 3/4" in diameter at the 2nd knuckle, and from 2nd knuckle to the tip is 2". I am 6' tall with a medium build, and Humes was 6'4" with a large build.

Tumbling or not, 3/4" is rather a large hole for a Carcano bullet, isn't it?

As it turns out, it looks like Doug Horne misspoke when he said that James Jenkins could see Hume's little finger push on the pleural membrane. Here is what Jenkins said in an early interview (his first, I think) with David Lifton. From Best Evidence:

[Jenkins] remembered very clearly Humes’ probing the back wound with his little finger. “What sticks out in my mind,” Jenkins told me, “is the fact that Commander Humes put his little finger in it, and, you know, said that.... he could probe the bottom of it with his finger, which would mean to me [it was] very shallow. .... I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe.... through the pleura [the lining of the chest cavity]. .... You could actually see where it [the probe] was making an indentation.... where it was pushing the skin up. .... There was no entry into the chest cavity.... no way that could have exited in the front because it was then low in the chest cavity.

This resolves (to my satisfaction) a number of problematic things. First, it means that there is no reason to believe that Humes probed deeply with his finger, and so the question of how his finger could possibly fit becomes a non-issue. Second, if the official size of the wound (4 mm by 7 mm) is correct or near that, Humes could not have probed very deeply at all, and yet was able to hit bottom. Which means the wound was very shallow indeed. This could be a important clue as to what exactly made the wound. Third, apparently Humes did indeed probe the pleural membrane with a probe, just as he (and at least one other autopsy physician) had testified. This gives me more confidence in Jenkins as a witness.

Sandy:

This is a very interesting (and important) thread.

As you probably know from reading Best Evidence, I believe the back wound to be false (i.e., man made; but certainly not by shooting a gun at the corpse of JFK).

But in this post (that I am now writing), let me focus on just one point: the question of Humes "probing" the back wound with his finger.

If you look at the Clark Panel Report (1968, released in Jan 1969), you will see that they write that it was obvious (based on their examination of the autopsy photos) that the rear entry (let's call it "the back wound" for the sake of this post) could not permit the "insertion" of a finger.

Yet we know that credible witnesses saw Humes insert (at least part of the way) his finger. They did not imagine that; they witnessed it.

So. . . : How to explain that situation? i.e., that "contradiction"

What I believe to be the answer:

I call your attention to the autopsy photographs--which I obtained in December 1982 and published (for the first time) in the Carroll and Graf edition of Best Evidence (1988). You will note the existence of a ruler (which doesn't measure anything) and which covers the location where the back wound (as reported by FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neill) was located. This situation of the placement of that ruler is discussed in Chapter 30 of B.E. --under the breaker "The Puzzle of the Ruler." ( Its my belief that the "back wound" (which the two agents are referring to) is concealed by that ruler.

I also call your attention to the fact that in their FBI report, the two FBI agents refer to that "lower" back wound (my quotes on the word "lower") as an "opening" in the back.

So here's the bottom line: there was (I believe) a "lower" back wound, which was indeed probed by Humes with his finger. That "lower" wound was indeed on the body.

I do not know how deeply Humes finger went in; and that's not the point. My point is that later that evening, and by the time of autopsy photography of that area occurred--i.e., by the time a permanent photographic record was being made--there existed (i.e., "was created" --again, my quotes) a higher (and equally false) wound. A ruler was used to conceal the lower wound--i.e., to conceal it from posterity.

The result: there are witnesses (e.g., the two FBI agents) who actually saw Humes probe the "lower" wound; but the wound that is present in the autopsy photographs (which show the ruler) show a "higher" wound, and that higher wound is definitely too small "to permit the insertion of a finger" (just as reported by the Clark Panel).

Humes - - How Complicit?

If true, does this mean that Humes was directly involved in autopsy chicanery? (Yes, unfortunately it does). I write "unfortunately" because when I wrote Best Evidence, back in the mid-to-late 1970's, I had a more innocent view of Humes. But I'll be writing more about that in Final Charade.

But now back to another (and very important) point: Is there anyway to definitively prove this? Yes, but its never going to happen--at least not in my lifetime. But I predict that if an exhumation is ever conducted, there will be discovered a "wound" or "opening" beneath the ruler.

All of this goes to the larger question of whether the Bethesda autopsy was a fraud.

Was it a fraud? (Or a "perfect medical forgery", which fooled the autopsy doctors?).

My answer to that has changed, over time.

So let me repeat the question: was it a fraud?

My answer (today): yes, it was.

Let's restate this somewhat: Was Humes merely confused, or a "useful idiot" in following some higher authorities "orders" in a scheme to re-arrange (or fabricate) certain medical facts? My answer (today): Yes, I believe Humes was complicit ( but I did not believe that when I wrote Best Evidence).

AN IMPORTANT QUALIFIER: Humes did not do the "surgery of the head area"

However--and this is an important qualifier--I do NOT believe that Humes was responsible for the enlargement of the head wound. In other words, I do not believe that Humes was responsible for creating what he himself described as "surgery of the head area, namely in the top of the skull." That FBI statement was based on what the FBI agents heard Humes say aloud (See Chapter 12 of B.E., for a detailed discussion of this point). (Nor do I believe that the Boswell diagram showing that huge hole, along with the measurements --10 x 17--is a "con job". This is where I diverge (completely) from Doug Horne's beliefs. He believes that Humes did the surgery and then Boswell acted to conceal Humes complicity by creating a bogus diagram. I don't believe any of that.

Instead. . .

I believe the account of Paul O'Connor --as told to the HSCA--that the body arrived with an empty cranium and a huge hole in the head. (FYI: O'Connor not only told that to the HSCA in August 1977; he told it to the Florida newspapers, at around that time.) So O'Connor is "on the record" with regard to all of this in four locations:

1. 1977: The Florida newspapers

2. Aug 1977, the HSCA (Purdy's report)

3. Aug 1979, my original telephone interview (as set forth verbatim in Chapter 26 of B.E.)

4. October 1980: My original filmed interview (as set forth in the Best Evidence Research Video. Now available on the Internet).

And there are three more instances of Paul O'Connor going through all of this:

5. October 1988 - filmed interview with KRON-TV (Stanhope Gould and Sylvia Chase, arranged by me)

6.. Spring 1989 - my very lengthy and detailed follow-up filmed interview with O'Connor at his home (not yet released)

7.. 1990 - Still another lengthy interview --conducted by me--with O'Connor when he was flown to California for the show HARDCOPY

STILL ANOTHER IMPORTANT WITNESS: "Wayne". . .

For those interested in this point (re the empty cranium), I have a witness (who you'll be reading about in Final Charade) who was close with FBI Agent O'Neill; a businessman who was a strong supporter of my work, and who lived in his area, and was a financial supporter. Before O'Neill--who was rather thick-headed and totally pro-Hoover--realized the significance of what he was saying, he repeatedly maintained (this is back in 1992) to this businessman, whose first name was Wayne: "Wayne, there was not brain." He said this repeatedly, and with great emphasis on the word "was". I provided Gunn and Horne with this information. It was never properly followed up.

Bottom line: O'Neill (before he modified his story) corroborated O'Connor: the body did indeed arrive with "an empty cranium."

If that is so, of course that makes Humes (and Boswell) complicit in autopsy fraud. And so their shenanigans with a ruler, during the autopsy photography, pale in comparison with their failure to tell the truth about the condition of the body, when it arrived.

As you all may know, I spoke with Humes twice in November 1966; this is all laid out in Best Evidence in Chapter 8 (and repeated in Chapter 18). As Humes burst out at me, when I confronted him with the Sibert and O'Neill report, he said: "I'd like to know by whom it was done, and when, and where."

This tape was played aloud at the mid-West Convention in 1993. I am going to make it available on the internet, soon.

Humes knew the body was altered. Almost certainly, he was given the "World War III" cover story, and so he ended up participating in this fraud.

What he said about the body in front of the FBI agents (that it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skul") is one aspect of this fraud. What he did with the ruler is still another. Humes did not appear before the WC with "clean hands." I thought he did when I wrote B.E.; I no longer believe that. But still, his data --when properly analyzed and interpreted--is invaluable.

DSL

10/23/15 - 5:55 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

[Sandy Larsen]

At the moment I [sandy] can only accept three possible scenarios:

1. The pleura and probably the lung were punctured, and Humes et al are lying to protect the LN scenario

2. Some form of an 'exotic bullet' penetrated his back and then broke up to such a degree that it left little or no trace. "Ice bullets", "blood soluble bullets", mercury bullets, etc. have been mentioned. On the one hand I don't see any reason to dismiss them as a possibility, but on the other hand, I don't know if they could inflict the shallow back wound we seem to be dealing with.

3. A frangible bullet disintegrated and lodged itself within the right lung.

Tom, have you ruled out #3?

I just realized that #3 is covered by #1. Oops.

[Ray Mitcham]

David, I agree with you that the surgery was done before Humes saw it. If he had done it, there would be no reason to say out loud about there being surgery to the head area. He could have just ignored it and carried on, and nobody would have been the wiser.

[Tom Neal]

I just realized that #3 is covered by #1. Oops.

Yes sir, it is.

I responded to that back in post 119.

Tom