Any prevailing theories on the back wound?

[Tom Neal]

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.

By reading "Best Evidence" many years ago, I learned of Humes statement regarding "surgery of the head area." I was of the opinion that if he performed the surgery himself, the best thing he could have done was to say nothing at all. That wasn't quite enough to make me certain, however. Adding the weight of O'Neill's "Wayne, there was no brain" statement to Paul O'Connor's testimony, and Humes outburst: "I'd like to know by whom it was done, and when, and where", convinces me that Humes had no knowledge of the head surgery until he began the autopsy.

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

By all means, please do.

I believe the back wound to be false (i.e., man made)

Two questions, please:

1. Do you believe Boswell witnessed the creation of the two false back wounds?

2. I presume you believe that Humes had nothing to do with the alteration of the 'throat wound'?

Thanks for the info, and of course I eagerly await the publication of "Final Charade"!

Tom

[Chris Davidson]

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

Tom,

So the height you assign the chalk mark would be approx 3ft 6inches = 3.5ft = 42 inches above the ground?

Would 3.56ft = 42.78 inches be within range?

chris

[Ray Mitcham]

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.

By reading "Best Evidence" many years ago, I learned of Humes statement regarding "surgery of the head area." I was of the opinion that if he performed the surgery himself, the best thing he could have done was to say nothing at all. That wasn't quite enough to make me certain, however. Adding the weight of O'Neill's "Wayne, there was no brain" statement to Paul O'Connor's testimony, and Humes outburst: "I'd like to know by whom it was done, and when, and where", convinces me that Humes had no knowledge of the head surgery until he began the autopsy.

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

By all means, please do.

I believe the back wound to be false (i.e., man made)

Two questions, please:

1. Do you believe Boswell witnessed the creation of the two false back wounds?

2. I presume you believe that Humes had nothing to do with the alteration of the 'throat wound'?

Thanks for the info, and of course I eagerly await the publication of "Final Charade"!

Tom

Tom, Ebersole stated that the throat wound was "neatly sutured" when he saw it. I don't think the autopsy photos show a "neatly sutured" wound- more a gash.

[Robert Prudhomme]

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...

Hi Tom

I've been sitting here this morning mulling this whole thing over and I have to say, this has stopped me dead in my tracks.

I had seen references made to the "dirty" chest x-ray but, until you pointed out the possible connection between the "dirt" and the powdered metal that would be left in the lung, following the disintegration of a frangible bullet, I had never put the two together. Wow!

The only problem I can possibly see with this is that the jacket of the frangible rifle bullet does not disintegrate to dust, as the core of the bullet does, and pieces of the bullet jacket would show up in the x-ray. However, this is assuming the frangible bullet that caused the back wound actually DID have a jacket. DRT Ammo Inc. makes frangible handgun ammunition that is unjacketed. These disintegrate to powder so perfectly and completely, it is possible to shoot them at the sidewalk between one's feet without concern for a ricochet of any kind injuring one's feet, and yet, these bullets are capable of penetrating skull bone without breaking up.

http://www.drtammo.com/

How does one access the x-rays, especially Nos. 9 & 7?

I sincerely hope that everyone reading this thread understands the importance of what you have pointed out here. You may have answered the favourite LN question, "What happened to the bullet, then, if it did not go through JFK and hit Connally?"

[Glenn Nall]

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.

By reading "Best Evidence" many years ago, I learned of Humes statement regarding "surgery of the head area." I was of the opinion that if he performed the surgery himself, the best thing he could have done was to say nothing at all. That wasn't quite enough to make me certain, however. Adding the weight of O'Neill's "Wayne, there was no brain" statement to Paul O'Connor's testimony, and Humes outburst: "I'd like to know by whom it was done, and when, and where", convinces me that Humes had no knowledge of the head surgery until he began the autopsy.

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

By all means, please do.

I believe the back wound to be false (i.e., man made)

Two questions, please:

1. Do you believe Boswell witnessed the creation of the two false back wounds?

2. I presume you believe that Humes had nothing to do with the alteration of the 'throat wound'?

Thanks for the info, and of course I eagerly await the publication of "Final Charade"!

Tom

Tom, Ebersole stated that the throat wound was "neatly sutured" when he saw it. I don't think the autopsy photos show a "neatly sutured" wound- more a gash.

well, now, that's pretty interesting. never once heard mention of sutures in the throat.

I'd also like to point out that while everyone is deciding on the level of suspicion to attribute the doctors, I'm not certain at all how far above suspicion Sibert and O'Neill are. There have been plenty of reasons to distrust some elements of the FBI, also.

[Sandy Larsen]

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

David,

Thanks for dropping in and offering us some valuable insight. I was unaware of the 1968 Clark Panel Report. Yes, that certainly sheds light on the topic. It just didn't make sense that Humes would be trying to probe with his finger a 4 mm 7 mm wound, and yet credible witnesses testified that he did.

My mistake was in assuming that Humes was referring to the lower back wound (what I've considered to be the real wound) when he reported the 4 mm by 7 mm size.

I am aware that that the ruler (not measuring anything) likely was used to cover up the lower wound. There are others posting on this topic -- most perhaps? -- who believe the same. In my opinion it's not just a possibility, it's a fact. (Even so I reserve the right to change my mind.) All the evidence points in the direction.

Now, you say:

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.

Are you saying that the lower wound is false too? (I know that topic was covered in Best Evidence. But I was primarily focusing on the gaping head wound when I read your book. Plus, I didn't realize at the time that I wasn't reading the latest edition... mine being dated 1980 I believe.) It sound like you're saying that the low wound was fabricated in the pre-autopsy surgery, and the upper wound was fabricated by Humes. Is that right?

Today I've been reading the testimony Lt. Lipsey gave before the HSCA regarding the back wound. According to him, a good portion of the autopsy was spent searching for bullet fragments from the back wound. He says they even cut organs up looking for fragments... but they never found any. That, if true, begs the question, what were they searching for if they knew the wound (the lower one) was fake?

Oh, I think I know... I think you're going say that Humes didn't know the wound was fake. Or if he could see it was, he played along with the charade.

Anyway, reading Lipsey's testimony got me to wondering this: What was the problem, on 11/22/63, with the low back wound?? How exactly did it conflict with the LN narrative at that time?

It wasn't till much later that the WC determined LHO had only enough time to get off three shots, one of which missed. That's what created the conflict with the back wound, right? There were only two bullets for three wounds. Arlen Specter fixed that problem with his magic bullet theory, with Gerald Ford's help when he relocated the wound a few inches higher. But this conflict wasn't known on the day of the autopsy.

As a matter of fact, this is very strange... Humes raised the wound at the autopsy, AND Gerald Ford did the very same (on paper) later for the WC. Did Gerald Ford merely make a change on paper that Humes had already made on flesh? Did Specter's magic bullet theory merely reflect the revised autopsy report? If so, why do these men's actions raise so many eyebrows?

What am I missing here? Can somebody please straighten me out?

Also, why was the low back "wound" fabricated? Surely they couldn't have thought that that, coupled with the throat wound, constituted a reasonable trajectory from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

David, thanks for updating us on your current take on the pre-autopsy surgery. I'm looking forward to reading Final Charade.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[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...

So the height you assign the chalk mark would be approx 3ft 6inches = 3.5ft = 42 inches above the ground?

No. Not above the ground -- above the floor. The chalk mark height above the ground would by 3 feet 5 inches or 41" PLUS the height of the floor above the ground. I do NOT know the distance from the floor of the JFK limo to the ground.

Tom

[Tom Neal]

Two questions, please:

1. Do you believe Boswell witnessed the creation of the two false back wounds?

2. I presume you believe that Humes had nothing to do with the alteration of the 'throat wound'?

Tom, Ebersole stated that the throat wound was "neatly sutured" when he saw it. I don't think the autopsy photos show a "neatly sutured" wound- more a gash.

Hi Ray, I'm not sure why you are mentioning the Ebersole statement...AFAIK Ebersole is the only one to claim the wound was sutured.

By alteration of the 'throat wound' I meant that at Parkland it was a short, neat, transverse incision, yet at Bethesda Humes described it as gaping with wide irregular edges.

Tom

[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.

I had seen references made to the "dirty" chest x-ray but, until you pointed out the possible connection between the "dirt" and the powdered metal that would be left in the lung, following the disintegration of a frangible bullet, I had never put the two together. Wow!

How does one access the x-rays, especially Nos. 9 & 7?

I haven't been able to find the x-rays yet. I'm not finished with the section in the ARRB 5 Volume set devoted to the x-rays, so they MAY be located someone in these 5 volumes, but I do NOT recall seeing them during a previous reading.

I sincerely hope that everyone reading this thread understands the importance of what you have pointed out here. You may have answered the favourite LN question, "What happened to the bullet, then, if it did not go through JFK and hit Connally?"

It would be nice if it is this easy, but I'm not convinced yet by any means. I certainly intend to keep looking though...

Tom

[Robert Prudhomme]

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

David,

Thanks for dropping in and offering us some valuable insight. I was unaware of the 1968 Clark Panel Report. Yes, that certainly sheds light on the topic. It just didn't make sense that Humes would be trying to probe with his finger a 4 mm 7 mm wound, and yet credible witnesses testified that he did.

My mistake was in assuming that Humes was referring to the lower back wound (what I've considered to be the real wound) when he reported the 4 mm by 7 mm size.

I am aware that that the ruler (not measuring anything) likely was used to cover up the lower wound. There are others posting on this topic -- most perhaps? -- who believe the same. In my opinion it's not just a possibility, it's a fact. (Even so I reserve the right to change my mind.) All the evidence points in the direction.

Now, you say:

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.

Are you saying that the lower wound is false too? (I know that topic was covered in Best Evidence. But I was primarily focusing on the gaping head wound when I read your book. Plus, I didn't realize at the time that I wasn't reading the latest edition... mine being dated 1980 I believe.) It sound like you're saying that the low wound was fabricated in the pre-autopsy surgery, and the upper wound was fabricated by Humes. Is that right?

Today I've been reading the testimony Lt. Lipsey gave before the HSCA regarding the back wound. According to him, a good portion of the autopsy was spent searching for bullet fragments from the back wound. He says they even cut organs up looking for fragments... but they never found any. That, if true, begs the question, what were they searching for if they knew the wound (the lower one) was fake?

Oh, I think I know... I think you're going say that Humes didn't know the wound was fake. Or if he could see it was, he played along with the charade.

Anyway, reading Lipsey's testimony got me to wondering this: What was the problem, on 11/22/63, with the low back wound?? How exactly did it conflict with the LN narrative at that time?

It wasn't till much later that the WC determined LHO had only enough time to get off three shots, one of which missed. That's what created the conflict with the back wound, right? There were only two bullets for three wounds. Arlen Specter fixed that problem with his magic bullet theory, with Gerald Ford's help when he relocated the wound a few inches higher. But this conflict wasn't known on the day of the autopsy.

As a matter of fact, this is very strange... Humes raised the wound at the autopsy, AND Gerald Ford did the very same (on paper) later for the WC. Did Gerald Ford merely make a change on paper that Humes had already made on flesh? Did Specter's magic bullet theory merely reflect the revised autopsy report? If so, why do these men's actions raise so many eyebrows?

What am I missing here? Can somebody please straighten me out?

Also, why was the low back "wound" fabricated? Surely they couldn't have thought that that, coupled with the throat wound, constituted a reasonable trajectory from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

David, thanks for updating us on your current take on the pre-autopsy surgery. I'm looking forward to reading Final Charade.

Hi Sandy

This has certainly been a morning for revelations, at least for me anyways, and I must say that Mr. Lifton has indeed dropped quite a bombshell here. I have looked at the autopsy photo of the "back wound" many times and have long tried to figure out why the ruler was in the picture, as it did not seem to be measuring anything. Not once did it occur to me it might be concealing the real back wound, and that the wound we are seeing is the fake.

You ask why the low back wound was a problem on 22/11/63. It wasn't a matter of how many shots were fired, at least not at that point in time anyways. The problem was that the assassin's firing position had been "discovered" shortly after the assassination, and that position was behind JFK. It was necessary to establish medically, via the autopsy, that all of JFK's wounds had been inflicted by bullets that originated from behind him.

So, what did the autopsy team have to work with? According to Parkland witnesses, there was a large gaping wound in the right posterior of the cranium that was obviously an exit wound, and a small round wound in the throat that was expanded in the tracheostomy procedure. No one at Parkland knew anything about a back wound, as the surgeons at Parkland never turned him over. I do wonder, though, how the people preparing JFK for his trip to Bethesda could have not seen the back wound.

Luckily for Humes, the back wound did not exit the front of the chest cavity, although it was far too low to have any chance of corresponding to the throat wound. It makes perfect sense that another "entrance wound" would be found up near the collar, and the real wound hidden, just as it makes perfect sense that an exit wound that was originally in the right posterior cranium should migrate up to the area just behind the forehead.

In their haste, though, I believe they under estimated the angle from the 6th floor window to the limo, placing the new back wound still too low to exit through the throat wound, and the entrance wound in the skull (at the EOP) too low to exit near the top of his head. Of course, as we all know, the skull entrance wound was merely moved upward 4 inches a few years later to accommodate this problem.

In short, the head wound and the throat wound were in the wrong places for LHO to have caused them. This was known the night of the autopsy, and had to be dealt with immediately, or the conspiracy would have been exposed.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Sandy Larsen]

"one witness (at least) later described to a researcher how the autopsy physicians were at one point probing all over the place"

Sandy, to my potentially limited recollection, that was Lipsey describing an extensive and unsuccessful search for a missing bullet, and I think that even at that time the point he was making was that considering the time spent by the doctors in this search, and that it proved fruitless, they were completely convinced that there was, and remained, a missing bullet.

and that it was never mentioned in any testimony.

but my memory has proven faulty before. I lost a bar bet last week that the West won the Civil War, so I encourage people to listen carefully to my nuance. I also like to encourage people to remind me what the word nuance means.

Glenn,

By coincidence I happened to have come across Lipsey's testimony before the HSCA the other day. I read nearly the whole thing and found it thoroughly fascinating. I plan on posting a link and maybe relevant portions of it with commentary. One thing fascinating about it is that it possibly reveals some of what Hume's burnt autopsy report might have reported. It's a three-bullet scenario.

Someone earlier in the thread commented that Lipsey might have said that they searched three or four hours for the back wound bullet. What Lipsey actually says is that the autopsy lasted the three or four hours, but that a large portion of that time was spent looking for the bullet.

Anyway, I do know from reading that that it was not Lipsey who reported the extensive probing. I'm pretty sure that it was reported at some point in time by one of the lower level personnel who were present. Because I remember reading the statement.

You are right that Lipsey said they were convinced that there was a missing bullet.

anyway. as i'd stated in an earlier post, I trust Lipsey's words many more times than I do Humes' or the rest of those cluster-wearing inbreds.

LOL, me too!

[Robert Prudhomme]

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.

I had seen references made to the "dirty" chest x-ray but, until you pointed out the possible connection between the "dirt" and the powdered metal that would be left in the lung, following the disintegration of a frangible bullet, I had never put the two together. Wow!

How does one access the x-rays, especially Nos. 9 & 7?

I haven't been able to find the x-rays yet. I'm not finished with the section in the ARRB 5 Volume set devoted to the x-rays, so they MAY be located someone in these 5 volumes, but I do NOT recall seeing them during a previous reading.

I sincerely hope that everyone reading this thread understands the importance of what you have pointed out here. You may have answered the favourite LN question, "What happened to the bullet, then, if it did not go through JFK and hit Connally?"

It would be nice if it is this easy, but I'm not convinced yet by any means. I certainly intend to keep looking though...

Tom

Hi Tom

Yes, we are far from producing conclusive evidence of a frangible bullet coming apart in the top of JFK's right lung. However, at least in my mind anyways, the other possibilities for the "shallow" back wound are systematically being eliminated, with the frangible bullet scenario slowly emerging as the only viable possibility.

As I said in another post, every lie has an element of truth in it. Bruising was reported in the top of JFK's right lung. What if this "bruising" was actually more than just bruising?

Another thing to consider; Would Humes recognize the damage to the lung, inflicted by a frangible bullet, as damage inflicted by a bullet? I certainly hope you are successful in locating the JFK autopsy x-rays.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Glenn Nall]

"one witness (at least) later described to a researcher how the autopsy physicians were at one point probing all over the place"

Sandy, to my potentially limited recollection, that was Lipsey describing an extensive and unsuccessful search for a missing bullet, and I think that even at that time the point he was making was that considering the time spent by the doctors in this search, and that it proved fruitless, they were completely convinced that there was, and remained, a missing bullet.

and that it was never mentioned in any testimony.

but my memory has proven faulty before. I lost a bar bet last week that the West won the Civil War, so I encourage people to listen carefully to my nuance. I also like to encourage people to remind me what the word nuance means.

Glenn,

By coincidence I happened to have come across Lipsey's testimony before the HSCA the other day. I read nearly the whole thing and found it thoroughly fascinating. I plan on posting a link and maybe relevant portions of it with commentary. One thing fascinating about it is that it possibly reveals some of what Hume's burnt autopsy report might have reported. It's a three-bullet scenario.

Someone earlier in the thread commented that Lipsey might have said that they searched three or four hours for the back wound bullet. What Lipsey actually says is that the autopsy lasted the three or four hours, but that a large portion of that time was spent looking for the bullet.

Anyway, I do know from reading that that it was not Lipsey who reported the extensive probing. I'm pretty sure that it was reported at some point in time by one of the lower level personnel who were present. Because I remember reading the statement.

You are right that Lipsey said they were convinced that there was a missing bullet.

anyway. as i'd stated in an earlier post, I trust Lipsey's words many more times than I do Humes' or the rest of those cluster-wearing inbreds.

LOL, me too!

yes, that was me, too - appreciate the correction; i do remember that he'd mentioned the four hours, but now that you mention it, i remember his saying only that the search for that bullet took a lot of that time. which, if true, is pretty effin' revealing.

keeping things simple, it seems to me that this missing bullet for which they sought so hard, or even simply the proof that they did in fact conduct such a search, could very possibly resolve many of the "shots fired" conflicts.

[Tom Neal]

Yes, we are far from producing conclusive evidence of a frangible bullet coming apart in the top of JFK's right lung. However, at least in my mind anyways, the other possibilities for the "shallow" back wound are systematically being eliminated, with the frangible bullet scenario slowly emerging as the only viable possibility.

Of course, we also have the 'false wound' scenario. While researching this possibility today, I had in mind that the nurses who washed JFK's body had seen the back wound. Apparently, only one nurse mentioned it, and even then only after 30(?) years. They were washing the body to be sent to autopsy so they wouldn't have been specifically searching for any wounds, but without confirmation of a back wound at Parkland, I certainly don't discount the possibility of a "false wound" designed to buttress the 3-shot scenario.

Glen Bennett's testimony that he saw the "back shot" hit JFK is not rock solid due to his statement that he "heard the shot", immediately looked at JFK and saw the shot impact 4 inches below his shoulder and slightly to the right of center. The shot would have hit first, then the sound would arrive, so his statement is questionable. My thought is that if he heard the first shot, then turned toward JFK and saw the 2nd shot hit without hearing the "firecracker" sound of the second shot then his story is plausible. I can't think of any obvious reason for him to lie, and if Vince P. is correct that Bennett was only in the motorcade because of threats to JFK it seems less likely for him to lie.

IMO, the false wound scenario is still a strong possibility.

Bruising was reported in the top of JFK's right lung. What if this "bruising" was actually more than just bruising?

I hear ya. Jerrol Custer has stated that the autopsists were chopping up all the organs looking for bullet "fragments" rather than seeking bullet paths or trails of minute fragments. Certainly, x-rays would reveal any fragments - so why chop them up? A possible explanation is to destroy evidence of a 'dust cloud' of fragments...

Another thing to consider; Would Humes recognize the damage to the lung, inflicted by a frangible bullet, as damage inflicted by a bullet?

Excellent point. They discussed the possibility of 'exotic bullets' that would disappear completely, but did they ever mention looking for minute fragments from frangible bullets?

I certainly hope you are successful in locating the JFK autopsy x-rays.

They must be at NARA, but they may require "special permission" because I don't recall reading that any researchers have copies. Or, everyone is only looking at the skull x-rays.

Tom

[Chris Davidson]

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.

Robert,

I like the above idea.

The bullet speed is still bothersome in terms of an explanation.

Hard to believe they missed his head and hit his back instead.

If professionals did this, why not a direct head shot?

Ideas???

chris