Sandy Larsen Posted November 3, 2015 Author Share Posted November 3, 2015 Wow, I cannot believe I never considered this possibility -- the throat wound being the entrance and back wound being the exit for the same bullet. The fibers around the circumference of the holes in the Jacket/Shirt were pushed into the wound. If you choose to believe the jacket and shirt, then it's an entrance wound. If not... Tom According to whom? Couldn't somebody have simply reversed the direction of the threads? Or lied about it? Can it be seen on the photos of the jacket and shirt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted November 3, 2015 Author Share Posted November 3, 2015 (edited) I think I can read CENTIMETER on the left. John, I've done some fiddling with this image myself. I can't read the numerals, but that word is definitely "Centimeters." And Boswell states in his testimony that this is a centimeter ruler. Tom There can be no doubt that the markings are spaced a centimeter apart and not an inch. The problem is that I cannot see the marks well enough on the left half of the ruler to count them all. And distortion due to perspective prevents me from extrapolating over the left half. I'm pretty sure the ruler is a 30 cm one. Do this to be convinced: In Google, search for the phrase "30 cm metric ruler" including the quotation marks. You'll get over 1500 hits. Now try any other number. Zero hits. A 12" ruler, which is what I assumed, is only 1.6% longer than 30 cm. I think my analysis stands. That is to say, I think it is quite reasonable. That is, at the very least, I think it doesn't suck. LOL P.S. Thanks John D. for posting the closeup of the ruler. Edited November 3, 2015 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted November 3, 2015 Author Share Posted November 3, 2015 Sandy Larsen #325, Wow, I cannot believe I never considered this possibility -- the throat wound being the entrance and back wound being the exit for the same bullet. A potential problem I can think of right away is that the slope of the back wound was reportedly downward from back to front. That's inconsistent with this new (to me) theory. Sandy, That is the problem: "reportedly" downward from back to front. I have never seen that any of the autopsists even tried probing in different directions. When the official autopsy began, after 8 pm, over six hours after JFK was dead, it seems that a gunman from behind and high up had already been tried and convicted in everyone's mind. And the rigor mortis in all those different soft tissues could have closed over any bullet path. As one example of Humes' utter incompetence, he was certain it was a shallow wound. Why? Because his LITTLE FINGER could only go in it to the first knuckle! How scientific is that? The joker probably messed up what evidence there was left. On another site, I fell in love with the simple common sense of a guy named Bob Prudhomme, who just like me notes that Humes was trying to jam something at least 5/8" wide into a 3/8" hole. The pleural cavity has some kind of tough cartilagenous lining (forget what it's called in Greek). So if the examiner didn't find the exact spot where there was a tear in it, sure, it would appear to be a shallow wound. Which, forcing his durn digit into, he could make go in any direction. Thanks, Sandy, for that concise re-stating, "...possibility -- the throat wound being the entrance and back wound being the exit for the same bullet." I wish I'd put it that way somewhere. Roy, I believe it is entirely possible that Humes was ordered from the get-go to conclude that all shots came from behind and above. In fact, I believe exactly that already. I remember in Lt. Lipsey's testimony how the doctors were trying to get all the trajectories in the body to be line up in such a way that the bullets all came from the same source If your theory is right, it would explain a lot. Why no bullet was found. Why the back wound was big enough for Humes finger. (Everybody says the exit wound is bigger than the entrance, and I'm assuming that is also the case with flesh, not just bone.) At the moment I can't think of any testimony or evidence that contradicts your theory, with the exception of the jacket/shirt fibers pointing the wrong direction, and the "metal dust that isn't metal" found on the lung x-ray. I'd like to hear from others what they see wrong with this theory. Or what they see right. Like you, I can't understand why "everybody" just assumes the back wound is an entrance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted November 3, 2015 Author Share Posted November 3, 2015 Wow, I cannot believe I never considered this possibility -- the throat wound being the entrance and back wound being the exit for the same bullet. I'd like to hear from others what they see wrong with this theory. Or what they see right. Like you, I can't understand why "everybody" just assumes the back wound is an entrance. I'll get this started. Where did the bullet go after it exited the president's back? Into the back seat of the limo? Was there ever any mention of a hole there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 (edited) Sandy Larsen #325, Wow, I cannot believe I never considered this possibility -- the throat wound being the entrance and back wound being the exit for the same bullet. A potential problem I can think of right away is that the slope of the back wound was reportedly downward from back to front. That's inconsistent with this new (to me) theory. Sandy, That is the problem: "reportedly" downward from back to front. I have never seen that any of the autopsists even tried probing in different directions. When the official autopsy began, after 8 pm, over six hours after JFK was dead, it seems that a gunman from behind and high up had already been tried and convicted in everyone's mind. And the rigor mortis in all those different soft tissues could have closed over any bullet path. As one example of Humes' utter incompetence, he was certain it was a shallow wound. Why? Because his LITTLE FINGER could only go in it to the first knuckle! How scientific is that? The joker probably messed up what evidence there was left. On another site, I fell in love with the simple common sense of a guy named Bob Prudhomme, who just like me notes that Humes was trying to jam something at least 5/8" wide into a 3/8" hole. The pleural cavity has some kind of tough cartilagenous lining (forget what it's called in Greek). So if the examiner didn't find the exact spot where there was a tear in it, sure, it would appear to be a shallow wound. Which, forcing his durn digit into, he could make go in any direction. Thanks, Sandy, for that concise re-stating, "...possibility -- the throat wound being the entrance and back wound being the exit for the same bullet." I wish I'd put it that way somewhere. Roy, I believe it is entirely possible that Humes was ordered from the get-go to conclude that all shots came from behind and above. In fact, I believe exactly that already. I remember in Lt. Lipsey's testimony how the doctors were trying to get all the trajectories in the body to be line up in such a way that the bullets all came from the same source If your theory is right, it would explain a lot. Why no bullet was found. Why the back wound was big enough for Humes finger. (Everybody says the exit wound is bigger than the entrance, and I'm assuming that is also the case with flesh, not just bone.) At the moment I can't think of any testimony or evidence that contradicts your theory, with the exception of the jacket/shirt fibers pointing the wrong direction, and the "metal dust that isn't metal" found on the lung x-ray. I'd like to hear from others what they see wrong with this theory. Or what they see right. Like you, I can't understand why "everybody" just assumes the back wound is an entrance. #1 problem is the T3 location -- too low to have been associated with the throat wound. The neck x-ray shows a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process and an air pocket overlaying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes -- damage inconsistent with a bullet exiting T3. Humes wasn't the only one to probe the back wound. When Col Pierre Finck arrived at the autopsy he used a metal probe and declared there was no lane of exit. Secret Service Special Agent Glenn Bennett wrote in his notes that JFK was struck "about four inches down from the shoulder" right before the head shot/s. Then with a back exit we have the problem of what happened to the bullet once it exited -- at that trajectory it would have hit the limo, no? I suppose one could claim that all the witnesses lied and the neck x-ray was faked -- right out of the Pet Theorist Script! Edited November 3, 2015 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy Wieselquist Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Ron Ecker post #328 -- "Clothes never at autopsy" These are JFK's clothes I said in my first post in this thread, #319, that Sibert and/or O'Neill saw a nearly intact bullet roll out of. Which no one ever saw again. 1. Examination of a victim's clothing is one of the most essential parts of an autopsy, especially when there is blood, brains, and bullet holes present. Are you telling me the inquest couldn't even do that right? Though how they flubbed everything else, it's almost believable. 2. OK, how about the sheets JFK was wrapped in when he left Parkland? Maybe the bullet rolled out of that cloth. In at least one of their many testimonies, I'm pretty certain that the honest FBI agents S and/or O saw a bullet roll out of some cloth very early in the autopsy. This great, important topic --the back wound, which I've been crazy about for years, caught my eye a few days ago. It's all I (a techno-moron) could do to get signed up and make these messy posts the last couple days, with all else I have going on. But if no one else remembers when and where S and O stated this, I will find it in my notes in about a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy Wieselquist Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 (edited) Tom Neal post #329 -- "fibers pushed into wound" I don't know where you get that. From when JFK was stripped by the nurses as soon as he entered Trauma Room One until his body was spirited out of Parkland, none of the medicos even knew he had a back wound. I assume the clothing was put in a bag pretty soon. Did anyone examine the clothes then? According to Ron Ecker #328, Greer took possession and responsibility for that bag. I believe that's right. I don't know about the clothing never making it to the autopsy. Though I wouldn't put anything past Bill Greer, that Henry Cabot Lodge-loving sack of ****, for incompetence or villainy. The point is: 1. No one examined the clothing before it went into a bag. 2. The mere placing the clothing in a bag, or rolling it up, or anything will move ripped fibers. A fly could change the direction of ripped fibers. Edited November 3, 2015 by Roy Wieselquist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 2. OK, how about the sheets JFK was wrapped in when he left Parkland? Maybe the bullet rolled out of that cloth. In at least one of their many testimonies, I'm pretty certain that the honest FBI agents S and/or O saw a bullet roll out of some cloth very early in the autopsy. This great, important topic --the back wound, which I've been crazy about for years, caught my eye a few days ago. It's all I (a techno-moron) could do to get signed up and make these messy posts the last couple days, with all else I have going on. But if no one else remembers when and where S and O stated this, I will find it in my notes in about a week. You may be thinking of the military man who told David Lifton that he saw a bullet roll out of the body or out of the sheets (I don't remember which) onto the autopsy table. I don't remember the man's name so I can't look it up in Lifton's book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 1. No one examined the clothing before it went into a bag. Roy, How do you know that with such certainty? Do you know who removed his clothes? Do you know what was done with them immediately following removal? Who passed the clothes to Bill Greer and at what point in time?? What did GREER say he did with them? Who refused to show Humes the clothing? Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 1. No one examined the clothing before it went into a bag. Roy, How do you know that with such certainty? Do you know who removed his clothes? Do you know what was done with them immediately following removal? Who passed the clothes to Bill Greer and at what point in time?? What did GREER say he did with them? Who refused to show Humes the clothing? Tom I posted this on the forum in 2006: SS agent William Greer was given JFK's clothes in two shopping bags at Parkland. According to an HSCA summary of an interview of Greer, he directed Rybka at Andrews Air Force Base to put "the shopping bag" containing JFK's clothes in his locker at the White House. Greer drove the ambulance containing JFK's body from Andrews to Bethesda, and was present at the autopsy. Was he so stupid that he didn't know he should take the clothes with him along with the body for the autopsy? Wouldn't Rybka think that the clothes ought to stay with the body? Wouldn't Greer ask someone in charge, at some point between Parkland and Andrews, "What should we do with the clothes?" Did he just decide on his own to stash them in the locker, and Rybka did it for him? Did Rybka take orders from Greer? My guess: They were both following the order of someone else, Greer passing it along to Rybka. (Source: An ARRB Update, by Joseph Backes, Kennedy Assn. Chronicles, v. 2 no. 4, Winter 1996, p. 28, ref Document 1870-10099-10491.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 The fibers around the circumference of the holes in the Jacket/Shirt were pushed into the wound. If you choose to believe the jacket and shirt, then it's an entrance wound. If not... According to whom?WC, HSCA and Doug Horne...who could be lying or mistaken, so that leaves you with no theory at all. Couldn't somebody have simply reversed the direction of the threads? Or lied about it?Of course they could. That's the problem with this case. We KNOW they were ordered to lie. We don't KNOW if it's JFK in the photos. We don't KNOW if that's HIS shirt. We don't KNOW when the holes were first observed. We don't KNOW if the holes are fake. We don't KNOW if they line up with the back wound. We don't KNOW if the back wound is real. Do you see the point? All we can do is look at the probabilities of each and rate them accordingly. If the shot entered the throat and passed out the back wound, they would have been able to probe it from either direction. But they couldn't. But of course they could be lying about that, also... If that is the actual path then what about the probable fracture up around C7/T1? It would require an additional shot. One to damage T1 and another to exit at T2 or T3. If the bullet DID exit at T3 it would have done so at a downward angle and would have likely ended up in the seat back. I haven't heard that happened. Everything about the back wound is a guess. Every theory has several reasons to reject it. If that's your criteria to dismiss a theory then you have to dismiss ALL of the theories regarding this wound... Can it be seen on the photos of the jacket and shirt?On the closeup photos I'd say, yes. Is it 100%? Of course not. I don't THINK that it's as easy to alter the direction of those holes as you think. Especially if you think they are real, and were made by the passage of a supersonic bullet. Is the evidence that the shot was an exit wound more likely than the evidence that it was an entrance wound? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 I posted this on the forum in 2006: SS agent William Greer was given JFK's clothes in two shopping bags at Parkland. According to an HSCA summary of an interview of Greer, he directed Rybka at Andrews Air Force Base to put "the shopping bag" containing JFK's clothes in his locker at the White House. Was he so stupid that he didn't know he should take the clothes with him along with the body for the autopsy? Wouldn't Rybka think that the clothes ought to stay with the body? Ron, I agree with all of what you said. The reasons I asked those questions is that a statement was made as a fact that no one looked at the clothes. I was asking Roy how he came to that firm conclusion. From his post I don't think he knows the answer to all of the questions I posed, and should not have turned a guess into a fact. Now if he does know the answer to those questions it lends some weight to what otherwise appears as a guess. Per their own testimony to Arlen Specter, it was Nurses Diana Bowron and Margaret Hinchcliffe that cut and removed JFK's jacket and shirt. They placed them on a shelf and continued to assist in the efforts to save JFK. According to everyone present, the trauma was packed with people. How many doctors, nurses, staff, Burkley, Greer, etc. MAY have examined them? In the testimony that I've found the nurses were not asked directly if they observed the back wound EXCEPT when JFK was still in the limo. The fact that the doctors didn't see the back wound proves nothing, because they never examined him beyond the head and throat wounds. According to their written reports, the nurses were mostly concerned with wrapping his head wound to stem the blood leakage into the casket. Like the doctors, they weren't looking for additional wounds at any time, so the fact that they don't mention a back wound is not proof that it wasn't there. Consider all the blood clots on JFK's back in the photos. Could they have missed a wound? Now they theoretically washed the blood off the body, but how thoroughly? They believed that the body was on the way to an autopsy, so would they wash 100% of the blood of the body? According to Bowron when JFK was declared dead, she and Hinchcliffe gathered up his clothing and presumably the back brace and placed them in bags. Bowron states that she personally handed them to Greer. Per Vince Palamara, Greer says he gave them to Rybka with instructions to put them in his locker in DC. You'd think that he'd bring them to the autopsy, and possibly he did. They could have been altered at the same time as the body was altered or not. He may have stashed them simply because he knew that the shooting scenario was to be altered, it may have been better to keep the clothes hidden as they MAY give the altered scenario away. Also another reason to make the autopsy appear shoddy to cast doubts on any contrary findings. This is all theory and conjecture with a few PROBABLE facts. There simply are too many answered questions to take that statement as a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 There can be no doubt that the markings are spaced a centimeter apart and not an inch. The problem is that I cannot see the marks well enough on the left half of the ruler to count them all. And distortion due to perspective prevents me from extrapolating over the left half. I'm pretty sure the ruler is a 30 cm one. I think my analysis stands. I have come to the same conclusion that it is likely a 30cm ruler. Can you re-state your results as to how far apart the 'bullet hole' in the back (per the photo) and the holes in the jacket and shirt are? IF you are interested in further measurements you MAY find the reference points stated in Boswell's HSCA testimony of interest: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 I think I can read CENTIMETER on the left. Prob can count the divisions. Might be possible to actually identify the ruler by the markings. edit add: I counted the divisions and found 5 measured as 2.5 cm (WYSIWYG) 100% zoom on my screen. So, scaling up the image to 200% gives an image pretty much to scale at 100% zoom. So saving it as PDF using PosteRazor enables printing a full scale poster. Counting the marks on here, I find there are roughly 30 markings made in centimeters. As there are 2.54 cm. to the inch, 30 cm. divided by 2.54 = 11.81 inches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 (edited) You'd think that he'd bring them to the autopsy, and possibly he did. They could have been altered at the same time as the body was altered or not. This would have had to occur on the plane -- or else Secret Service Special Agent Glenn Bennett was one of the master-minds of the cover-up. This is his contemporaneous notes written while flying back on AF1: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/exhibits/ce2112.htm <quote on> The Presidents auto moved down a slight grade and the crowd was very sparse. At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded of a firecracker. Immediately upon hearing the so called firecracker, looked at the Boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder; a second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Boss's head. <quote off> The bullet holes in the clothes are 4 inches below the bottom of the collars. Bennett either saw what he saw when he saw it -- or Bennett and Greer got into the casket while it was still on the plane, re-dressed the body in the clothing, then affected the back wound in some mysterious fashion in a location that would create nothing but problems for the 3-shot scenario. If you disbelieve the authenticity of the clothing then it's an even more elaborate scenario where the back wound was faked on another shirt and the blood splatter was added later when -- what? some homeless guy was captured and dressed up and his brains were blown out? The chain of possession for the clothing is clear, not so for the autopsy photos. Edited November 3, 2015 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now