Any prevailing theories on the back wound?

[Tom Neal]

Oh, really? Like the hole they found in the windshield? (Which had been seen by six credible witnesses, according to Doug Horne.) Oh wait... that hole subsequently disappeared, didn't it.

Yes, and we've ALL heard the controversy and the contradictory claims re the windshield. Now, tell us about ALL those who claim to have seen a bullet hole in the back seat/trunk/ or where ever...Gee, there aren't any... So how does the bullet hole in the window lend creedence to your back entrance theory?

The inside of the limo had been stripped before those folks got it.

If so, who stripped it that was in on the conspiracy or was ordered to lie?

[Sandy Larsen]

You ask, "... with no evidence to support [a bullet hole in the back seat], doesn't it seem unlikely?"

Absolutely not. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, as Carl Sagan used to say.

Based upon your above logic, because there's no evidence that Jackie pulled a gun out of her pocket and shot JFK in the back, this "theory" is also likely.

Of course that "theory" isn't likely. No conclusion can be drawn from the absence of evidence. I'm pretty sure that is what Carl Sagan meant when he used the saying I quoted, I know it is what I meant. From the absence of evidence that a bullet entered the back seat, I drew no conclusion one way or the other. In contrast, you drew the conclusion that it "seemed unlikely."

Now, lest we have to go another round of this seemingly pointless semantic-based discussion, let me explain, then, why I suggested a bullet could have gone through the back seat. I said it merely because -- given the theory under discussion -- the bullet had to go somewhere. Did I have evidence the bullet went through the back seat, like a picture of a hole? No. But neither did I have evidence that a bullet didn't go through the back seat, like a picture without a hole. So the bullet conceivably could have gone through the back seat. Which is something the theory may require.

If "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" then it isn't evidence of existence either. I'm only aware that Sagan used this analogy when questioned about other life in the universe, which given its infinite nature becomes a statistical certainty. Is a back entry wound a statistical certainty?

Sure, I cannot conclude out of thin air that a bullet went through the back seat of the car.

But obviously you can conclude that it's likely, ...

When did I use the word "likely?"

... or if you want to quibble, not unlikely.

When you asked, "doesn't it seem unlikely?" and I replied with "Absolutely not," I wasn't saying that it was therefore likely. I was saying that I disagreed with the "unlikely" assessment. Meaning that I considered it possible. (Possible, without the doubt that is associated with the word "unlikely.")

Double negatives can be confusing, so I try to avoid them. But suppose I were to use the phrase "not unlikely" to describe my position. The meaning of that phrase, according to http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/not%20unlikely , is precisely the same as what I am trying to explain here.

You also must conclude that the front exit wound is considerably smaller than the back entry wound. Can you provide evidence that this is "likely" to occur?

Again you use the word "likely" to qualify my position... for what reason I know not.

But from the accounts given it does sound like the back wound was bigger than the throat wound. I mean, before the throat surgery altered the wound. (I crossed off your words "exit" and "entry" because they are opposite of what the theory we are discussing necessitate, thus rendering the sentence confusing.)

Just like you (or I) can't conclude out of thin air that a frangible bullet was used. But if the evidence leads us to no other choice, then of course we can conclude either of these.

I have NEVER "concluded" frangible bullets were used. As I have stated in multiple posts, IMO, and with the current evidence that is the better of the possible choices. If that means I "concluded" then you and I are not reading the same dictionary.

Tom, what have I said that is making you so defensive? I know that you have never concluded that frangible bullets were used. Neither have I. (Note that my sentence refers to both of us, not just you.)

Now here is my sentence again "Just like you (or I) can't conclude out of thin air that a frangible bullet was used. But if the evidence leads us to no other choice, then of course we can conclude either of these." I didn't say here that you (or I) have concluded anything. I've only said that we CAN'T conclude it. In the second sentence, I say that we CAN conclude it. I didn't say we DID conclude it.

Okay, I may have used the word conclude somewhere when referring to your list of most likely theories. But I certainly didn't mean by it that you've made final conclusions. I just used the word casually to refer to what your current beliefs are.

Out of thin air? Do you think an FMJ made the throat wound and the back wound and didn't exit? Do you think that an FMJ disintegrated inside JFK's head leaving cone-shaped dust trails of bullet fragments?

Of course I don't. Neither you nor I concluded anything out of thin air. However, the evidence led us to no other choice than to believe a frangible bullet must have been used. That is precisely what I said could happen in the second sentence you quoted above.

Speaking of "out of thin air"... When you decide that a back entry may be more likely than a front entry with as you state 'no evidence' to back it up, who is conjuring "out of thin air"?

When did I say that? I don't remember favoring either a front or back as an entry.

With what I know now, this latest theory (latest in this thread) seems just as likely, or maybe even more so, than the frangible bullet theory. On the other hand it hasn't been thoroughly criticized. I see no reason at this time to count it out.

You are referring to the back shot entry? I'd be curious to know how many here agree that this is "maybe even more likely."

Yes, I was referring to the back entry when I commented on the frangible bullet theory. The reason I believed (at the time) that the front-to-back theory may be more likely than the frangible back entry theory is because it would explain why there was no bullet found in the body, without the difficulties a frangible bullet presents. That's all. Nobody has to agree with me. (And in fact, I no longer agree with what I said.)

I also said that the new theory hadn't been thoroughly criticized. I now have more doubt about the theory because there seems not to be a suitable origin for the bullet... no tall buildings.

[Sandy Larsen]

However, the question is: based upon his statements, do you believe that CARRICO is saying that the 'feel the back' check could have missed a 1/4" hole in JFK's back?

Oh, absolutely. That's precisely how I understood what he said. He specifically said that they determined there were no large wounds on the back. Which makes me think that is what they were primarily looking for.

[Tom Neal]

However, the question is: based upon his statements, do you believe that CARRICO is saying that the 'feel the back' check could have missed a 1/4" hole in JFK's back?

Oh, absolutely. That's precisely how I understood what he said. He specifically said that they determined there were no large wounds on the back. Which makes me think that is what they were primarily looking for.

Well, what do you know -- we CAN agree on something!

[Sandy Larsen]

Oh, really? Like the hole they found in the windshield? (Which had been seen by six credible witnesses, according to Doug Horne.) Oh wait... that hole subsequently disappeared, didn't it.

Yes, and we've ALL heard the controversy and the contradictory claims re the windshield.

No longer any controversy, Tom. You can buy a DVD and see the hole for yourself. Doug Horne says:

"Just obtain a factory-produced DVD of “The Smoking Guns,” by hook or crook (or E-Bay); put it in your DVD player; go to the specified time of 14:02 into the program; and then examine the 84 video frames, one at a time, on an HD big screen TV. You will find that video frames 1, 15, 31, 37, 47, 59, and 71 best depict the bullet hole. The 16 mm camera was hand-held, so there is some motion and some blurring of the images, and that is why some video frames are more clear than others. In my opinion, the best frames are #1 and # 71 in the windshield sequence."

Plus Horne presents six credible witnesses of the hole, and gives details on how it disappeared.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/

Now, tell us about ALL those who claim to have seen a bullet hole in the back seat/trunk/ or where ever...Gee, there aren't any...

Look, my house in San Jose was broken into and the armed burglar shot at us. We saw the hole in the window right away. It was very obvious. But it was weeks before anyone noticed we had holes in the wall as well. Even after discovering them we couldn't see them unless we got close up.

So how does the bullet hole in the window lend creedence to your back entrance theory?

The DISAPPEARING bullet hole in the window lends credence to my statement that we can't trust that the inspection would report bullets found in the back seat / trunk, as you claimed they would.

The inside of the limo had been stripped before those folks got it.

If so, who stripped it that was in on the conspiracy or was ordered to lie?

We don't know who stripped the car. It was stripped before it was received by the Ford Rouge plant in Detroit to be rebuilt. The Secret Service was in charge of the car when it was stripped.

[Sandy Larsen]

However, the question is: based upon his statements, do you believe that CARRICO is saying that the 'feel the back' check could have missed a 1/4" hole in JFK's back?

Oh, absolutely. That's precisely how I understood what he said. He specifically said that they determined there were no large wounds on the back. Which makes me think that is what they were primarily looking for.

Well, what do you know -- we CAN agree on something!

I think we a agree on a whole lot more than you think. As I've said, the frangible bullet in the back is still my top theory. It's just, for some reason, you seem to have taken it personally that I am open to the throat-to-back theory. I don't mind you asking hard questions, and in fact I think hard questions should be asked. But I feel some animosity in your posts toward me. Granted I get a little snarky too, but that is my response mechanism talking.

Something about my "absolutely not" response to your "doesn't it seem unlikely" questions seems to have set you off. I don't know.

But I still like and respect you. Of course.

[Sandy Larsen]

Something about my "absolutely not" response to your "doesn't it seem unlikely" questions seems to have set you off. I don't know.

Actually it seems that you misunderstood some things I said. For example, it appears that you thought I was saying that you concluded something "out of thin air". When in fact, I was saying rather the opposite. (Though I found out, the hard way, that I need to be careful using the "conclude" word with you. Because for some reason that word didn't go over well with you.)

Yeah, I think there must be a big misunderstanding here. And then some resulting snarkiness from both of us.

I apologize for my snarkiness. And if I said something that is offensive to you, I must say that I certainly meant no offense. But I apologize nevertheless for that too.

[Tom Neal]

I had assumed SS Glenn Bennett was one of those standing on the side rails. It's a whole new ballgame now that I know he was sitting. The bullet hole, four inches down from the top of the shoulder, had to have been above the top of the seat's back for Bennett to have seen it.

Neither Bennett nor Hickey are sitting on the seat. They are sitting up much higher than that as they do in a motorcade. Notice the heads of the agents in the rear seat. They are above the windshield.

Additionally, if you look at Willis5, Bennett and Hickey are sitting up high, not down on the seat. Bennett is also all the way to right and leaning over rather than sitting upright. JFK is also in the right rear seat up against the wall. IMO Bennett would have line-of-sight with JFK by turning his head to the left, looking between Rybka/Landis and the car, or straightening up, turning left and looking over the windshield.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Tom Neal

[Sandy Larsen]

The bullet had to be much higher up than that, up in the black area or even above that. For SS agent Glen Bennett to have witnessed the hole in Kennedy's jacket, it would have had to be above the top of the seat back.

Suppose the back wound was located just slightly above the top of the back cushion. If so, it would be possible for the bullet to enter the cushion at an angle from its top.

At what time or Z-frame do you propose JFK's back entry occurred? What was JFK's posture at the time? What was the angle of the bullets trajectory as it passed through the throat wound and exited the back wound? Do you agree that the above data is required to evaluate your "back shot entry wound" theory?

(You mean front-entry, right?)

I've always thought the throat shot occurred behind the sign. So it's hidden and therefore II can't tell precisely which frame.

I can't be sure about the posture at the time either, for the same reason. But sitting up straight would be my guess. (He was sitting up straight both before and after he was behind the sign.

Roy says the angle was about 15 degrees. Right now I see a big problem with this theory... no suitably high bullet origin on the south side of the street. So I don't want to spend time trying to determine the angle, and so forth. But I will if somebody shows there is indeed a reasonable point of origin.

Do I agree that the above data is required to evaluate the theory? Well naturally the more information that is known the better the evaluation can be. But I won't say the theory should be discarded if some of the data are unknown. That would be an unreasonable stance to take, a stance that isn't taken in regard to any of the theories.

But you know this.

[Tom Neal]

Actually it seems that you misunderstood some things I said.

I see. It was my fault. The problem is that *I* misunderstand you, whereas you of course understood everything I said, and there's NO possibility that your statements were misleading, poorly worded, or ambiguous..

For example, it appears that you thought I was saying that you concluded something "out of thin air". When in fact, I was saying rather the opposite.

I see. My fault again. I disagree 100% with this statement. That may be what you tried to say, but it is NOT what you did say.

(Though I found out, the hard way, that I need to be careful using the "conclude" word with you. Because for some reason that word didn't go over well with you.)

I see. Again my fault because you didn't know that you need to be careful using the word "concluded" with me. You don't understand the correct usage of the word.

The definition of the word per several dictionaries:

the end or finish of an event or process. "the conclusion of World War Two"

synonyms: end, ending, finish, close, termination, windup, cessation;

When something is concluded, it's over.

Yeah, I think there must be a big misunderstanding here.

I'm sure this is my fault, too. Like all 3 of your above statements. I'm not misunderstanding a thing. You made 3 statements above, and I ALONE was at fault for 100% of them.

And then some resulting snarkiness from both of us.

Based upon the above, I am OBVIOUSLY misunderstanding you for a 4th time, because stupid me thinks you are actually accepting some blame here. Luckily for me, I'm already sitting down, or I would have keeled over.

YOU LISTED SO MANY THINGS THAT I DID TO CAUSE ALL YOUR PROBLEMS THAT THE SITE REQUIRES ME TO SPLIT THIS INTO TWO SEPARATE POSTS! I AM JUST *SO* BAD!

[Tom Neal]

I apologize for my snarkiness.

And if I said something that is offensive to you, I must say that I certainly meant no offense. But I apologize nevertheless for that too.

Speaking of offensive - after blaming me for the entire situation, your attempt at being humble is "offensive."

IF you had left out every word above "I apologize for my snarkiness." this would be a reasonable apology. However, since you have chosen to assign me sole blame for everything but the snarkiness I must say this is the most self-serving "apology" that I've ever encountered.

Let's just leave it this way. I believe we should have split the blame between us, and you know that it was all my fault.

You can protest 'til Doomsday, but the facts will still be the same: You came up with 3 issues and stated all 3 were my fault alone. You might consider looking up "apology" in the dictionary so you can learn how to write one.

From my end this is over, but it's not forgotten.

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy,

There is a fatal error with your throat-entrance-back-exit idea.

You may be right that such a rotation may give you a clearance - though I doubt it. Robert is on very sound ground pointing out the impediment of the spinal column.

You doubt a clearance based on what? Did you actually rotate the 3D skeleton I linked to and look for one? If so, did you not see the clearance? I did.

Actually I was being polite. I am not convinced with your understanding of the geometry of human anatomy.

However there is a further impediment. If the source of the shot is from the north of the plaza then the direction of the bullet would be towards the left side of the body and not the right. Only a shot from the south of the plaza would allow the bullet to continue in a rightward direction.

We haven't even discussed the direction of the trajectory yet. Roy Wieselquist, who was the one to bring this theory up, said that he believes the shot came from the south. For this theory to work, there needs to be a "tall" building in that direction. I believe Roy has one in mind.

There is no building in the south plaza that would could be a source for such a shot. If Roy Wieselquist has the Post Office in mind that is just just complete nonsense and displays a complete misunderstanding of Dealey Plaza topology. Sherry Fiester “Enemy of the Truth” did promote a theory whereby the shooter was firing from the TUP. She is a highly qualified forensic scientist who has published on the JFK assassination. However - from my perspective - she lacks an understanding of trajectory analysis. I do not criticise her blood splatter analysis: I am not qualified to do so.

However firing from the south towards the car has an impediment that Sherry was never prepared - in the conversations that we had - to accept. In firing towards the car required that the shot - or shots - now had to avoid Bill Greer, Nellie Connally and John Connally. The danger presented to these individuals was created by the fact the JFK had moved his position and was limiting any possible successful through shot. One of Sherry's possible locations required the bullet to pass through Jackie Kennedy. At Z 312 Jackie is covering JFK if you are firing towards the car from the TUP.

There was even the issue of elevation and whether there was sufficient elevation to even make such a shot. What needs to be borne in mind is that a shot being fired from the north of the plaza then the the car is not an obstacle. However a shot from the south then the car becomes a severe obstacle. Where - to some degree - a shot from the north of the plaza presents an open target. But a shot from the south presents a closed target. Before reaching the target the shot has to first pass through the windscreen and then find a passage between the other occupants - and obstacles such as the divider between the Secret Service and the passengers - and the target JFK. It is just not possible.

And that does not even account for the fact that no witness claimed shots flew the central grassy area in the plaza where witnesses were positioned and were even taking pictures.

Put simply. Say the source of the shot was from the GK then - even if it actually avoided the spine - it would exit on JFK's left side and not his right side.

Yes, of course.

Those are all very good points. In particular, I would never have considered reasonable a shot that requires going through a windshield

I assumed that there must be a tall building on the south side of the street when this theory was first introduced to the thread. Without that I just can't see how the theory is supposed to work.

As for my limited understanding of human anatomy, that's the reason I used the online interactive model.

[Sandy Larsen]

I apologize for my snarkiness.

And if I said something that is offensive to you, I must say that I certainly meant no offense. But I apologize nevertheless for that too.

Speaking of offensive - after blaming me for the entire situation, your attempt at being humble is "offensive."

IF you had left out every word above "I apologize for my snarkiness." this would be a reasonable apology. However, since you have chosen to assign me sole blame for everything but the snarkiness I must say this is the most self-serving "apology" that I've ever encountered.

Let's just leave it this way. I believe we should have split the blame between us, and you know that it was all my fault.

You can protest 'til Doomsday, but the facts will still be the same: You came up with 3 issues and stated all 3 were my fault alone. You might consider looking up "apology" in the dictionary so you can learn how to write one.

From my end this is over, but it's not forgotten.

Tom,

I didn't realize that if you say somebody misunderstood you, that this means you are blaming them for the misunderstanding. That certainly wasn't my intention. I never place blame in cases of misunderstanding. I see no point in doing so.

Please see the PM I will be sending you. I want to make things right.

Sandy

[Sandy Larsen]

Hi Roy Wieselquist,

I've been your primary supporter in this thread for your throat-to-back trajectory theory. The theory looked promising to me. But right now it is suffering from an bullet-origin problem. You say that the slope of the trajectory to the throat was about 15 degrees, I believe. Robert says 20 degrees. It seems that the highest place a shot could be fired from was at the level of the RR tracks.

Do you have any further information that could bolster your case in this regard?

I've never been to Dealey Plaza. Visiting it on Google maps the other day left me with the feeling that the shooter might have had to shoot through the windshield at the height of the RR tracks. I think I saw a parking lot near the intersection of the RR tracks and the south-most lane of the roads underpassing them. I assume it is at the same level.

In my mind the theory seems dead at this point. Can you revive it? Just askin'.

[James R Gordon]

Sandy,

Clearly first hand knowledge of the Plaza is best, but an acquaintance with the geography and topology of the Plaza can be sufficient. See Image below:-

What many people do not realise is that the Plaza is a mirror image. The North and South dimensions are the same.

a) From the wall of the TSBD to the edge of the North pavement of main street is 300ft.

From the wall of the Post office to the edge of the South pavement of main street is 300ft

c) All the streets - outside the plaza - are 60ft wide. Inside the plaza they are 40ft wide.

d) From the wall of the post office to the wall of the TSBD is 660ft.

e) Elm and Commerce Streets from the bottom of the TUP to the edge of the western pavement on Houston street are 495ft. People have been known to comment that Commerce is longer: it is not.

d) Main Street from the bottom of the TUP to the edge of the western pavement on Houston street is 425ft.

The height of Houston street is 429.66ft above sea level. If we take that as 0 we can then do comparatives.

e) the bottom of the TUP is approximately 24ft lower than Houston. 404.91 HASL

f) The total height of the TUP including the handrail is 1ft lower than Houston street. 428 HASL

g) The North Car Park is 3ft lower than Houston Street. 426 HASL.

h) North and South Car Parks are the same height.

i) The track across the TUP is 2ft lower than that of the car parks

j) To seriously calculate trajectories and their angles you need to know the height of Elm Street at any specific point. The best source for that is Robert West's survey of Dealey Plaza along all his calculations of various trajectories.

k) Elm Street curves throughout its length. Although the car essentially drove down the middle of the street it also turned with the road. So at any Zapruder point you need to know what was the height of Elm street at that point; what was the curvature of the road and what implications of the position of the occupants to the source of your shot. These points have major implications as to whether any shot could be successful.

I suggest you need to know these details if you are to do any serious calculations and especially trajectory angles.