Any prevailing theories on the back wound?

[Gary Murr]

Robert:

One quick question for you; if frangible ammunition, particularly Carcano M37 Magistri was used as you theorize, and this theory is IMO not without merit, from where was this particular and specific ammunition obtained? Also, why not give the member of the IAA Forum credit for his bullet cut-away diagrams that you are using.

Gary

[Robert Prudhomme]

Well, as you pointed out, there are some definite problems with my theory, such as the angle from EOP to C3/C4 to throat being a bit on the steep side, and Jenkins claim that he could see the probe pushing up against the pleura, but not actually finding a path through it.

I've always had trouble with Jenkins' stating he saw a probe pushing the pleural lining and how he viewed this from the inside of the empty pleural cavity. In his HSCA interview with Andy Purdy, he describes it as an 8 inch metal probe, and that 2-4 inches of this probe was inserted into the back wound. It is my belief that there is simply not 2-4 inches of tissue, between the skin and the pleural lining, and this is confirmed by Jenkins telling Purdy that the only way this probe could be inserted was almost straight downward or, as he put it, at a "...fairly drastic angle downward so as not to enter the cavity."

Considering the overlying muscles of the back and the intercostal muscles between the ribs together do not amount to any great thickness, my question is, why were they attempting to probe this wound with a metal probe? A basic knowledge of human anatomy is enough to tell us that an entrance wound between the vertebrae and the shoulder blade, at the level of T3, is directly over the top of the right lung, and does not have to travel through very much flesh to get to it.

And why would the probe be forced straight down, likely parallel to the rib cage? Did someone think JFK was shot from a helicopter? This, combined with the very shallow depth of the tissue they were probing (before they would have put the probe into the pleural cavity), tells me something very odd was going on here.

This is slightly off topic but, does anyone know what became of the section of the rear of JFK's head that Clint Hill observed lying on the back seat of the limo?

P.S.

Interesting point you made, Sandy, about the lower quality of the portable x-ray machines. Would this be compounded by the fact the portable x-ray machine they used might have been a late 50's (or older) model? That would certainly explain the oddity of slicing up all of the organs in their search for a bullet. Call me stupid but, why not just take the organs to the stationary x-ray unit and get a better look?

Edited November 8, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

Robert:

One quick question for you; if frangible ammunition, particularly Carcano M37 Magistri was used as you theorize, and this theory is IMO not without merit, from where was this particular and specific ammunition obtained? Also, why not give the member of the IAA Forum credit for his bullet cut-away diagrams that you are using.

Gary

Hi Gary

You realize, of course, it is entirely theoretical on my part that 6.5mm Carcano M37 Magistri frangible range bullets were used in the assassination. That being said, I have been able to verify that standard 6.5mm Carcano ball ammunition was being made by the Italian government, right up until the early 1970's. It seems the Carcano rifles were still being used by the Italian correctional system until that late date. Also, as the M91/41 Carcano long rifle was a very accurate weapon, the Italian rifle team was still shooting it in international competitions right into the late 1960's. While it would make sense they would be manufacturing the frangible range bullet, for indoor target shooting, as well as the standard ball ammunition, I have been unable to make a real verification that any frangible range ammunition was made following WWII. This, of course, presents the very real possibility the cartridges loaded with frangible bullets would be twenty years old and, with the problems experienced with deteriorated Italian ammunition, quite unreliable by 1963. However, this problem could easily be overcome by pulling the frangible bullets from the Italian cartridges, and reloading them into new cartridges, such as the American made Western Cartridge Co. cartridges. At this point, the gunpowder in each cartridge could be precisely measured (more precisely than the factory would have) to guarantee each cartridge had an equal portion of gunpowder, thus guaranteeing greater accuracy. This last is, of course, one of the reasons why hand loaded ammunition will shoot much more accurately than "factory ammo".

P.S.

You're right, I should be giving credit where credit is due. However, I obtained that photo from a Google search, and did not actually visit the IAA Forum to retrieve it. Fascinating ammo though, eh? The cartridge next to the frangible cartridge is a Carcano armour piercing round, and beside that are three "guard" cartridges containing a tube loaded with individual balls, This tube, much like a bullet jacket, was extremely thin and often slotted lengthwise. Upon leaving the muzzle, this tube would tear apart, leaving the balls to fly through the air like buckshot from a shotgun. Great crowd control.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Further evidence of post WWII production of 6.5mm Carcano ammunition can be seen on the en bloc clip purportedly found in C2766. On its base is stamped "953", meaning a manufacture date of 1953.

[Tom Neal]

Interesting point you made, Sandy, about the lower quality of the portable x-ray machines. That would certainly explain the oddity of slicing up all of the organs in their search for a bullet. Call me stupid but, why not just take the organs to the stationary x-ray unit and get a better look?

Robert and Sandy,

In my post #317-806 on 11-04-2015 I pointed out that the radiology techs stated that the portable x-ray machine was low resolution and only good enough to find bullets or large fragments. I stated the same conclusion that you did. i.e. Why chop up the lungs looking for bullets/fragments when you could send the right lung with one of the techs to use the available high-res x-ray machine? Unless of course your goal was to destroy the evidence of a perforated lung with dust-like "particles that look like metal but are actually dirt" to quote Ebersole and the HSCA. And of course the sole x-ray of the lungs has disappeared from the archives.

Tom

[Roy Wieselquist]

Conspiracy Reporters, I'm not married to the idea that Greer tried to elevate JFK's seat to give a clearer sight-line to the French/Corsican sniper team on the South Grassy Knoll. I AM still married to the idea that the back wound is an EXIT, shot from his left-front, from that slope between the Postal Bldg car park and the RR tracks. I may delete that whole point "3." in post #414, where I "reach" for more ways that JFK's throat could have been more exposed, could have cleared the big, flat roof support of the limo in a line to SGK. Wild conjectures give us CRs a bad name.

First, let me tell you what I did find from Jim Bishop's The Day Kennedy Was Shot regarding the back seat of the limo. Not much. Page 91--The PRESIDENT had the lever and "could lift the back seat 10 1/2 inches". In the lowest position the First Couple were "little more than 3 inches above their guests." I've seen 2 inches elsewhere, even on this thread I believe. What's a little suspicious: I have a note beside this passage iln my copy, "3rd time stated." As if JB doth protest too much about precisely this, the elevation of K in the limo.

Anyway, the importance of this point is miniscule. It's like a hair on an elephant. At Z190, before the front bumper of the limo reached the Stemmons sign, someone on SGK could have fired (with a sound-suppressor of course) a shot that entered the president's throat, grazed his right lung, and exited his back. And he still could have said, as Kellerman reported, "My God, I'm hit."

[Sandy Larsen]

Interesting point you made, Sandy, about the lower quality of the portable x-ray machines. That would certainly explain the oddity of slicing up all of the organs in their search for a bullet. Call me stupid but, why not just take the organs to the stationary x-ray unit and get a better look?

Robert and Sandy,

In my post #317-806 on 11-04-2015 I pointed out that the radiology techs stated that the portable x-ray machine was low resolution and only good enough to find bullets or large fragments. I stated the same conclusion that you did. i.e. Why chop up the lungs looking for bullets/fragments when you could send the right lung with one of the techs to use the available high-res x-ray machine? Unless of course your goal was to destroy the evidence of a perforated lung with dust-like "particles that look like metal but are actually dirt" to quote Ebersole and the HSCA. And of course the sole x-ray of the lungs has disappeared from the archives.

Tom

Tom,

Thanks for bringing up again the info on the portable x-ray machine. I couldn't remember who had posted it and I'd forgotten the details (low resolution, etc.)

Do you know if the portable unit was used for all the x-rays? It seems likely, as I don't recall any mention of JFK's body being moved, for example to be x-rayed with a regular machine.

However, we need to keep in mind that there was a period of time (about an hour?) when Humes had the body before the gallery was filled and the official autopsy began. The so-call pre-autopsy autopsy period that most people are unaware of. A regular x-ray machine might have been used then.

A regular x-ray machine would have definitely produce better images than a portable. Though, as I understand it, a portable would work fine for areas with less mass, like the limbs. Maybe even so for the lungs, given that much of that area is air.

Tom said:

Why chop up the lungs looking for bullets/fragments when you could send the right lung with one of the techs to use the available high-res x-ray machine? Unless of course your goal was to destroy the evidence of a perforated lung with dust-like "particles that look like metal but are actually dirt" to quote Ebersole and the HSCA.

Because of Lt. Lipsey's testimony that the surgeons spent a large portion of the autopsy looking for the back wound bullet, I'm not ready to (preliminarily) conclude that the purpose of slicing up the organs wasn't to find bullet fragments from the back wound. But the part about dust-like particles looking like metal to a radiologist, Dr. Ebersole, certainly grabs my attention, particularly in light of this frangible/exotic bullet discussion. Unexposed film in hospitals doesn't get dirty. There had to have been something in the body capable of blocking x-rays enough to make a noticeable image on the film, IMO.

Robert said:

Call me stupid but, why not just take the organs to the stationary x-ray unit and get a better look?

Impatience? X-rays had already been taken... some people don't like to do things twice.

Or maybe they figured the first x-ray of the lungs was good enough, if it's the case that a portable x-ray machine give a reasonably good image of the less-massive lung area.

I'm just throwing these ideas out.

[Sandy Larsen]

Well, as you pointed out, there are some definite problems with my theory, such as the angle from EOP to C3/C4 to throat being a bit on the steep side, and Jenkins claim that he could see the probe pushing up against the pleura, but not actually finding a path through it.

Here's a thought: Given the angle of the EOP, could the bullet have hit near the bottom of the skull, around the superior nuchal line, created a small hole through the skull through which a fragment of the bullet entered, while the remainder of the bullet broke up and was deflected downward toward C3/C4? (Sorry if this sounds like another magic bullet.)

(BTW, don't feel compelled to respond if I throw out a silly idea. Ones like this one are meant to hopefully trigger thoughts in your mind that are more reasonable than mine.)

I wonder what it was that "convinced" the surgeons that a fragment of this bullet is what exited the throat. Knowing that would be helpful.

I've always had trouble with Jenkins' stating he saw a probe pushing the pleural lining and how he viewed this from the inside of the empty pleural cavity. In his HSCA interview with Andy Purdy, he describes it as an 8 inch metal probe, and that 2-4 inches of this probe was inserted into the back wound. It is my belief that there is simply not 2-4 inches of tissue, between the skin and the pleural lining, and this is confirmed by Jenkins telling Purdy that the only way this probe could be inserted was almost straight downward or, as he put it, at a "...fairly drastic angle downward so as not to enter the cavity."

Here's a thought (that I may have already stated long ago): Humes is told just prior to the autopsy that, among other things, he is not to find a collapsed lung. So when he's looking for the back-wound bullet fragments, he intentionally pushes the probe in the wrong direction, through intact muscle, just to show whoever's watching (Jenkins) that the pleura (and thus the lung) wasn't penetrated. But then, this would be a part of the "charade" idea.

Again, just throwing ideas out.

Considering the overlying muscles of the back and the intercostal muscles between the ribs together do not amount to any great thickness, my question is, why were they attempting to probe this wound with a metal probe? A basic knowledge of human anatomy is enough to tell us that an entrance wound between the vertebrae and the shoulder blade, at the level of T3, is directly over the top of the right lung, and does not have to travel through very much flesh to get to it.

And why would the probe be forced straight down, likely parallel to the rib cage? Did someone think JFK was shot from a helicopter? This, combined with the very shallow depth of the tissue they were probing (before they would have put the probe into the pleural cavity), tells me something very odd was going on here.

This is slightly off topic but, does anyone know what became of the section of the rear of JFK's head that Clint Hill observed lying on the back seat of the limo?

P.S.

Interesting point you made, Sandy, about the lower quality of the portable x-ray machines. Would this be compounded by the fact the portable x-ray machine they used might have been a late 50's (or older) model? That would certainly explain the oddity of slicing up all of the organs in their search for a bullet. Call me stupid but, why not just take the organs to the stationary x-ray unit and get a better look?

The reason a stationary x-ray machine produces better images than a portable is because they can produce higher energy x-rays than portable units can. To produce higher energy x-rays, an x-ray system needs two things: 1) A higher-power power supply unit, and 2) a way to cool an x-ray tube that will be hotter. A stationary x-ray machine has a very bulky and heavy power supply that resides in a nearby cabinet. And it has a bulky and heavy heat sink attached to the tube.

With today's technology, a higher-powered power supply unit could definitely be designed to fit inside a portable x-ray machine. So MAYBE today's portables are better than those of the 1950s/60s. However, if cooling the tube is the limiting factor, then no, today's portables probably aren't much better.

Unfortunately I don't know if the limiting factor in the older portables was the power supply or the cooling of the tube. So I can't answer your question. based on those factors. However, the mere fact that they had and used portable machines back then, and complained of their resolution just as they do today, makes me think that the performance of portables probably hasn't changed much. Because I'm pretty sure the performance of stationary ones hasn't either. Tube technology for traditional x-raying was pretty mature in the 1950s/60s.

[Sandy Larsen]

At Z190, before the front bumper of the limo reached the Stemmons sign, someone on SGK could have fired (with a sound-suppressor of course) a shot that entered the president's throat, grazed his right lung, and exited his back.

Roy, I'd like to see a diagram showing how that could be done. A cross sectional view of the plaza showing how a trajectory from the south knoll could possibly hit JFK's neck without hitting the windshield or the bar the runs across and above the passenger/driver partition.

[Ray Mitcham]

Strange that one minute this flat bed truck has a man in the back, then it has a cover.

[Sandy Larsen]

Strange that one minute this flat bed truck has a man in the back, then it has a cover.

Ray,

To me it looks like the guy is standing behind the truck.

But I think you're posting this in the wrong thread.

[Gary Murr]

Robert:

One quick question for you; if frangible ammunition, particularly Carcano M37 Magistri was used as you theorize, and this theory is IMO not without merit, from where was this particular and specific ammunition obtained? Also, why not give the member of the IAA Forum credit for his bullet cut-away diagrams that you are using.

Gary

Hi Gary

You realize, of course, it is entirely theoretical on my part that 6.5mm Carcano M37 Magistri frangible range bullets were used in the assassination. That being said, I have been able to verify that standard 6.5mm Carcano ball ammunition was being made by the Italian government, right up until the early 1970's. It seems the Carcano rifles were still being used by the Italian correctional system until that late date. Also, as the M91/41 Carcano long rifle was a very accurate weapon, the Italian rifle team was still shooting it in international competitions right into the late 1960's. While it would make sense they would be manufacturing the frangible range bullet, for indoor target shooting, as well as the standard ball ammunition, I have been unable to make a real verification that any frangible range ammunition was made following WWII. This, of course, presents the very real possibility the cartridges loaded with frangible bullets would be twenty years old and, with the problems experienced with deteriorated Italian ammunition, quite unreliable by 1963. However, this problem could easily be overcome by pulling the frangible bullets from the Italian cartridges, and reloading them into new cartridges, such as the American made Western Cartridge Co. cartridges. At this point, the gunpowder in each cartridge could be precisely measured (more precisely than the factory would have) to guarantee each cartridge had an equal portion of gunpowder, thus guaranteeing greater accuracy. This last is, of course, one of the reasons why hand loaded ammunition will shoot much more accurately than "factory ammo".

P.S.

You're right, I should be giving credit where credit is due. However, I obtained that photo from a Google search, and did not actually visit the IAA Forum to retrieve it. Fascinating ammo though, eh? The cartridge next to the frangible cartridge is a Carcano armour piercing round, and beside that are three "guard" cartridges containing a tube loaded with individual balls, This tube, much like a bullet jacket, was extremely thin and often slotted lengthwise. Upon leaving the muzzle, this tube would tear apart, leaving the balls to fly through the air like buckshot from a shotgun. Great crowd control.

Hi Bob:

Thanks for the response and again I agree with much of what you have indicated herein. I have checked with numerous sources that I have been in contact with over the past eight years regarding the issue of precise manufacturing dates of frangible Carcano ammunition, sources both close to home [i.e. North America] and in particular sources in Italy. They are in agreement that post WW II production of this ammunition appears virtually non-existent and is considered today to be a "collectors" item of interest and scarcity. You are also correct in indicating that if, and it is to this point in time an "if", ammunition of this nature of Italian manufacture was used in the assassination its reliability would be reasonably called into question. I do agree that there would be nothing to stop someone from acquiring from somewhere frangible Carcano ammunition and reloading the bullet component into the 6.5mm cartridge manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company. And again you are absolutely correct to indicate that if this was done whomever did so would have to have a fairly concise knowledge of the powder "loads" needed to make this new hybrid work efficiently in the weapon [Carcano] of their choice and in particular the powder load used by the WCC.

Not to give too much away here, because I will be touching on some of these issues during the upcoming Lancer conference, but what I have discovered over the past eight years of research is that everything, and I do mean everything, about the 6.5mm MC ammunition manufactured by Western was unique, from the plain white folding boxes that held 20 rounds each to the powder loaded into the cartridge by Western. It was a powder unlike any other IMR powder of the times [i.e. the early 1950's] and a powder that as far as I have been able to ascertain was never used by Western again in any other military cartridge they manufactured after the completion in 1954 of the initial contract of the four million rounds. And it would turn out to be a critical issue. One area of my research that I continue to follow is that it appears that pressure test results conducted on the Western 6.5mm MC ammo failed to meet the standards set by the original contractor of this ammunition and for this reason this same contractor eventually rejected delivery of the ammunition. Pieces of information to buttress this contention have only come to me over the past couple of months and so it is a "fresh" lead, so to speak, that awaits more confirmation from currently what are two very different sources, one a relative of an individual involved in the original testing procedures and the other the transfer of thousands of pages of newly released microfiche records to digital medium by the historical branch of the U.S. Army's Joint Military Command.

Gary

[Robert Prudhomme]

Robert:

One quick question for you; if frangible ammunition, particularly Carcano M37 Magistri was used as you theorize, and this theory is IMO not without merit, from where was this particular and specific ammunition obtained? Also, why not give the member of the IAA Forum credit for his bullet cut-away diagrams that you are using.

Gary

Hi Gary

You realize, of course, it is entirely theoretical on my part that 6.5mm Carcano M37 Magistri frangible range bullets were used in the assassination. That being said, I have been able to verify that standard 6.5mm Carcano ball ammunition was being made by the Italian government, right up until the early 1970's. It seems the Carcano rifles were still being used by the Italian correctional system until that late date. Also, as the M91/41 Carcano long rifle was a very accurate weapon, the Italian rifle team was still shooting it in international competitions right into the late 1960's. While it would make sense they would be manufacturing the frangible range bullet, for indoor target shooting, as well as the standard ball ammunition, I have been unable to make a real verification that any frangible range ammunition was made following WWII. This, of course, presents the very real possibility the cartridges loaded with frangible bullets would be twenty years old and, with the problems experienced with deteriorated Italian ammunition, quite unreliable by 1963. However, this problem could easily be overcome by pulling the frangible bullets from the Italian cartridges, and reloading them into new cartridges, such as the American made Western Cartridge Co. cartridges. At this point, the gunpowder in each cartridge could be precisely measured (more precisely than the factory would have) to guarantee each cartridge had an equal portion of gunpowder, thus guaranteeing greater accuracy. This last is, of course, one of the reasons why hand loaded ammunition will shoot much more accurately than "factory ammo".

P.S.

You're right, I should be giving credit where credit is due. However, I obtained that photo from a Google search, and did not actually visit the IAA Forum to retrieve it. Fascinating ammo though, eh? The cartridge next to the frangible cartridge is a Carcano armour piercing round, and beside that are three "guard" cartridges containing a tube loaded with individual balls, This tube, much like a bullet jacket, was extremely thin and often slotted lengthwise. Upon leaving the muzzle, this tube would tear apart, leaving the balls to fly through the air like buckshot from a shotgun. Great crowd control.

Hi Bob:

Thanks for the response and again I agree with much of what you have indicated herein. I have checked with numerous sources that I have been in contact with over the past eight years regarding the issue of precise manufacturing dates of frangible Carcano ammunition, sources both close to home [i.e. North America] and in particular sources in Italy. They are in agreement that post WW II production of this ammunition appears virtually non-existent and is considered today to be a "collectors" item of interest and scarcity. You are also correct in indicating that if, and it is to this point in time an "if", ammunition of this nature of Italian manufacture was used in the assassination its reliability would be reasonably called into question. I do agree that there would be nothing to stop someone from acquiring from somewhere frangible Carcano ammunition and reloading the bullet component into the 6.5mm cartridge manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company. And again you are absolutely correct to indicate that if this was done whomever did so would have to have a fairly concise knowledge of the powder "loads" needed to make this new hybrid work efficiently in the weapon [Carcano] of their choice and in particular the powder load used by the WCC.

Not to give too much away here, because I will be touching on some of these issues during the upcoming Lancer conference, but what I have discovered over the past eight years of research is that everything, and I do mean everything, about the 6.5mm MC ammunition manufactured by Western was unique, from the plain white folding boxes that held 20 rounds each to the powder loaded into the cartridge by Western. It was a powder unlike any other IMR powder of the times [i.e. the early 1950's] and a powder that as far as I have been able to ascertain was never used by Western again in any other military cartridge they manufactured after the completion in 1954 of the initial contract of the four million rounds. And it would turn out to be a critical issue. One area of my research that I continue to follow is that it appears that pressure test results conducted on the Western 6.5mm MC ammo failed to meet the standards set by the original contractor of this ammunition and for this reason this same contractor eventually rejected delivery of the ammunition. Pieces of information to buttress this contention have only come to me over the past couple of months and so it is a "fresh" lead, so to speak, that awaits more confirmation from currently what are two very different sources, one a relative of an individual involved in the original testing procedures and the other the transfer of thousands of pages of newly released microfiche records to digital medium by the historical branch of the U.S. Army's Joint Military Command.

Gary

Hi Gary

I don't know if this will help you or not but, it has been recommended by several hand loading experts that a very slow burning gunpowder be used when handloading the Norma .268" bullets that were especially designed to be shot from the Carcano rifles. As the Carcano has much deeper rifling grooves than other 6.5mm rifles, the slower burning powder is supposed to give the .268" bullet a chance to get moving through the harder to overcome rifling grooves before dangerously elevated gas pressures are created behind the bullet. It has also been reported that this is one of the reasons the barrels were cut with "progressive twist" rifling grooves, as it was believed that trying to get the bullet spinning quickly right out of the chamber in those deep grooves would lead to excessive barrel wear at the chamber end.

Could this perhaps be why the Western ammunition might have failed the pressure tests?

Edited November 9, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Gary Murr]

Hi Bob:

This is a possibility and one that I will bounce off of some of my contacts. The entire testing procedure this ammunition underwent is interesting and I do examine and explain this in detail in the forthcoming "Forgotten." Again I do not want to give away to much here and I apologize for this but there were two different sets of tests conducted with a sample lot of 2000 rounds, the first conducted by Western ballistics personnel in conjunction with the OSAAC - the Ordnance Small Arms Ammunition Center - these tests involving the results "specifics" of things such as fps, pressure readings, dry tests, wet tests, etc. The second set of tests were requested specifically by Western and involved what they termed as the "serviceability" of the ammunition in a variety of different weapons. These tests were not conducted by Western. The interesting thing about the test procedures is that the costs incurred were "paid" out of the TS1-2 project fund, a fund that remains, in the main, shrouded in secrecy. Nobody really knows just how many ballistics related projects eventually comprised this venture, and there are TS1-2 reports numbered into the 70's but one of its initial and lengthier expenditures involved the SCHV program - Small Caliber High Velocity small arms experimentations of the early years of the Cold War undertaken by individuals such as Gerald Gustafson. There is a lengthy chapter on this in "Forgotten" and curiously enough though the serviceability tests proved the ammunition to be more than "serviceable" there were "failures to fire", all of which were mechanical in nature and did not involved the construct of the 6.5mm WCC cartridge and bullet itself. Further comparative tests were recommended but none occurred and less than two weeks after this the first lot of one million rounds of ammunition underwent production at Western.

FWIW

Gary

[Ray Mitcham]

Strange that one minute this flat bed truck has a man in the back, then it has a cover.

Ray,

To me it looks like the guy is standing behind the truck.

But I think you're posting this in the wrong thread.

Hi Sandy,

If you enlarge the photo, you will see that he appears to be in the back of the truck.

I posted it here because you were talking about shots from the South Knoll.