Any prevailing theories on the back wound?

[Robert Prudhomme]

When it comes to skulls, does it make a lot of difference whether you "penetrate" or "pierce"?

I was commenting on the sheriff's comment simply because we don't know how slow a bullet would have to be going to only penetrate the flesh of JFK's back a mere inch, and somehow we have come to the conclusion that this shallow penetration in flesh might be possible at 300 fps. Sheriff Baca would seem to disagree with that notion.

[Chris Newton]

300 fps is remarkably low velocity. It is in fact the industry standard highest fps allowed in paintball.

somehow we have come to the conclusion that this shallow penetration in flesh might be possible at 300 fps

Tom, would the shape of the projectile have any bearing on this ability? i.e. pointy-tipped vs. rounded?

[Glenn Nall]

The late Tom Purvis offered the theory that the bullet passed through a branch of the live oak tree outside the TSBD, which flattened it somewhat, slowed it down, caused some of the lead core to extrude from the base, and sent the bullet on a tumbling track. He believed that the reason the bullet wound in JFK's back was the shape it was [not round] was because the bullet was still tumbling...and that the tearing of the cloth of the jacket and the shirt in the fashion it did was due to the bullet striking the jacket base first, and acting more like a "wadcutter" bullet than the round-nosed projectile that started its flight. Purvis then claimed that this bullet was CE399, which did NOT strike Connally.

Many have disagreed with Purvis' theory, but Purvis also noted that at the time of the WC re-enactments in Dealy plaza, some branches from that live oak tree were trimmed...begging the question, for what purpose?

Mr. Purvis is no longer around to answer any questions about this, but there are several of us here to whom he sent copies of his work on the topic. Perhaps one of the other recipients of the Purvis materials could explain this in greater detail.

Hi Mark

The odds of a tumbling bullet just happening to strike JFK's back as the base of the bullet, in mid tumble, was presented forward are, at the very least, astronomical. Also, there would be nothing to stop the bullet from continuing to tumble as it entered JFK's back. Instead of a neat little hole, a tumbling bullet should leave a much larger furrowed oval wound, despite having entered base first.

I hate to speak ill of the dead but, I found serious flaws in a great deal of Mr. Purvis' writings, especially on the subjects of firearms, ballistics and, in particular, the 6.5 Carcano rifle.

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

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

[Glenn Nall]

i'm of the opinion that the problem lies more in the autopsy procedures and ensuing testimony than in a bullet stopping within an inch of the surface of soft tissue.

was it Lipsey? who described an unsuccessful four hour search for a missing projectile? i tend to believe lower enlisted than higher officials in this case. his story rings true. a one inch deep wound where an MD simply did a precursory probe does not.

theoretically, we have MOST CTers who believe that at least four shots were fired. we have ambiguous wounds and a navy man with little to lose telling of a certainty of a missing bullet. why make this more complicated?

[Glenn Nall]

300 fps is remarkably low velocity. It is in fact the industry standard highest fps allowed in paintball.

somehow we have come to the conclusion that this shallow penetration in flesh might be possible at 300 fps

Tom, would the shape of the projectile have any bearing on this ability? i.e. pointy-tipped vs. rounded?

i don't quite remember the speed of sound, but i know that there are guns that are made specifically to not break the sound-barrier - not that that's what was used, but if we're talking such a short distance, muzzle velocity would not have been an issue.

[Pat Speer]

When it comes to skulls, does it make a lot of difference whether you "penetrate" or "pierce"?

I was commenting on the sheriff's comment simply because we don't know how slow a bullet would have to be going to only penetrate the flesh of JFK's back a mere inch, and somehow we have come to the conclusion that this shallow penetration in flesh might be possible at 300 fps. Sheriff Baca would seem to disagree with that notion.

Penetrate means entering the skull but staying within the skull. Pierce means entering the skull and exiting the skull. It would take roughly twice as much energy to pierce a skull as opposed to simply penetrating a skull.

FWIW, the derringer bullet lodging within Lincoln's skull was traveling around 400 fps.

[Robert Prudhomme]

When it comes to skulls, does it make a lot of difference whether you "penetrate" or "pierce"?

I was commenting on the sheriff's comment simply because we don't know how slow a bullet would have to be going to only penetrate the flesh of JFK's back a mere inch, and somehow we have come to the conclusion that this shallow penetration in flesh might be possible at 300 fps. Sheriff Baca would seem to disagree with that notion.

Penetrate means entering the skull but staying within the skull. Pierce means entering the skull and exiting the skull. It would take roughly twice as much energy to pierce a skull as opposed to simply penetrating a skull.

FWIW, the derringer bullet lodging within Lincoln's skull was traveling around 400 fps.

Interesting. I never knew the difference but now I do.

Only 400 fps? Wow, we might have to lower the velocity of the "short shot" a little bit here.

[Sandy Larsen]

.

As I recall, CE-399 had not a trace of "organic material" adhering to it. Not that I would otherwise accept the SBT, but in addition to flesh, blood and bone, JBC's clothing was made of organic fiber. This bullet allegedly passed through JFK's neck, JBC's Jacket, shirt, chest, shirt, jacket, jacket sleeve, wrist, trousers, thigh and struck bone. Yet no organic material was present on CE-399?

I for one don't believe the Carcano was even fired on 11/22. Which means I believe CE-399 was planted. It may have been planted in the limo first and then moved to the stretcher, or planted directly on the stretcher. Makes no difference to me.

.

At the moment I can only accept two possible scenarios:

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

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

Again I agree with you, Tom.

I also agree with Robert's assessment that the back wound probing was likely a charade.

One important question comes to mind: Why is it that none of the Bethesda technicians, etc., who have talked to researchers, haven't mentioned a collapsed lung? Is that something that would have been obvious when the chest was opened up? Even to personnel with limited medical knowledge? Could Humes have opened up the chest cavity, noticed a collapsed lung, kept that information to himself, and gotten away with it?

Robert? Anyone?

Of course we need to keep in mind that personnel were asked to leave and return at certain points during the autopsy, a process which I believe was meant to compartmentalize information. I'm talking about the pre-autopsy activities here.

Does anybody recall if personnel were asked to leave even during parts of the official autopsy, which began around 8:00 PM?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Jerrol Custer, who was the x-ray technician during the autopsy, told ARRB interviewers that he and assistant were not present when the "Y" incision was made and the chest organs removed. Other than that, I have not seen any reference made by one of the technicians regarding the lungs.

[Sandy Larsen]

300 fps is remarkably low velocity. It is in fact the industry standard highest fps allowed in paintball.

Keep in mind, though, that velocity is only one factor. The mass of the projectile is another... the lower the mass, the lower the kinetic energy of the projectile. Also the tip shape... a broad point will distribute the force across are larger surface area of the target, making it less likely to penetrate.

If a paintball has a broad, rounded tip, right? If it also has a significantly smaller mass than a rifle bullet, then the fact that it doesn't penetrate the skin doesn't tell us much about what a bullet could do.

[Sandy Larsen]

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

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

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

There are just too many problems with the idea:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert, can you comment on this?

Tom, have you ruled out #3?

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

Edited October 23, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[Chris Newton]

If a paintball has a broad, rounded tip, right? If it also has a significantly smaller mass than a rifle bullet, then the fact that it doesn't penetrate the skin doesn't tell us much about what a bullet could do.

Thanks Sandy. I was really only trying to point out how low that FPS is. I am aware of the factors and wasn't suggesting it would penetrate the skin although I have seen some bloody welts

280-300 fps is also a common velocity for an arrow fired from a bow which could certainly penetrate the skin (no I'm not suggesting JFK was killed by indians).

Edited October 22, 2015 by Chris Newton

[Tom Neal]

If Humes did any probing of the back wound, it was all part of a charade.

Hey Bob,

Any thoughts as to how much damage a frangible bullet would do to the pleura and lung(s) with a T3 entry? Would the bullet pass through enough soft tissue to break up before it entered the air-filled lung? If not, it may have left a single hole in the pleura and posterior side of the lung, possibly breaking up as it passed through the lung tissue, or fragmenting only when it encountered the anterior side of the lung, pleura, chest wall, ribs, etc.

I've come to the conclusion that neither an FMJ nor a frangible bullet could cause the shallow back wound as described by Humes. i.e. Not deep enough to pass through the pleura. Even an 'exotic' bullet seems unlikely to have stopped short of the pleura, although I'm certainly willing to change my mind if new information on ice bullets, mercury bullets, blood soluble bullets, etc. appears.

IMO the pleura was penetrated as was the lung.

If Humes admitted the back wound continued into the lung at T3, that would be the end of the fiction that the back wound was actually

a base of the neck wound connecting to the throat wound. Thus, a 4th shot is required and no more Lone Gunman.

Tom

[Tom Neal]

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

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

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

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

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

Tom, have you ruled out #3?

An FMJ would almost certainly have exited JFK's chest, so frangible bullet fragments lodged somewhere in the lung or chest wall would be the result of my scenario #1.

[Robert Prudhomme]

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

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

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

There are just too many problems with the idea:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert, can you comment on this?

Tom, have you ruled out #3?

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

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

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