Glenn Nall Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 I still find it somewhat odd that Humes would declare his finger had bottomed out in the back wound, and then still attempt to explore this wound with a probe after the lungs had been removed. If Humes knew anything about human anatomy, which I assume he did, being a doctor, he would know the thickness between the outer back and the pleural lining was not very thick, and a probe could not have gone any further than his finger without entering the pleural cavity. Was he trying to determine if there was a bullet hole in the pleura? A quick look with a flashlight inside the pleural cavity would have determined that. Are you aware that one witness (at least) later described to a researcher how the autopsy physicians were at one point probing all over the place, trying to figure out the path(s) of the bullet(s)? Unfortunately I don't remember who it was that gave the interview, and I don't remember if they were probing primarily from the throat wound or back wound. But I'm pretty sure the person said they did try to see if there was a path from the back wound to the throat. Or if such a path was possible. The reason I make a point of this is perhaps it explains why Humes probed through to the pleura. Having probed everywhere else, why not there too? Upon read the description of this probing, I came away with the impression that it was a far-from-methodical thing. More like frantically looking for an explanation. If the back wound was at the level of thoracic vertebra T3, as claimed by many witnesses, and Humes knew the basics of human anatomy (one would assume a doctor of his standing would have such knowledge), he would have been aware of the fact the only way to get to the throat wound, from the back wound, was by going through the top of the right lung. As Paul O'Connors' sketch clearly shows, there is only a thin layer of skin, intercostal muscle and ribs between the outside and the pleura. If Humes did any probing of the back wound, it was all part of a charade. this is what my question is - why is it assumed that there was a shallow wound? it sounds almost as if people think this is a given, but given the propensity of those involved in the autopsy to be disingenuous, isn't it more possible that it was simply a bullet wound that was disguised as superficial or whatever? this "probe" that's described sounds much more suspect than a low velocity, "puncture wound." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 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). sure, but CAN IT BE PROVED that there was no Indian in the TSBD? I mean, if the three empty bullet casings prove that LHO orchestrated, perpetrated and fled, just because there were no unused arrows left behind does not prove that K was not shot by an Apache or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 sure, but CAN IT BE PROVED that there was no Indian in the TSBD? I mean, if the three empty bullet casings prove that LHO orchestrated, perpetrated and fled, just because there were no unused arrows left behind does not prove that K was not shot by an Apache or two. this is so far off subject, I hope the forum gods will forgive me... Glen, no one saw or heard arrows (I suppose they swoosh or something) but an arrow tipped with a target point that was subsequently pulled out could account for the wound and missing projectile in JFK's back. I suppose they could have accomplished this archery down in the baggage compartment of Air Force One.... No, I think it was Cowboys not Indians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 "one witness (at least) later described to a researcher how the autopsy physicians were at one point probing all over the place" Sandy, to my potentially limited recollection, that was Lipsey describing an extensive and unsuccessful search for a missing bullet, and I think that even at that time the point he was making was that considering the time spent by the doctors in this search, and that it proved fruitless, they were completely convinced that there was, and remained, a missing bullet. and that it was never mentioned in any testimony. but my memory has proven faulty before. I lost a bar bet last week that the West won the Civil War, so I encourage people to listen carefully to my nuance. I also like to encourage people to remind me what the word nuance means. anyway. as i'd stated in an earlier post, I trust Lipsey's words many more times than I do Humes' or the rest of those cluster-wearing inbreds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) sure, but CAN IT BE PROVED that there was no Indian in the TSBD? I mean, if the three empty bullet casings prove that LHO orchestrated, perpetrated and fled, just because there were no unused arrows left behind does not prove that K was not shot by an Apache or two. this is so far off subject, I hope the forum gods will forgive me... Glen, no one saw or heard arrows (I suppose they swoosh or something) but an arrow tipped with a target point that was subsequently pulled out could account for the wound and missing projectile in JFK's back. I suppose they could have accomplished this archery down in the baggage compartment of Air Force One.... No, I think it was Cowboys not Indians. Well, NOW. I wish to give a nod to this most terrific and appropriate analogy in the name of really bad humor. Chris - great shot: yes, i was simply injecting a little levity in the hopes of "loosening up the crowd." It was not my intention to provide such an appropriate back door to the issue at hand, which is, if you've read Oglesby's The Yankee and Cowboy War, you know that the group of malcontents that Carl labeled Cowboys are exactly and most likely those that did, in fact, orchestrate this "coup" (i don't use that word lightly). Yours was such a perfect response, intentional or not - it wasn't the Yankee Establishment that killed one of their own - (it's pretty unlikely that an Apache or Commanche Indian did it) - it was beget from the Cowboy Establishment, the rock out from under which crawled such creatures as Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, the Cabell Brothers, ad nauseum. Perfect response. It were Cowboys. No, you're not at all off subject. I was. You segued us back. nice shot PS - If you've not read this book, you should be ashamed of yourself. seriously. Edited October 22, 2015 by Glenn Nall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I still find it somewhat odd that Humes would declare his finger had bottomed out in the back wound, and then still attempt to explore this wound with a probe after the lungs had been removed. If Humes knew anything about human anatomy, which I assume he did, being a doctor, he would know the thickness between the outer back and the pleural lining was not very thick, and a probe could not have gone any further than his finger without entering the pleural cavity. Was he trying to determine if there was a bullet hole in the pleura? A quick look with a flashlight inside the pleural cavity would have determined that. Are you aware that one witness (at least) later described to a researcher how the autopsy physicians were at one point probing all over the place, trying to figure out the path(s) of the bullet(s)? Unfortunately I don't remember who it was that gave the interview, and I don't remember if they were probing primarily from the throat wound or back wound. But I'm pretty sure the person said they did try to see if there was a path from the back wound to the throat. Or if such a path was possible. The reason I make a point of this is perhaps it explains why Humes probed through to the pleura. Having probed everywhere else, why not there too? Upon read the description of this probing, I came away with the impression that it was a far-from-methodical thing. More like frantically looking for an explanation. If the back wound was at the level of thoracic vertebra T3, as claimed by many witnesses, and Humes knew the basics of human anatomy (one would assume a doctor of his standing would have such knowledge), he would have been aware of the fact the only way to get to the throat wound, from the back wound, was by going through the top of the right lung. As Paul O'Connors' sketch clearly shows, there is only a thin layer of skin, intercostal muscle and ribs between the outside and the pleura. If Humes did any probing of the back wound, it was all part of a charade. this is what my question is - why is it assumed that there was a shallow wound? it sounds almost as if people think this is a given, but given the propensity of those involved in the autopsy to be disingenuous, isn't it more possible that it was simply a bullet wound that was disguised as superficial or whatever? this "probe" that's described sounds much more suspect than a low velocity, "puncture wound." Hi Glenn I'm not sure you quite understand what I am saying when I say any probing of the back wound was part of a charade. If the back wound was indeed 1.5-2 inches to the right of the spinal midline, as seems to be the overwhelming consensus of witnesses at Bethesda, any first year medical student (hell, any high school student with an interest in anatomy) would know the bullet could not penetrate much more than an inch through intercostal tissue before entering the pleural cavity and, inevitably, the right lung. In other words, any probe over 2 inches long would be in JFK's right lung. It is quite simple; the entrance wound location described by most witnesses is directly over the top of the right lung. If this probing was conducted before the lungs were removed, the probe would easily poke through the soft lung in any direction he probed, and tell him absolutely nothing. If this probing of the back wound took place AFTER the lungs, Humes was either an ignorant fool with no knowledge of human anatomy whatsoever, or deliberately misleading people watching the autopsy. One doctor could have looked inside of the chest cavity while Humes poked a probe into the wound, and seen the probe entering the chest cavity. Probing for an hour? Do you see now why I call it a charade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Frangible test. frangible ballastic gelatin tests.mov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 personally my professional opinion on the nature of JFK's back wound is that there was one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 personally my professional opinion on the nature of JFK's back wound is that there was one. May we quote you on that? Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Yes, but i'll have a Release printed up and emailed to you, maintaining mainly that the quote is correctly quoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Frangible test. Chris D. That was pretty amazing. If I'm seeing what I think I see - the bullet expanded like crazy (pushing both visible sides, top and bottom) outwards but no exit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 My sentiments too. Here is a link to the entire video if interested: The clip I posted was the most comparable to a carcano. imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 The clip I posted was the most comparable to a carcano. imo This was 90 micron powder loaded into a frangible bullet? I expected small buckshot... Would this powder even appear on an X-ray taken by portable equipment manufactured prior to 1963??? Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Chris, Have you calculated the angle of depression from the 6th floor window to the site of the back wound? I'm curious regarding the path from the entry wound... Thanks, Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 (edited) Frangible test. Just curious, Chris. Was that an actual frangible hollow point bullet? The caption below it read HPBT which stands for "hollow point boat tail". I can speak from experience; even the humble hollow point rifle bullet (just by coincidence, the ones I experimented with were also .308 calibre, although the ones I hand loaded were only 110 grain and flat based) will produce dramatic results travelling through a semi-liquid medium. Edit: Just saw your post with the full length video. Pretty amazing, eh? Edited October 23, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme 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