Why Humes Thought the Back Missile Hit at a Sharp Angle -- a Hypothesis

[Sandy Larsen]

Cliff,

What type of high-tech bullet existed in 1963 that would melt or dissolve?

Do you believe that the dart to the back was shot from a rifle at a distance? Or at close range?

You say the "neck x-ray which shows broken blood vessels, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and an air pocket overlaying the right C7/T1 transverse processes." How do you know that? Was it in the autopsy report?

How do you explain the collapsed lung? What caused it?

Edited August 15, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Tom Neal]

PART 1 [split due to the limited number of "blocks of text" allowed with this editor]

I believe it was a much faster bullet. That's the reason I wrote "It would have been useful for this presentation had the bullet been aimed at the [pig's] bone and been of greater velocity."

You are saying that due to the two vastly different bullet velocities, this picture is NOT "useful for this presentation." Per this statement, you are obviously aware that what a bullet does at 500 fps does NOT indicate what it will do at 1,000, 1,500 or 2,000 fps. So why include it at all?

In what way is it "Related" information (as you have re-labeled your heading)? There is no highly dense cloud of fragments in the JFK chest x-ray as appear in all of your "Related" x-rays. There are only a small number of widely scattered 'dots' that allegedly are "dirt." The evidence is that the type of fragmenting bullets used in 1963 required passage through enough blood and tissue to be broken apart by hydraulic pressure. As I stated in our earlier "back wound" thread, I am concerned that there may not have been adequate tissue to fragment the bullet prior to the lung, let alone the much shallower rib. These pig photos can only serve to mislead someone into believing that the bullet that struck JFK fragmented as this one did.

I posted the pig images to give the reader an idea as to what a real frangible bullet wound looks like. Before seeing these images, I'd seen only damage done to gel-like materials..

They depict what happens with a "real frangible bullet" at 500 fps - NOT what a "frangible bullet" does at 2000 fps. See above re "misleading."

The frangible bullet hit Kennedy's back and began to fragment immediately after hitting the surface of the skin.

See preceding paragraphs. You stated that the pig bullet was traveling MUCH slower than this bullet, and that there was NO BONE (a 'soft' bone would be required) located just beneath the surface of the skin to provide evidence that the fragments would have been deflected. Therefore, you have provided no evidence to *directly* support this hypothesis.

Your theory requires an entrance hole at the site of a rib to deflect the fragments downward. Those present at the autopsy described a hole at least 1/4" in diameter and 2" deep, and stated that a metal probe was passed through the wound but stopped at the pleura. If the wound entrance is where you *require* it to be, why is there no mention of Humes finger or the probe striking a rib? Humes is at a loss to explain the steep downward trajectory. If he had encountered a rib during his probing, why did he not mention this likely explanation at any time?

Your theory also requires that the bullet fragment and disperse *before* encountering the rib. How far below the surface of the skin is the rib located? The bullet not only has to break up, but disperse; all within this VERY short distance. Is this even possible? See my response in paragraph below...

But as to whether frangible bullets made of fine particles were available in 1963, I could only guess what the military and intelligence agencies had developed.

So there is NO evidence that this type of bullet even existed in 1963, yet it is VITAL to your theory that the bullet fragmented into TINY fragments and dispersed after passing through just the skin. The only evidence you've provided is that a bullet containing "many more tiny fragments" than any fragmenting bullet known to exist in 1963, traveling at about 25% of a normal rifle bullet may fragment just below the skin. You have provided no evidence at all that even at this reduced velocity, hyper-frangible bullet fragments would deflect off a rib, yet his is also VITAL to your theory

END OF PART 1

[Tom Neal]

Ok, let's look at it from strictly the perspective of a bullet that would "fragmentize" in a wound, as O'Neill put it. There is no report from Humes about this bullet fragmenting completely in the shallow entrance wound in JFK's back. If it did, it would be a simple matter for Humes to recover the fragments from this entrance wound with a pair of tweezers, as the thickness of the back at this point from outside chest to pleural lining is only about an inch. They would also show up on an x-ray of the back or chest.

According to Humes, though, he did not find any fragments in this entrance wound. If the bullet "fragmentized", just where did it do so? Humes reported the pleural lining of the ribcage to be intact, with no bullet hole (or fragment holes) in it.

Bob,

Do you believe that this bullet fragmented into 'powder' before it reached the rib?

Tom

[Sandy Larsen]

PART 1 [split due to the limited number of "blocks of text" allowed with this editor]

I believe it was a much faster bullet. That's the reason I wrote "It would have been useful for this presentation had the bullet been aimed at the [pig's] bone and been of greater velocity."

You are saying that due to the two vastly different bullet velocities, this picture is NOT "useful for this presentation." Per this statement, you are obviously aware that what a bullet does at 500 fps does NOT indicate what it will do at 1,000, 1,500 or 2,000 fps. So why include it at all?

Because I wanted to. The images show what real damage from a frangible bullet looks like.

In what way is it "Related" information (as you have re-labeled your heading)? There is no highly dense cloud of fragments in the JFK chest x-ray as appear in all of your "Related" x-rays. There are only a small number of widely scattered 'dots' that allegedly are "dirt." The evidence is that the type of fragmenting bullets used in 1963 required passage through enough blood and tissue to be broken apart by hydraulic pressure. As I stated in our earlier "back wound" thread, I am concerned that there may not have been adequate tissue to fragment the bullet prior to the lung, let alone the much shallower rib. These pig photos can only serve to mislead someone into believing that the bullet that struck JFK fragmented as this one did.

Not if they read my hypothesis. I said nothing of the pig photos in my hypothesis. And when introducing the pig images, I specifically stated that the pig example wasn't ideal for my presentation because the bullet speed was low and the bullet wasn't aimed at the bone.

I posted the pig images to give the reader an idea as to what a real frangible bullet wound looks like. Before seeing these images, I'd seen only damage done to gel-like materials..

They depict what happens with a "real frangible bullet" at 500 fps - NOT what a "frangible bullet" does at 2000 fps. See above re "misleading."

The frangible bullet hit Kennedy's back and began to fragment immediately after hitting the surface of the skin.

See preceding paragraphs. You stated that the pig bullet was traveling MUCH slower than this bullet, and that there was NO BONE (a 'soft' bone would be required) located just beneath the surface of the skin to provide evidence that the fragments would have been deflected. Therefore, you have provided no evidence to *directly* support this hypothesis.

You are right. I provided no evidence. And I never claimed to have provided evidence. I provided only an analogy and some thought experiments.

Your theory requires an entrance hole at the site of a rib to deflect the fragments downward. Those present at the autopsy described a hole at least 1/4" in diameter and 2" deep, and stated that a metal probe was passed through the wound but stopped at the pleura. If the wound entrance is where you *require* it to be, why is there no mention of Humes finger or the probe striking a rib? Humes is at a loss to explain the steep downward trajectory. If he had encountered a rib during his probing, why did he not mention this likely explanation at any time?

Because people don't report every little thing they notice. Maybe Humes's probe touched bone when he angled it in one direction, but went down deeper when he angled it down more steeply. And he concluded that the deeper channel must be the true one.

Your theory also requires that the bullet fragment and disperse *before* encountering the rib. How far below the surface of the skin is the rib located? The bullet not only has to break up, but disperse; all within this VERY short distance. Is this even possible?

I don't think it has to disperse much before hitting the bone. Using my "throw a rock at a window" analogy, suppose you throw a handful of sand at the window from a VERY close range. I don't think the window will break anywhere near as easily as it would with a solid rock.

See my response in paragraph below...

But as to whether frangible bullets made of fine particles were available in 1963, I could only guess what the military and intelligence agencies had developed.

So there is NO evidence that this type of bullet even existed in 1963, yet it is VITAL to your theory that the bullet fragmented into TINY fragments and dispersed after passing through just the skin. The only evidence you've provided is that a bullet containing "many more tiny fragments" than any fragmenting bullet known to exist in 1963, traveling at about 25% of a normal rifle bullet may fragment just below the skin. You have provided no evidence at all that even at this reduced velocity, hyper-frangible bullet fragments would deflect off a rib, yet his is also VITAL to your theory

It's a HYPOTHESIS, Tom. I don't need to provide evidence for every single detail of it. I DID provide thought experiments to support my theory.

Nevertheless, I can say that frangible bullets DID exist in 1963. The only question is, how small a particle was being used. I CANNOT KNOW THAT. It was classified information. But we aren't talking the middle ages here. I would expect a good deal of sophistication in high-tech ammo development by 1963. We had men on the moon just six years later for heaven's sake.

END OF PART 1

Edited August 15, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

What type of high-tech bullet existed in 1963 that would melt or dissolve?

Blood soluble rounds developed by US Army Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick, MD -- for a CIA-funded project called MKNAOMI.

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

MKNAOMI was a supra-institutional death squad employing civilian scientists and engineers, military brass, and mobbed up drug cops from the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

Do you believe that the dart to the back was shot from a rifle at a distance? Or at close range?

Dal-Tex, best guess. Circa Z260.

You say the "neck x-ray which shows broken blood vessels, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and an air pocket overlaying the right C7/T1 transverse processes." How do you know that? Was it in the autopsy report?

I wouldn't buy anything in the autopsy report, or any of Humes' statements after the autopsy.

The x-ray analysis was for the HSCA.

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial

air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity

of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side

and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a

fracture in that area. There is some soft tissue density overlying the apex of the right lung

which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue swelling.

Evaluation of the post-autopsy film shows that there is subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying

C7 and T1. The same disruption of T1 right transverse process is still present.

On the film of the right side, taken post-autopsy, there are two small metallic densities

in the region of the C7 right transverse process. These densities are felt to be artifact,

partly because of their marked density, because there is a similar artifact overlying the

body of C7, and because these metallic-like densities were not presenton the previous,

pre-autopsy film. Therefore, Iassume that these are screen artifacts from debris present

in the cassette at the time that this film was exposed. /

How do you explain the collapsed lung? What caused it?

I'm not sold on the collapsed lung.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Tom Neal]

You are right. I provided no evidence. And I never claimed to have provided evidence. I provided only an analogy and some thought experiments.

Actually you said you don't have to provide evidence of every detail. Where is your "evidence" of any detail or the big picture? All I see is analogy, thought experiments, and outright speculation.

Your theory requires an entrance hole at the site of a rib to deflect the fragments downward. Those present at the autopsy described a hole at least 1/4" in diameter and 2" deep, and stated that a metal probe was passed through the wound but stopped at the pleura. If the wound entrance is where you *require* it to be, why is there no mention of Humes finger or the probe striking a rib? Humes is at a loss to explain the steep downward trajectory. If he had encountered a rib during his probing, why did he not mention this likely explanation at any time?

Because people don't report every little thing they notice. Maybe Humes's probe touched bone when he angled it in one direction, but went down deeper when he angled it down more steeply. And he concluded that the deeper channel must be the true one.

"Every little thing?" Humes couldn't explain the downward track but "maybe" he touched bone and 'didn't report it.' Maybe he found more than one channel, was mystified as to why there was no exit, and 'didn't report it'? After how many decades of interviews and he never mentioned it? The other doctors never mentioned, nor anyone in the gallery, yet they speculated about blood-soluable nullets, and other exotic explanations.

How far are you going to go in an attempt to support this "hypothesis" which is actually no more than outright speculation?

Your theory also requires that the bullet fragment and disperse *before* encountering the rib. How far below the surface of the skin is the rib located? The bullet not only has to break up, but disperse; all within this VERY short distance. Is this even possible?

I don't think it has to disperse much before hitting the bone. Using my "throw a rock at a window" analogy, suppose you throw a handful of sand at the window from a VERY close range. I don't think the window will break anywhere near as easily as it would with a solid rock.

A rock and sand is your analogy to a bullet v. a fragmented bullet? You could at least use a rock and a fragmented rock. Your analogy also presumes that the bullet broke into sand-sized particles over a distance of probably 1/4" after the skin compressed before it was punctured. It is sheer speculation that a bullet could do this.

It has to fragment and disperse in what 1/4" of travel? 1/2"? Skin is tough stuff, and it's flexible. How far did the skin move toward the rib before it punctured? 1/4"? 1/2"? Since you are submitting "I think" as a "thought experiment," I think that that the bullet didn't travel far enough to fragment or disperse at all. I think that it would have noticeably damaged the rib before fragmenting.

END OF PART 1

[Tom Neal]

PART 2

It's a HYPOTHESIS, Tom. I don't need to provide evidence for every single detail of it. I DID provide thought experiments to support my theory.

"Every single detail?" What evidence have you provided for your overall theory? What details have provided evidence for. All I see are analogies and thought experiments to counter actual evidence.
A hypothesis has to have evidence beyond "I think" and speculation. It is used to determine the validity of an idea. When it has failed to stand up under scrutiny, it is time to let it go. Despite lack of support and evidence to the contrary, you are still stubbornly hoping that it will be accepted as a viable theory.

Nevertheless, I can say that frangible bullets DID exist in 1963. The only question is, how small a particle was being used. I CANNOT KNOW THAT. It was classified information.

The frangible bullets that are known to exist in 1963 broke into large fragments and small fragments. 100% of the bullet did not turn into dust-sized particles as required by your hypothesis. Anything beyond this tech is pure speculation. Look at JFK's skull x-rays. Those pieces and particles did NOT occur 1/2" after impact, and unlike the back shot, this bullet slowed down after impacting his skull. Do you REALLY think that if there had been a rib bone even 1/2" behind his skull that it would have deflected the other fragments without being damaged?

How likely is it these shooters were using ammo that was different enough to produce the head shot x-ray, and yet a shot to his back reacted completely differently? All that metal on the x-rays of his skull, and only a few scattered fragments in his lung that are described as dirt. WHERE did all the other metal go?

But we aren't talking the middle ages here. I would expect a good deal of sophistication in high-tech ammo development by 1963. We had men on the moon just six years later for heaven's sake.

Update: I forgot to add what I had stated earlier regarding bullets that immediately fragment into *TINY* bits:

1. WHY would anyone even WANT to develop a bullet of this type? It turns to powder almost immediately. Therefore, the fragments remain near the surface of the skin. At most you have a lot of tiny perforations in the subcutaneous tissue. It can't fracture a bone, and it can't penetrate deeply enough to even reach any vital organs, let alone cause fatal injuries. So how much time, effort and $ would be poured into development of this "weapon?" ("For heaven's sake.") This is your second desperate attempt to support this theory with an analogy that is completed removed from relevance to your "hypothesis."

2. *IF* this type of ammo even existed in 1963, WHY would it be used to shoot JFK? They undoubtedly meant to kill him, NOT give him an annoying bruise.


What is the relevance of this "analogy"? The lunar landing was a *National* program with the same priority as the Manhattan Project. How can this be compared with a bullet that no one would want developed? There is no similarity whatsoever.

6 years later? NASA had "Project Apollo" in the works in 1958. The Army submitted a workable plan for "Project Horizon" a military base on the Moon in 1952. The Rand Corp had been studying it since the 1940's. Von Braun had been working on a space station, a moon rocket while he was building V-2s. NASA purloined ALL of this earlier technology to get us to the Moon. They certainly didn't spend 24 billion dollars and employ 10s of thousands of employees, nor have a #1 priority as NASA did, to invent a bullet that NO ONE wanted.

You time frame is way off, and I still don't see the relevance in this analogy unless you think we went to the Moon riding on bullets that fragmented into dust that doesn't show up on x-rays...except for head shots...

Edited August 15, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Michael Walton]

I think this thread is an example of one of many I've read here where researchers try to speculate on what happened. There's actually nothing wrong with speculating. Cops do it all of the time when they're investigating a crime. But it seems like some researchers call out others for speculating where as their own information they post is also speculation (e.g., my speculation is right; yours is wrong). So does speculation on both sides of the aisle just basically cancel out everything? Perhaps.

Meanwhile, I wanted to comment on the plastic/powder/frangible/not frangible bullet theory. I think we're giving the Bad Guys way too much credit regarding using some super-secret, super-exotic bullet/dart/projectile to kill the president. That's not to say they didn't plan this very well - my own speculation runs along the lines of Oswald was either supposed to be killed near the TSBD or, having failed that, be killed in the Texas Theater. When all of that failed, they said to hell with it and just sent in their Mobster to do it on live TV no less.

But as far as the mechanics of the shooting itself, weren't there metallic fragments found all over the inside of the car? To me, it flies in the face of common sense to think that they'd mix the bullets up, using metal ones in some of the guns, and plastic/powdery/dart ones in the other guns. I think this is just one of several examples of researchers over-thinking what may have happened.

As for the "he sat there between shots because toxins froze him" theory - I really don't think that happened either because, as I said earlier, no one can predict how one is going to react to gunshot wounds. I would encourage other researchers to look around on the internet because there are plenty of videos out there showing a variety of victims being shot. Some just collapse while others continue to stand or sit as if they're shocked.

I think it's a really, really big leap of faith to think that the Bad Guys would use some kind of poison or toxic chemical to "freeze" Kennedy in place. As I also mentioned, Jackie was not shot or sprayed with anything but she looks confused and "frozen" too until Z 313.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I think this thread is an example of one of many I've read here where researchers try to speculate on what happened. There's actually nothing wrong with speculating. Cops do it all of the time when they're investigating a crime. But it seems like some researchers call out others for speculating where as their own information they post is also speculation (e.g., my speculation is right; yours is wrong). So does speculation on both sides of the aisle just basically cancel out everything? Perhaps.

Meanwhile, I wanted to comment on the plastic/powder/frangible/not frangible bullet theory. I think we're giving the Bad Guys way too much credit regarding using some super-secret, super-exotic bullet/dart/projectile to kill the president. That's not to say they didn't plan this very well - my own speculation runs along the lines of Oswald was either supposed to be killed near the TSBD or, having failed that, be killed in the Texas Theater. When all of that failed, they said to hell with it and just sent in their Mobster to do it on live TV no less.

But as far as the mechanics of the shooting itself, weren't there metallic fragments found all over the inside of the car? To me, it flies in the face of common sense to think that they'd mix the bullets up, using metal ones in some of the guns, and plastic/powdery/dart ones in the other guns. I think this is just one of several examples of researchers over-thinking what may have happened.

As for the "he sat there between shots because toxins froze him" theory - I really don't think that happened either because, as I said earlier, no one can predict how one is going to react to gunshot wounds. I would encourage other researchers to look around on the internet because there are plenty of videos out there showing a variety of victims being shot. Some just collapse while others continue to stand or sit as if they're shocked.

I think it's a really, really big leap of faith to think that the Bad Guys would use some kind of poison or toxic chemical to "freeze" Kennedy in place. As I also mentioned, Jackie was not shot or sprayed with anything but she looks confused and "frozen" too until Z 313.

Okay, Michael, here is a question for you. If the back wound at thoracic vertebra T3 was not made by a frangible bullet, care to speculate on what type of bullet made this wound? Do you think it penetrated the chest cavity or was it just a shallow wound?

[Sandy Larsen]

Tom is accusing me of speculating. Here is my response:

Yes, my hypothesis IS speculation! I never represented it as anything else. So what? Speculation is used in science all the time, in the formation of new ideas. The hypothesis is an attempt to tie together some loose ends in a larger hypothesis. I don't provide any evidence (beyond my thought experiments) and I don't pretend to.

I made a mistake when I labeled the appendix of my hypothesis as "Supporting Images." I was glad that Tom pointed out that the pig images don't support my hypothesis, and I relabeled the appendix "Related Images." (At the time I typed the word "Supporting" I was using it like the word "Supplementary." I didn't recognize at the time that it could mean something entirely different from what I intended.)

Having said that, I want to emphasize the point that this is only a hypothesis, one that I may reject myself. In the meantime I am getting some useful feedback from people. For example, that in a shot from the west TSBD window the trajectory is quite steep, and that a bullet from there would hit the right lung and not the mediastinum. Another example is that the x-ray was taken prior to the organs being removed. There are other things I've learned as well and I want to express my gratitude to the forum members who have contributed here.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[James R Gordon]

I think this thread is an example of one of many I've read here where researchers try to speculate on what happened. There's actually nothing wrong with speculating. Cops do it all of the time when they're investigating a crime. But it seems like some researchers call out others for speculating where as their own information they post is also speculation (e.g., my speculation is right; yours is wrong). So does speculation on both sides of the aisle just basically cancel out everything? Perhaps.

Meanwhile, I wanted to comment on the plastic/powder/frangible/not frangible bullet theory. I think we're giving the Bad Guys way too much credit regarding using some super-secret, super-exotic bullet/dart/projectile to kill the president. That's not to say they didn't plan this very well - my own speculation runs along the lines of Oswald was either supposed to be killed near the TSBD or, having failed that, be killed in the Texas Theater. When all of that failed, they said to hell with it and just sent in their Mobster to do it on live TV no less.

But as far as the mechanics of the shooting itself, weren't there metallic fragments found all over the inside of the car? To me, it flies in the face of common sense to think that they'd mix the bullets up, using metal ones in some of the guns, and plastic/powdery/dart ones in the other guns. I think this is just one of several examples of researchers over-thinking what may have happened.

As for the "he sat there between shots because toxins froze him" theory - I really don't think that happened either because, as I said earlier, no one can predict how one is going to react to gunshot wounds. I would encourage other researchers to look around on the internet because there are plenty of videos out there showing a variety of victims being shot. Some just collapse while others continue to stand or sit as if they're shocked.

I think it's a really, really big leap of faith to think that the Bad Guys would use some kind of poison or toxic chemical to "freeze" Kennedy in place. As I also mentioned, Jackie was not shot or sprayed with anything but she looks confused and "frozen" too until Z 313.

Okay, Michael, here is a question for you. If the back wound at thoracic vertebra T3 was not made by a frangible bullet, care to speculate on what type of bullet made this wound? Do you think it penetrated the chest cavity or was it just a shallow wound?

Robert,

As i have pointed out numerous times, I believe the wound to the back was a shallow wound that never penetrated the chest cavity. It is true that Sibbert OR O'Neill left the autopsy room to check on “Ice bullets” [ they have testified that happened but always made clear that one always remained in the room to witness all that occurred there ] but that had nothing to do with the back wound. The enquiry about “Ice Bullets” was with regard to the throat wound and particularly the damage to the apex of the lung.

I know that it is a common belief that the wound to the back was at T3. As I have demonstrated a number of times, I believe it was higher. JFK's body and particularly the protrusion of his Scapular showing through his back, make it clear that wound was higher [ quite significantly higher ] than the outer edge of the Scapular spine which can be seen on the autopsy image. The outer edge of the Scapular spine is just below T3. As I view it anatomy physiology that ought to be beyond dispute. I have argued that according to anatomy physiology the wound appears very close to T2. It could even be argued [ based on how far one believes the wound is in relation to the Scapular spine's edge ] that the wound could be between T2 and T3.

In my view anatomy physiology trumps speculation and rough guidelines on an autopsy chart.

I am happy for you to argue that I am wrong, but I would like to to address the position of the wound in relation to the position of the scapula spine. Why do you feel that the wound is still close to T3 when it is well above the position of the Scapular spine's edge?

James.

[Sandy Larsen]

Cliff,

What type of high-tech bullet existed in 1963 that would melt or dissolve?

Blood soluble rounds developed by US Army Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick, MD -- for a CIA-funded project called MKNAOMI.

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

MKNAOMI was a supra-institutional death squad employing civilian scientists and engineers, military brass, and mobbed up drug cops from the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

Do you believe that the dart to the back was shot from a rifle at a distance? Or at close range?

Dal-Tex, best guess. Circa Z260.

You say the "neck x-ray which shows broken blood vessels, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and an air pocket overlaying the right C7/T1 transverse processes." How do you know that? Was it in the autopsy report?

I wouldn't buy anything in the autopsy report, or any of Humes' statements after the autopsy.

The x-ray analysis was for the HSCA.

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial

air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity

of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side

and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a

fracture in that area. There is some soft tissue density overlying the apex of the right lung

which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue swelling.

Evaluation of the post-autopsy film shows that there is subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying

C7 and T1. The same disruption of T1 right transverse process is still present.

On the film of the right side, taken post-autopsy, there are two small metallic densities

in the region of the C7 right transverse process. These densities are felt to be artifact,

partly because of their marked density, because there is a similar artifact overlying the

body of C7, and because these metallic-like densities were not presenton the previous,

pre-autopsy film. Therefore, Iassume that these are screen artifacts from debris present

in the cassette at the time that this film was exposed. /

How do you explain the collapsed lung? What caused it?

I'm not sold on the collapsed lung.

Thanks Cliff.

How do you explain the traces of metal that were detected on the bullet/dart holes in the jacket and shirt?

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

What type of high-tech bullet existed in 1963 that would melt or dissolve?

Blood soluble rounds developed by US Army Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick, MD -- for a CIA-funded project called MKNAOMI.

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

MKNAOMI was a supra-institutional death squad employing civilian scientists and engineers, military brass, and mobbed up drug cops from the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

Do you believe that the dart to the back was shot from a rifle at a distance? Or at close range?

Dal-Tex, best guess. Circa Z260.

You say the "neck x-ray which shows broken blood vessels, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and an air pocket overlaying the right C7/T1 transverse processes." How do you know that? Was it in the autopsy report?

I wouldn't buy anything in the autopsy report, or any of Humes' statements after the autopsy.

The x-ray analysis was for the HSCA.

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial

air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity

of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side

and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a

fracture in that area. There is some soft tissue density overlying the apex of the right lung

which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue swelling.

Evaluation of the post-autopsy film shows that there is subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying

C7 and T1. The same disruption of T1 right transverse process is still present.

On the film of the right side, taken post-autopsy, there are two small metallic densities

in the region of the C7 right transverse process. These densities are felt to be artifact,

partly because of their marked density, because there is a similar artifact overlying the

body of C7, and because these metallic-like densities were not presenton the previous,

pre-autopsy film. Therefore, Iassume that these are screen artifacts from debris present

in the cassette at the time that this film was exposed. /

How do you explain the collapsed lung? What caused it?

I'm not sold on the collapsed lung.

Thanks Cliff.

How do you explain the traces of metal that were detected on the bullet/dart holes in the jacket and shirt?

I don't buy anything that came out of the FBI Lab.

Metal on the shirt but not in the body?

How does that work?

Edited August 16, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Robert Prudhomme]

I think this thread is an example of one of many I've read here where researchers try to speculate on what happened. There's actually nothing wrong with speculating. Cops do it all of the time when they're investigating a crime. But it seems like some researchers call out others for speculating where as their own information they post is also speculation (e.g., my speculation is right; yours is wrong). So does speculation on both sides of the aisle just basically cancel out everything? Perhaps.

Meanwhile, I wanted to comment on the plastic/powder/frangible/not frangible bullet theory. I think we're giving the Bad Guys way too much credit regarding using some super-secret, super-exotic bullet/dart/projectile to kill the president. That's not to say they didn't plan this very well - my own speculation runs along the lines of Oswald was either supposed to be killed near the TSBD or, having failed that, be killed in the Texas Theater. When all of that failed, they said to hell with it and just sent in their Mobster to do it on live TV no less.

But as far as the mechanics of the shooting itself, weren't there metallic fragments found all over the inside of the car? To me, it flies in the face of common sense to think that they'd mix the bullets up, using metal ones in some of the guns, and plastic/powdery/dart ones in the other guns. I think this is just one of several examples of researchers over-thinking what may have happened.

As for the "he sat there between shots because toxins froze him" theory - I really don't think that happened either because, as I said earlier, no one can predict how one is going to react to gunshot wounds. I would encourage other researchers to look around on the internet because there are plenty of videos out there showing a variety of victims being shot. Some just collapse while others continue to stand or sit as if they're shocked.

I think it's a really, really big leap of faith to think that the Bad Guys would use some kind of poison or toxic chemical to "freeze" Kennedy in place. As I also mentioned, Jackie was not shot or sprayed with anything but she looks confused and "frozen" too until Z 313.

Okay, Michael, here is a question for you. If the back wound at thoracic vertebra T3 was not made by a frangible bullet, care to speculate on what type of bullet made this wound? Do you think it penetrated the chest cavity or was it just a shallow wound?

Robert,

As i have pointed out numerous times, I believe the wound to the back was a shallow wound that never penetrated the chest cavity. It is true that Sibbert OR O'Neill left the autopsy room to check on “Ice bullets” [ they have testified that happened but always made clear that one always remained in the room to witness all that occurred there ] but that had nothing to do with the back wound. The enquiry about “Ice Bullets” was with regard to the throat wound and particularly the damage to the apex of the lung.

I know that it is a common belief that the wound to the back was at T3. As I have demonstrated a number of times, I believe it was higher. JFK's body and particularly the protrusion of his Scapular showing through his back, make it clear that wound was higher [ quite significantly higher ] than the outer edge of the Scapular spine which can be seen on the autopsy image. The outer edge of the Scapular spine is just below T3. As I view it anatomy physiology that ought to be beyond dispute. I have argued that according to anatomy physiology the wound appears very close to T2. It could even be argued [ based on how far one believes the wound is in relation to the Scapular spine's edge ] that the wound could be between T2 and T3.

In my view anatomy physiology trumps speculation and rough guidelines on an autopsy chart.

I am happy for you to argue that I am wrong, but I would like to to address the position of the wound in relation to the position of the scapula spine. Why do you feel that the wound is still close to T3 when it is well above the position of the Scapular spine's edge?

James.

I believe it goes without saying that the back wound would have to be between thoracic vertebrae T2 and T3. If it was precisely at the level of T3, it would have struck the 3rd rib, or the costal cartilege attaching the 3rd rib to T3. This also prevents the entrance wound from being at the level of T2, unless you have proof the 2nd rib was struck. It is referred to as being at the level of T3 simply because that is easier to write than between T2 and T3. Nonetheless, this still places the entrance wound well below the apex of the right lung. I might add, though, that there is not much difference in the two positions.

I've grown tired of attempting to explain how it is ballistically impossible for a rifle bullet to make such a shallow wound, and still be able to hit its target. If you wish to continue to believe this foolishness, that is your business.

[Sandy Larsen]

Cliff,

What type of high-tech bullet existed in 1963 that would melt or dissolve?

Blood soluble rounds developed by US Army Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick, MD -- for a CIA-funded project called MKNAOMI.

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

MKNAOMI was a supra-institutional death squad employing civilian scientists and engineers, military brass, and mobbed up drug cops from the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

Do you believe that the dart to the back was shot from a rifle at a distance? Or at close range?

Dal-Tex, best guess. Circa Z260.

You say the "neck x-ray which shows broken blood vessels, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and an air pocket overlaying the right C7/T1 transverse processes." How do you know that? Was it in the autopsy report?

I wouldn't buy anything in the autopsy report, or any of Humes' statements after the autopsy.

The x-ray analysis was for the HSCA.

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial

air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity

of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side

and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a

fracture in that area. There is some soft tissue density overlying the apex of the right lung

which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue swelling.

Evaluation of the post-autopsy film shows that there is subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying

C7 and T1. The same disruption of T1 right transverse process is still present.

On the film of the right side, taken post-autopsy, there are two small metallic densities

in the region of the C7 right transverse process. These densities are felt to be artifact,

partly because of their marked density, because there is a similar artifact overlying the

body of C7, and because these metallic-like densities were not presenton the previous,

pre-autopsy film. Therefore, Iassume that these are screen artifacts from debris present

in the cassette at the time that this film was exposed. /

How do you explain the collapsed lung? What caused it?

I'm not sold on the collapsed lung.

Thanks Cliff.

How do you explain the traces of metal that were detected on the bullet/dart holes in the jacket and shirt?

I don't buy anything that came out of the FBI Lab.

Metal on the shirt but not in the body?

How does that work?

That's what we're trying to figure out.