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

[Tom Neal]

DUPE...

Edited August 18, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Sandy Larsen]

Millennials, who grew up on THE MATRIX, have no problem buying a high tech weapon strike on JFK.

I've spoken with quite a few.

I've told this story a few times:

About 3 years ago I said to a Millennial friend of mine -- "Your generation isn't interested in the JFK assassination."

"That's because they make it so boring."

I had nothing to say to that. A couple of weeks later she asked me what I'd been up to -- "Giving people hell about the central question of the Kennedy assassination," I said.

"What is the central question of the Kennedy assassination?"

I said: "You don't wanna know."

"No, tell me. I wanna know."

"Okay...JFK had a wound of entrance in his back, there was no exit, and no bullet recovered at the autopsy. He had a wound of entrance in his throat, no exit, and there was no bullet recovered during the autopsy. So the central question is: what happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?"

She pondered for a couple of seconds, then said: "But was it a real autopsy?"

"A lot of problems with the autopsy -- but that was the situation. Two rounds of entrance, no exits, no bullets found...Some people think the bullets were removed prior to the autopsy--"

"--Or it was some government sh*t that dissolved!"

About six months ago I told this story to another Millennial and when I got to --"some government sh*t that dissolved" -- she blurted out -- "That's what I was gonna say!"

When armed with the basic facts of the case, kids raised on "The Matrix" movie have a better chance of grasping the JFK assassination than Boomers raised on 007.

High tech + government nobility (Agent Bond) versus high tech + government perfidy (Agent Smith).

Just so you know, Cliff, what you write doesn't fall on deaf ears.

EDIT: Well probably on SOME deaf ears.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Tom Neal]

Hi Sandy

I'm still planning to respond to this. However, being a new hypothesis (or speculation), I find it very intriguing and I've been going over it in my mind the last few days as I work. You might almost say I am savouring it LOL.

I think by the weekend I should be writing something about this.

Bob,

I'm looking forward to finally finding out what it is about this "speculation" as Sandy NOW defines it that has you "savouring" it. If you can actually prove this conjecture is a viable explanation for the steep hole in JFK's back without resorting to highly improbable circumstances then you are WAY smarter than me.

In a discussion with several forum members via email, I was asked if I had a "rebuttal" of the document without all the back-and-forth contained in the posts. I do, and since you are going to respond, I've posted it here as a rough summary:

This speculation sets itself the stated task of explaining how the back wound bullet created the 45-60 degree downward hole that is 1/4" diameter and a minimum of 2" long as described by Humes.

This explanation is as follows: A bullet impacts JFK's back and fragments immediately into tiny bits. It then disperses due to its encounter with body tissues slowing enough to deflect off a rib at a 45-60 degree angle leaving the rib undamaged with no embedded metallic bits.

1. A bullet that fragments immediately upon impact and has slowed and dispersed such that it can deflect off a rib leaving no embedded particles is not going to guarantee a fatal wound. *If* it even existed in 1963, this type of bullet would not be used to kill JFK.

2. Tiny bullet fragments are forced to *disperse* due to their passage through body tissue in a cone-shape that becomes a cloud of metallic bits when their velocity becomes zero as seen in JFK's head x-rays and in the "pig photos." These tiny particles cannot create a 1/4" diameter coherent hole from the surface of the skin to a depth of 2" per the conditions set forth in this document. i.e. This bullet made "Humes Hole" not "Humes Perforation."

3. Perforations created by tiny fragments do not create a 'tunnel' that would admit Humes little finger, nor even a flexible metallic probe to the depth of the pleura as described by Humes et al.

4. This entry hole and its passage from skin to pleura, which is the single most important factor in proving this conjecture false is not described AT ALL in this document! If it had been described at all, any reader would immediately realize that a bullet that left a bullet-sized hole that extends from the surface of the skin to beyond the rib could not create this hole while simultaneously fragmenting into 'sand' prior to encountering a rib. This hole as described by Humes is precisely what this document seeks to explain. If you deny the existence of the hole which is integral to this document then the premise and the conjecture are both false.

5. A bullet that fragments into tiny bits PRIOR to encountering the rib as REQUIRED by this document will create cloud of metallic fragments as seen in JFK's head x-ray and the "pig photos." JFK's lung x-ray depicts no metal in that area, and only a few random specks that are allegedly dirt on the film.

[Sandy Larsen]

This speculation sets itself the stated task of explaining how the back wound bullet created the 45-60 degree downward hole that is 1/4" diameter and a minimum of 2" long as described by Humes.

Just to be clear... as I understand it, that 1/4" is the size of the hole at the surface of the skin, not the full length of the wound. (Of course my understanding may be wrong... the full length of the wound could have been measured at ~1/4" so far as I know.)

This explanation is as follows: A bullet impacts JFK's back and fragments immediately into tiny bits. It then disperses due to its encounter with body tissues slowing enough to deflect off a rib at a 45-60 degree angle leaving the rib undamaged with no embedded metallic bits.

Something like that. While it is true that the particles would slow down more quickly than a whole bullet would, I think the more important factor would be that the flow of the particles would take on characteristics not too different from those of a liquid. Just as sand behaves like a liquid if you pour it.

The rib might have particles embedded in it. The mass of the particles colliding with the rib likely moved and flexed the bone.

1. A bullet that fragments immediately upon impact and has slowed and dispersed such that it can deflect off a rib leaving no embedded particles is not going to guarantee a fatal wound. *If* it even existed in 1963, this type of bullet would not be used to kill JFK.

As I wrote in the introduction of my hypothesis (and yes, it is a hypothesis), "there can be great variation from bullet-to-bullet as to what it takes to fragment the bullet." In other words, a frangible bullet may fragment at a point it was not intended to fragment. I imagine that this would be considered a frangible bullet failure.

Certainly the shooter wanted Kennedy dead. Let's suppose this meant that the bullet was intended to fragment -- oh, I don't know -- roughly one inch after entering surface of the skin. But this particular bullet instead fragmented 1/8" below the surface of the skin. A bullet failure.

2. Tiny bullet fragments are forced to *disperse* due to their passage through body tissue in a cone-shape that becomes a cloud of metallic bits when their velocity becomes zero as seen in JFK's head x-rays and in the "pig photos." These tiny particles cannot create a 1/4" diameter coherent hole from the surface of the skin to a depth of 2" per the conditions set forth in this document. i.e. This bullet made "Humes Hole" not "Humes Perforation."

I covered this above.

3. Perforations created by tiny fragments do not create a 'tunnel' that would admit Humes little finger, nor even a flexible metallic probe to the depth of the pleura as described by Humes et al.

To me it looks like a frangible bullet can make mincemeat out of a muscle, along the path of its particles. Try sticking a probe through minced meat. (This is an example of how the pig images come in handy.)

4. This entry hole and its passage from skin to pleura, which is the single most important factor in proving this conjecture false is not described AT ALL in this document! If it had been described at all, any reader would immediately realize that a bullet that left a bullet-sized hole that extends from the surface of the skin to beyond the rib could not create this hole while simultaneously fragmenting into 'sand' prior to encountering a rib. This hole as described by Humes is precisely what this document seeks to explain. If you deny the existence of the hole which is integral to this document then the premise and the conjecture are both false.

I don't understand what you're objecting to here. Are you saying that the frangible bullet would not or could not create a 2 inch long, 1/4 inch diameter wound? If so, do you know of any testimony stating that the diameter of the was measured to be ~1/4" from end to end? Like a pipe?

5. A bullet that fragments into tiny bits PRIOR to encountering the rib as REQUIRED by this document will create cloud of metallic fragments as seen in JFK's head x-ray and the "pig photos." JFK's lung x-ray depicts no metal in that area, and only a few random specks that are allegedly dirt on the film.

That certainly was an aspect that, until now, I found bothersome. Not only for this, my hypothesis, but also for ANY back wound theory involving frangible bullets.

But now I realize that we shouldn't expect to see frangible bullet particles in the chest x-ray. I will explain why in another post when I can find the time. It's really quite simple.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

[deleted]

Edited August 18, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Robert Prudhomme]

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.

Bob,

Let me try to explain it. Amateur to amateur, in very simple terms.

Hey Bob,

I didn't know you were an amateur that required an explanation in simple terms! Stupid me considers you an expert!

BTW, what was that comment you made a few posts ago about the people who just don't get this SIMPLE concept?

Sandy,

You've already proven to me that you don't believe anything I say, so why don't you critique my explanation as to my Bob is 100% correct on this issue and doesn't require your "amateur" explanation?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22956&p=332008

Tom

Hi Tom

I don't really mind. Compared to many learned men in the field of ballistics, I would call myself an amateur, too.

I did call it a simple concept a while back but, when I thought about it a bit, I realized it might not be that simple to someone without knowledge or experience in firearms. It's like me and computers. My kids constantly tell me how simple they are, but I still break into a cold sweat every time I have to do something new on them.

Sometimes all it takes is a simplified explanation, such as Sandy presented, to help others grasp a concept. And, in the long run, isn't that what it's all about?

Oversimplifying can cause more problems than it solves. We'll see if it helps anyone that didn't get it before...

IMO, the issue is primarily that their mind is made up before they even begin reading - a slow bullet makes a shallow hole - everyone knows that; it's common sense! I think anyone here that makes the effort can understand your explanation and mine, so I didn't dumb it down.

The issue that I focused on with Craig in my response to him, was that the shooter is unaware that he is about to fire a defective bullet. He will be aiming at a target expecting to get the 2,000 fps typical velocity. When he gets a shot at say 1,000 fps the bullet will indeed make a shallow hole and cause less damage, but the bullet will fall far short of the targer.

The only way to hit the target at all is to aim the rifle much higher - higher than the sights are telling you - than you would with good ammo. If you do that, yes, you can hit the target at the slower velocity. But the shooter doesn't aim higher because he doesn't know he has defective ammo, so the bullet never reaches the target.

I told Craig if he had any issue with my statement to reply. He never did, so presumably that explanation sufficed.

Tom

Precisely, Tom. You summarize the situation very well.

As you say, the shooter is not expecting the 1 in 10,000 cartridge that is not going to propel the bullet at the expected 2200 feet per second, and is aiming at a spot that will accurately place only a bullet travelling that precise velocity.

[Michael Walton]

SANDY - Just so you know, Cliff, what you write doesn't fall on deaf ears. EDIT: Well probably on SOME deaf ears.

Oh, haha, beautifully played, Sandy! I'm so glad I'm not an amputee to save you the grief of making a joke like, "Just so you know, Cliff, I noticed a reply to you is missing...and that's not the only thing missing too - wink wink - haha."

Or thank goodness I'm not blind or you could have joked, "Hey, Cliff, no blind items to your recent post...blind in more ways than one - haha!!"

Beautiful job. As my deaf Mom told me years ago, "Don't ever stare at people who are different," I'm really glad you enjoyed your "staring" moment at my expense - hee hee!

Anyway, so what is it I'm supposed to say when Cliff's blabbering on about millennials? I mean what the #### are we supposed to do here, coddle an already over coddled generation just so we hope they at least buy into what happened on 11/22? We're talking a 30 year generational age gap here and I can't help it if Kennedy was killed in a low-tech fashion. Smart young kids will see through the BS and know what happened, and if the rest find the case "boring," or if it's not Matrix-like enough for them, there's nothing I can do about that. Why is Cliff even worried about that? Jeez...

Besides, another reason why I was not going to reply is because I already said my piece to Cliff about his high-tech theory. If he wants to believe an alphabet soup entity of the CIA was using all kinds of gizmos and gadgets that day, that's his perogative. I happen to believe it was not necessary, that with some well planned shooters in the right place, and lots of practice beforehand, they'd get the job done. And they certainly did.

[Cliff Varnell]

SANDY - Just so you know, Cliff, what you write doesn't fall on deaf ears. EDIT: Well probably on SOME deaf ears.

Oh, haha, beautifully played, Sandy! I'm so glad I'm not an amputee to save you the grief of making a joke like, "Just so you know, Cliff, I noticed a reply to you is missing...and that's not the only thing missing too - wink wink - haha."

Or thank goodness I'm not blind or you could have joked, "Hey, Cliff, no blind items to your recent post...blind in more ways than one - haha!!"

Beautiful job. As my deaf Mom told me years ago, "Don't ever stare at people who are different," I'm really glad you enjoyed your "staring" moment at my expense - hee hee!

Wow. Touchy, ain't ya?

Anyway, so what is it I'm supposed to say when Cliff's blabbering on about millennials? I mean what the #### are we supposed to do here, coddle an already over coddled generation just so we hope they at least buy into what happened on 11/22? We're talking a 30 year generational age gap here and I can't help it if Kennedy was killed in a low-tech fashion. Smart young kids will see through the BS and know what happened, and if the rest find the case "boring," or if it's not Matrix-like enough for them, there's nothing I can do about that. Why is Cliff even worried about that? Jeez...

Worried about what?

Just pointing out that a generation raised on high tech tends to have an open mind when it comes to the Autopsists' Scenario that JFK may have been hit with a high tech weapon.

This seems to have left you bent out of shape, for some reason.

Besides, another reason why I was not going to reply is because I already said my piece to Cliff about his high-tech theory.

It's not my theory. It's what the autopsists thought.

I've pointed this out a half-dozen times -- what part of this don't you grasp?

If he wants to believe an alphabet soup entity of the CIA was using all kinds of gizmos and gadgets that day, that's his perogative. I happen to believe it was not necessary, that with some well planned shooters in the right place, and lots of practice beforehand, they'd get the job done. And they certainly did.

And yet you can't defend the 100% first-shot/kill-shot Pet Theory of yours.

You seem to think if you repeat your Pet Theory over and over it becomes fact...

Edited August 19, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Robert Prudhomme]

I would imagine in 1963 a frangible bullet that disintegrated into a cloud of metal dust in a wound and did not exit would be considered a "high tech weapon".

Even in 2016, the majority of autopsists would be baffled if they found an entrance wound, no exit wound and no bullet inside the body.

Personally, I've always been baffled by Humes continuing to search the thorax and abdomen for a bullet, or fragments thereof, long after the x-rays failed to show any such thing. Did he think the x-ray machine was broken? At what point do we call everything done by Humes by its proper name, that being bizarre?

Edited August 19, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Sandy Larsen]

Mike,

While I also wondered what level of relevance should be given to what Gen Xers or Matrix fans believe, I think Cliff's point about the lack of open-mindedness in some forum members is valid. I mean, we know for a fact that at least one of these fanciful weapons has been used. That being the poison-tipped umbrella. And why not? It's just another weapon.

To me it seems likely that other fanciful weapons have been used as well. They've certainly been developed and manufactured, as revealed by the Church Committee.

The reason I'm not focusing my attention on poison darts is because I haven't yet ruled out weapons that are closer to conventional ones. I'm taking one step at a time.

[Michael Walton]

Wow. Touchy, ain't ya?

Not at all, Cliff. A touchy person would have reported this to the board admin, like I was reported a while back from a touchy member who couldn't take the heat of my rebuttals to his ridiculous claims. And I just wanted to give Sandy (and maybe you, too?) some ideas on how you can make some other jokes at others' expense, but you wouldn't dare say to that person's face; in other words, it's so, so easy to talk #### behind a keyboard.

This seems to have left you bent out of shape, for some reason.

It's not left me bent at all. As a matter of fact, that's why I was not going to even reply about it because when I read what you wrote - about alphabet soups and millennials - it gave me one of those "face palm, eye rolling, sighing" moments. :-)

It's not my theory. It's what the autopsists thought. I've pointed this out a half-dozen times -- what part of this don't you grasp?

Fine. So what's your larger point? If we're arguing here about the steep angle of the back wound, and no bullet recovered, and so on, and if the autopsists said they thought that plastic bullets or ice or some other disappearing bullet caused the wound, and then you took this single "theory" from them and tacked on an alphabet soup of a CIA entity had access to high tech gizmo bullets, and I said we're giving them too much credit, that it was not necessary to do this that good old regular bullets would do...and now you're referring back to the autopists, that it ("it" being the key word here) was their theory, not yours, and....

See what I'm getting at here? You can't just take a few words from an FBI agent and then expand it into a corny James Bondsey, CIA, alphabet soupy plastic/powdery theory and then when someone calls you out on it, say, "wasn't me....that's what they said at the autopsy."

See what I mean, Cliff? Do you see what I mean?

And yet you can't defend the 100% first-shot/kill-shot Pet Theory of yours. You seem to think if you repeat your Pet Theory over and over it becomes fact...

I have no idea what you're talking about...a "pet theory." And now I have "my" pet theory. That's a new one to me.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Michael Walton

[Michael Walton]

Sandy, we'll have to agree to disagree. I've never bought into the umbrella having a dart, nor do I think there was a need to use high-tech bullets. I do find it interesting that the back wound bullet was never found. Maybe C399, the so-called Magic Bullet, was the actual bullet that hit Kennedy in the back, it fell out, and then they "projected" it as the bullet that went through both JFK and JCC. When you think about it, it's not that far-fetched. The wound was shallow and according to Humes didn't penetrate very far and didn't hit anything that would have broken it up too much. Maybe that first shot was just a way to plant the evidence of the Carcano rifle - hit him in the back where the bullet could be retrieved and prove it came from Oswald's gun. Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way for them, the bullet got lost in the shuffle, the Zapruder film proved that the shot sequence was way too close, the wounds didn't match up, and the SBT was born.

As I said earlier, this is all speculation of course but it seems plausible in my mind and far more likely than using dissolving bullets made by some James Bondsey, alphabet soup CIA entity. And while we're on the topic of the inner workings, look what happened to Oswald. They could have smuggled in some high-tech poison while he was in jail that weekend that caused him instant death and then they could have said he got a hold of it and killed himself for the good of the nation. But after he wasn't killed at the Texas Theater, they went low-tech and just had their Mob guy shoot him on national TV no less.

Regarding the umbrella, the only thing I do find a little odd about that tall black guy waving and the umbrella guy is the way they quietly sat down together on the curb, looked around, and then split up. Most people immediately after the shooting were running around, crying, and so forth but those two guys did have some odd behavior. I've always thought that the umbrella was there to draw Kennedy and JCC's attention to it, to kind of get them to look at it, a low-tech version of holding them in place. It is, after all, strange that after an over one mile drive through the streets of Dallas, something as conspicuous as a guy opening up an umbrella on a sunny day just so happened to take place next to a black guy who is waving in an odd manner, and then right in the middle of the kill zone.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Michael Walton said:

"Sandy, we'll have to agree to disagree. I've never bought into the umbrella having a dart, nor do I think there was a need to use high-tech bullets. I do find it interesting that the back wound bullet was never found. Maybe C399, the so-called Magic Bullet, was the actual bullet that hit Kennedy in the back, it fell out, and then they "projected" it as the bullet that went through both JFK and JCC. When you think about it, it's not that far-fetched. The wound was shallow and according to Humes didn't penetrate very far and didn't hit anything that would have broken it up too much. Maybe that first shot was just a way to plant the evidence of the Carcano rifle - hit him in the back where the bullet could be retrieved and prove it came from Oswald's gun. Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way for them, the bullet got lost in the shuffle, the Zapruder film proved that the shot sequence was way too close, the wounds didn't match up, and the SBT was born."

I can see you are another who has the inability to grasp the simple ballistical concept I have been trying to explain. Long live the shallow back wound myth, and those gullible enough to believe it!

[Cliff Varnell]

I would imagine in 1963 a frangible bullet that disintegrated into a cloud of metal dust in a wound and did not exit would be considered a "high tech weapon".

Why didn't it show up on the x-ray?

[Cliff Varnell]

Mike,

While I also wondered what level of relevance should be given to what Gen Xers or Matrix fans believe, I think Cliff's point about the lack of open-mindedness in some forum members is valid. I mean, we know for a fact that at least one of these fanciful weapons has been used. That being the poison-tipped umbrella. And why not? It's just another weapon.

To me it seems likely that other fanciful weapons have been used as well. They've certainly been developed and manufactured, as revealed by the Church Committee.

The reason I'm not focusing my attention on poison darts is because I haven't yet ruled out weapons that are closer to conventional ones. I'm taking one step at a time.

Sandy, I'm not content to let the subject of the Kennedy conspiracy die with the Boomer generation most obsessed with it.

Wouldn't it be a positive development if young folks became engaged in the research?

I don't buy the umbrella theory, btw -- UM was too far to JFK's right.