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

[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".

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

You don't remember the "dirt" that appeared only on the chest x-rays that looked like fragments of a bullet but, of course, were not?

[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?

You don't remember the "dirt" that appeared only on the chest x-rays that looked like fragments of a bullet but, of course, were not?

This dirt?

HSCA Vol 7:

<quote on>

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 present on the previous, pre-autopsy film. Therefore, I

assume that these are screen artifacts from debris present in the cassette at the time that

this film was exposed.

<quote off>

[Michael Walton]

Bob - 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!

Bob, Jim Humes said it was shallow and it could not be easily probed. Yes there was bruising on the tip of the lung and in the inside portion of the surrounding tissue. I'd expect that to be the case when a fast-moving bullet would go into someone. But that's how Hume described it.

I don't know why you consider that a myth. I don't consider it a myth because that's the best and only testimony we have from someone who actually handled the body. None of us here on this board were in the room that night. But he was along with the agents, the other doctors, and the military guys who said (according to Finck) to keep it moving and don't dissect the wounds.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Bob - 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!

Bob, Jim Humes said it was shallow and it could not be easily probed. Yes there was bruising on the tip of the lung and in the inside portion of the surrounding tissue. I'd expect that to be the case when a fast-moving bullet would go into someone. But that's how Hume described it.

I don't know why you consider that a myth. I don't consider it a myth because that's the best and only testimony we have from someone who actually handled the body. None of us here on this board were in the room that night. But he was along with the agents, the other doctors, and the military guys who said (according to Finck) to keep it moving and don't dissect the wounds.

Like your Koolaid?

[Tom Neal]

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.

Thanks, Bob!

Question fer ya - your earlier comments re expert v. amateur and my thoughts as to WHY your 'scientific explanation' and mine on this topic are not accepted by many members. IMO, the instant the statements begin to sound like science or even worse, physics, many readers immediately reject any info that follows as pompous BS.

I have noticed that when I and others make a statement, a too frequent response is 'all you need is "common sense" to know that is not true.' Hopefully not true in Canada, but here in the USA a STRONG anti-science bias exists. IMO, this is due to the the repercussions of "Climate Change." Eliminating or severely reducing carbon emissions for example would reduce the typical "record profits" of oil companies.

Again IMO, this anti-science bias began in earnest with NASA's study which was immediately classified 'because it would panic the public with information that wasn't true.' This expanded quickly into a 'you can't trust scientists' attitude, and the opinion of experts possessing a higher education is superseded by alleged "common sense" that completely contradicts science. Again IMO, this bias is the result of a carefully orchestrated and politically supported plan.

To my knowledge this corporate/political campaign is not in effect in Canada. And at last the question I have been leading up to: Do you find the same anti-science bias there as in the USA?

Although I refuse to 'dumb down' the science to a point that it interferes with the necessary comprehension and can even create a false understanding, I don't supply any math, science or physics credentials for two reasons.

1. It has been my experience that when I counter 'common sense' opinions with science it is not accepted and is actually counter-productive to communicating.

2. Far too many people think you MUST be lying regarding credentials because 'simple common sense' proves you wrong.

None of the above applies to 'Science sites' where I spend MUCH more time than I do at this site.

Tom

PS If the 'Thread-Starter' believes this post is OT, LMK and I'll remove it. My personal opinion is that EVERY thread-starter has the right to make this decision him or herself.

[Tom Neal]

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?

Humes actions during the autopsy are puzzling to say the least. Even the following do not entirely explain his actions:

He was not qualified to do an autopsy on a gunshot victim, and was clearly out of his administrative element

He was clearly controlled even prior to the autopsy. e.g. when he was ordered by the SS to get off the phone while speaking to the most qualified autopsist in the country

He was ordered by Galloway not to touch the throat because it was "only a tracheotomy incision." Humes certainly wouldn't have defied Galloway, yet the Stare-of-death photos reveal that the lower half of the incision had been retracted down to JFK's sternum. Obviously Humes did this BEFORE Galloway's order. Humes had to have seen the torn trachea and knew it was a GSW. The high contrast of this image makes it impossible to determine, but I see no evidence at all of a trachea in this gaping hole. Did Humes remove it?

Denied access to the throat GSW, and faced with a back wound that was clearly an entrance hole that according to Boswell, Finke and others, he probed to a depth of two inches with his finger, and inserted a probe all the way to the pleura. From Humes statements he had a bullet hole all the way to the pleura that didn't penetrate the pleura, but found no bullet. IMO, he continued to root around in the internals ONLY because he had no idea how to end the autopsy without finding a bullet. With the discovery of CE-399 he had an out, and he ended the autopsy.

Personally, I find it impossible to decide what Humes actually knew prior to the autopsy...

Edited August 20, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Sandy Larsen]

Mike,

Regarding this:

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

EDIT: Well probably on SOME deaf ears.

I wrote the first sentence to tell Cliff that some people DO listen to what he says about the poison dart, and do take it seriously. I know because I do.

Later when I re-read that first sentence, I realized that it implies that all (or most) people take what he says seriously. I doubted that to be the case, so I added the second sentence.

Later I read this:

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!

You said I played something beautifully... what, I did not know. And then you start talking about not being an amputee and something about a joke and something about Cliff. I had no idea what you were talking about. I considered asking you, but decided to let it drop.

Then just now I read:

.... 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.

And I figured out what you were talking about.

No, I was not making a joke. What I said had nothing to do with you in particular. I was talking about people who don't take Cliff's dart theory seriously.

Furthermore, I would NEVER make fun of a person's disability. (I have one myself, BTW.) As a matter of fact, I make it a point not to make fun of anybody. I remember I was made fun of mercilessly by a bunch of bullies in Jr. high school. I fought back and eventually got my ass kicked. I woke up with my face in a pool of blood on the hallway floor. The hallway was empty, the kids having caught their buses to go home. Only my best friend was there, waiting for me to come to. He told me that Mike Bement (which everybody said was pronounced like "cement," because he was built like a mac truck) had blindsided me and hit me in the face. My nose was broken and had to be set.

Truth is, I've always been a sensitive, compassionate person. Long before the bullies got to me.

Anyway, I'm sorry that what I said could have been -- and was -- taken the wrong way at your expense.

[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.

Guys,

When I said, "...we know for a fact that at least one of these fanciful weapons has been used. That being the poison-tipped umbrella" I wasn't referring to Umbrella Man. I was referring to the documented fact that a ricin-coated pellet was used to assassinate Bulgarian dissident Georgi Markov in 1978. Its discovery confirmed the existence of an alleged umbrella-based KGB weapon.

Sounds James Bondie like, doesn't it?

My point was that high tech weapons HAVE indeed been used. More than that one time, I'm sure.

[Sandy Larsen]

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?

You don't remember the "dirt" that appeared only on the chest x-rays that looked like fragments of a bullet but, of course, were not?

This dirt?

HSCA Vol 7:

<quote on>

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 present on the previous, pre-autopsy film. Therefore, I

assume that these are screen artifacts from debris present in the cassette at the time that

this film was exposed.

<quote off>

It's ridiculous to believe that dirt on an x-ray film cartridge would produce an artifact of any significance on an x-ray image. I mean, sure if it was a big dirt clod. But a fleck of dirt? No way. X-rays would easily pass right through it.

And yet the x-ray images of these pieces of dirt are said to show metallic-like densities. That could only happen if they were... metal.

Look at it this way. X-rays pass right through skin and muscle, thus revealing dense objects like bone. Flesh is only slightly visible on typical x-ray images. Does anyone believe a fleck of dirt would block x-rays more than a thick slab of muscle? I don't. I think the dirt would be nearly invisible on the image.

Now, if someone were to make photocopies of an x-ray film, and that film had flecks of dirt on it, then yes, the flecks would appear on the photocopies. Because light doesn't pass through dirt the way x-rays do.

[Michael Walton]

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

No, I was not making a joke. What I said had nothing to do with you in particular. I was talking about people who don't take Cliff's dart theory seriously. Furthermore, I would NEVER make fun of a person's disability. (I have one myself, BTW.)

Sandy - no problem and thanks for explaining. Sorry this mucked up your thread and I know we're all passionate about trying to get to the bottom of Kennedy's murder here.

[Sandy Larsen]

Bob - 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!

Bob, Jim Humes said it was shallow and it could not be easily probed. Yes there was bruising on the tip of the lung and in the inside portion of the surrounding tissue. I'd expect that to be the case when a fast-moving bullet would go into someone. But that's how Hume described it.

I don't know why you consider that a myth. I don't consider it a myth because that's the best and only testimony we have from someone who actually handled the body. None of us here on this board were in the room that night. But he was along with the agents, the other doctors, and the military guys who said (according to Finck) to keep it moving and don't dissect the wounds.

Mike,

The reason Bob says the "shallow wound" is a myth is because bullets don't produce shallow wounds in flesh. They just don't... they are much too powerful for that. A shallow wound is possible only if a bullet is traveling at a speed much slower than normal... for example, 300 feet per second (fps) or slower. Yet a bullet from a rifle travels at more than 2000 fps. And they don't slow down significantly by the time they reach their target.

The obvious question then is, how could a bullet traveling only 300 fps or so hit Kennedy? Some say that it was a defective bullet. It had a low charge and left the barrel of the gun at only 300 fps. Apparently such a thing is possible. Problem is, such a slow moving bullet will drop several feet before reaching the target, due to gravitational pull. The exception to this is if the gun is shot from a close range -- say 20 feet -- in which case the bullet won't drop so far.

The bottom line is this: The only way a shallow wound can be made in flesh is with a very slow bullet that is shot a short distance from the target.

You could test this yourself by taking a slow musket and see if you can hit a target from a distance of, say, 200 feet. (You won't be able to.) However, there is no need to do such a test. A simple mathematical formula will tell you how far a bullet will drop by the time it reaches the target. Here is the formula:

drop = 16 x (d/v)^2

where d is the distance to the target and v is the velocity of the bullet. For those who aren't mathematical types, the ^2 suffix means you square the number in parenthesis.

Suppose the velocity of the bullet is 300 fps and the distance to the target is 200 ft.

drop = 16 x (200/300)^2 = 7 feet

So if somebody aimed at Kennedy's head (or back), the bullet would hit the ground before arriving at the target. Now let's see what the drop is for a healthy 2000 fps bullet.

drop = 16 x (200/2000)^2 = 0.16 ft = 2 inches

The bullet would drop only 2 inches. But in reality the bullet will hit dead on because the gun sight will compensate for such a small drop. Just set the sight to 200 feet. (NOTE: You cannot set a sight to compensate for the 7 foot drop of a 300 fps bullet. Though you *could* aim 7 feet above the target and hope the bullet hits.)

Note: The formula I introduce here is an estimate that assumes the velocity of the bullet doesn't change due to gravitational pull.

(Source: I got the equation (1/2)(g)t^2 from the Wikipedia article Equations for a Falling Body. Gravitational acceleration g is 32 ft/s^2 (rounded off to two digits), which I plugged into the equation. Velocity is v = d/t where d is the distance traveled by the bullet and t is the lapse in time. I solved this for time t = d/v and plugged this into the equation. That gave me (1/2)(32)(d/v)^2 = 16(d/v)^2. I inserted the multiplication symbol "x" for those who don't do more advanced math, to get 16 x (d/v)^2. My apologies to mathematical types who might have seen "x" as a variable.)

Edited August 26, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Michael Walton]

Thanks for explaining this, Sandy. Could the clothing have somehow slowed the bullet down enough so by the time it hit the skin and grizzle and muscle that it'd make it shallow like Humes said? What do you think about what I explained in an earlier post - that perhaps 399 was the actual back bullet and somehow fell out? And because Specter was already desperate to make the multiple shots work, he turned it into the Magic Bullet?

We know that 399 could NOT have been the bullet that caused Connally's wounds since there were fragments displayed as evidence taken from him and those fragments were larger than anything missing from 399. And no bullet would stay that intact while smashing into one of the hardest bones in the body (the wrist bone).

So maybe somehow this 399 bullet was the actual back wound bullet, it fell out (not from Connally but from Kennedy's back) and then presto! - it was turned into the bullet that caused all of the wounds in both of them.

[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?

You don't remember the "dirt" that appeared only on the chest x-rays that looked like fragments of a bullet but, of course, were not?

This dirt?

HSCA Vol 7:

<quote on>

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 present on the previous, pre-autopsy film. Therefore, I

assume that these are screen artifacts from debris present in the cassette at the time that

this film was exposed.

<quote off>

It's ridiculous to believe that dirt on an x-ray film cartridge would produce an artifact of any significance on an x-ray image. I mean, sure if it was a big dirt clod. But a fleck of dirt? No way. X-rays would easily pass right through it.

Sandy, the HSCA analyst used the term "debris" and noted the absence of the debris from the pre-autopsy x-ray.

If these were bullet fragments why didn't they show up on the initial x-ray?

[Sandy Larsen]

Thanks for explaining this, Sandy. Could the clothing have somehow slowed the bullet down enough so by the time it hit the skin and grizzle and muscle that it'd make it shallow like Humes said? What do you think about what I explained in an earlier post - that perhaps 399 was the actual back bullet and somehow fell out? And because Specter was already desperate to make the multiple shots work, he turned it into the Magic Bullet?

We know that 399 could NOT have been the bullet that caused Connally's wounds since there were fragments displayed as evidence taken from him and those fragments were larger than anything missing from 399. And no bullet would stay that intact while smashing into one of the hardest bones in the body (the wrist bone).

So maybe somehow this 399 bullet was the actual back wound bullet, it fell out (not from Connally but from Kennedy's back) and then presto! - it was turned into the bullet that caused all of the wounds in both of them.

Well the clothing has even less strength than muscle tissue. Far less. So clothing would have negligible effect on the bullet.

Now....

If it's true that 399 fell out of JFK's back, it had to have first created the shallow wound. For that to have happened, a shooter must have shot at a close range AND the bullet must have failed and fired at a low velocity, like 300 fps or less. (Because no modern gun shoots at such a low velocity. Not even BB guns.)

Let's suppose the shooter was really aiming at the head, not the back. And the bullet failed, causing it to hit the back instead of the head. We can calculate how far away the gunman had to have been from JFK. Here's the formula from my prior post:

drop = 16 x (d/v)^2

The bullet dropped about a foot (from the head to the back), I will plug our numbers into the formula:

1 = 16 x (d/300)^2

Now I'll use algebra to solve for d, the distance from the gun to the target, Kennedy.

d = squareroot( (1/16)(300)^2 ) = 75 feet

So yeah, if a gunman shot at the head from 75 feet or closer AND had a bullet failure resulting in a 300 fps bullet, then the shallow wound could have occurred. And I suppose the bullet could have fallen out of the shallow wound with some kind of massage to the area.

If you can think of a place for a gunman to have fired from, 75 feet or closer, then the short shot becomes a possibility. The question would then become, what are the odds that a bullet could have failed. Maybe Bob could give us a clue as to what that might have been. But obviously the odds aren't in favor of this scenario. If the odds of a bullet failure in 1963 were one in a hundred, for example, then the odds of this scenario happening are also one in a hundred.

[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.

Guys,

When I said, "...we know for a fact that at least one of these fanciful weapons has been used. That being the poison-tipped umbrella" I wasn't referring to Umbrella Man. I was referring to the documented fact that a ricin-coated pellet was used to assassinate Bulgarian dissident Georgi Markov in 1978. Its discovery confirmed the existence of an alleged umbrella-based KGB weapon.

Sounds James Bondie like, doesn't it?

My point was that high tech weapons HAVE indeed been used. More than that one time, I'm sure.

According to Charles Senseney the blood soluble dart weapons were used a lot -- MKNAOMI was around for more than two decades.

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

Hank Albarelli in Secret Order wrote that agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics who were involved with Project Underworld -- the WW2-era program to recruit Mafia chiefs in the war effort -- worked on both MKULTRA and MKNAOMI.

Staffed with mobbed up narcotics agents, MKNAOMI probably pulled a lot of drug related rub outs.