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

[Sandy Larsen]

Bob said: 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?

I can think of only these possibilities:

1. The autopsy introduced metal debris into JFK's neck.

   Unlikely IMO.

2. Metal debris was introduced to the cartridge or x-ray film some time prior to the post-autopsy x-ray being taken.

   Unlikely IMO.

3. Something is being misreported.

   Possible IMO.

4. Metal debris seen on the pre-autopsy x-ray image was intentionally removed before the HSCA proceedings occurred.

   Unlikely IMO. Because, what would be the point from removing the debris from the pre-autopsy but not the post-autopsy x-ray film?

5. The pre-autopsy x-ray film was overexposed to the point that the metal debris was obscured or removed.

   Not very likely IMO.

Most likely explanation is #3: The comment that the metal debris did not show up on the pre-autopsy x-ray was a lie designed to hide the presence of the debris from the HSCA report. IMO.

Do we have extant both the pre- and post-autopsy neck films?

Edited August 20, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Cliff Varnell]

Sandy, the metallic debris wasn't found in the chest cavity, it was in the neck. C7.

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy, the metallic debris wasn't found in the chest cavity, it was in the neck. C7.

I thought we were talking about the back wound. Somewhere along the way it morphed into the throat wound?

Okay, I'll go back and correct some things I said.

[Sandy Larsen]

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

Cliff,

Can you tell me whereabouts in this document it says that the darts were used a lot. I skimmed through it the other day and they talked a lot about poisons, and about weapons going out and coming back in, and never any feedback on the weapons, etc. But I don't remember the part about darts being used a lot. I'm sure I just missed it. I'd like to read it for myself before I go around repeating it.

Of course if you have to read the whole thing to find it, then never mind. I'm assuming you kinda know where it is.

[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>

No, not the debris in the neck. Robert is talking about the chest.

I don't know who exactly has commented on debris or dirt in the chest x-ray. But the other day I noticed that Ebersole was asked about it at the HSCA hearing. Search for "dirt" on this page.

[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>

No, not the debris in the neck. Robert is talking about the chest.

I don't know who exactly has commented on debris or dirt in the chest x-ray. But the other day I noticed that Ebersole was asked about it at the HSCA hearing. Search for "dirt" on this page.

<quote on>

Dr. EBERSOLE. On No. 9, the chest X ray, all of these irregular pinpoint capacities appear to be strictly film artifact. They are brought about by dirt in the cassette and other things. On film No. 7, the AP abdomen, these are similar artifacts, unfortunately relatively common with portable technique and dirty cassettes.

<quote off>

Metallic debris is a common phenomenon, evidently.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Not that common, as it never showed up on the other x-rays.

[Cliff Varnell]

Not that common, as it never showed up on the other x-rays.

Showed up on the post-autopsy neck x-ray.

[Cliff Varnell]

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

Cliff,

Can you tell me whereabouts in this document it says that the darts were used a lot. I skimmed through it the other day and they talked a lot about poisons, and about weapons going out and coming back in, and never any feedback on the weapons, etc. But I don't remember the part about darts being used a lot. I'm sure I just missed it. I'd like to read it for myself before I go around repeating it.

Of course if you have to read the whole thing to find it, then never mind. I'm assuming you kinda know where it is.

The Church Committee testimony of Charles Senseney.

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

pg. 170

<quote on>

Q: Were there frequent transfers of material between Dr. Gordon's office and your office, either the hardware or

the toxin?

Senseney: The only frequent thing that changed hands was the dog projectile and its loaders, 4640. This was

done maybe five or six in one quantity. And maybe 6 weeks to 6 months later they would bring those back and

ask for five or six more. They would bring them back expended, that is, they bring all the hardware except the

projectile, OK?

Q: Indicating that they have been used?

Senseney: Correct.

...Q: How much time usually elapsed between the time you gave them these weapons and the time they brought them back

to you expended?

Senseney: Usually 5 to 6 weeks.

<quote off>

[Sandy Larsen]

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

Cliff,

Can you tell me whereabouts in this document it says that the darts were used a lot. I skimmed through it the other day and they talked a lot about poisons, and about weapons going out and coming back in, and never any feedback on the weapons, etc. But I don't remember the part about darts being used a lot. I'm sure I just missed it. I'd like to read it for myself before I go around repeating it.

Of course if you have to read the whole thing to find it, then never mind. I'm assuming you kinda know where it is.

The Church Committee testimony of Charles Senseney.

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

pg. 170

<quote on>

Q: Were there frequent transfers of material between Dr. Gordon's office and your office, either the hardware or

the toxin?

Senseney: The only frequent thing that changed hands was the dog projectile and its loaders, 4640. This was

done maybe five or six in one quantity. And maybe 6 weeks to 6 months later they would bring those back and

ask for five or six more. They would bring them back expended, that is, they bring all the hardware except the

projectile, OK?

Q: Indicating that they have been used?

Senseney: Correct.

...Q: How much time usually elapsed between the time you gave them these weapons and the time they brought them back

to you expended?

Senseney: Usually 5 to 6 weeks.

<quote off>

Thanks Cliff.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the specification for the dog dart was that it should be able to penetrate clothing. And so it was really designed for humans. I think Senseny agreed with that statement. (As I said, I just skimmed over the testimony.)

[Michael Walton]

Sandy and all,

I'm sorry but I'm just not buying any of this and I think it's important for researchers who don't agree to post as well as for those who do agree.

I made a rough measurement of the distance of JFK to the Dal Tex building as seen here:

https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxZ08yMUVXcHhtdEU

A shot from there is about 66 yards away. Then I have some videos below. The using different media in his bullets video (sodium, liquid, etc.) shows what would happen when fired into a water tank. Then there's a guy firing a dart into a deer dummy.

So my question up to this point is...really? After watching this stuff, and then going back in time 53 years, was it plausible that the bad guys would try something so exotic? And I know Cliff is now going to say that yes, there was an alphabet soup entity that existed. But that's not what I'm getting at here. Was it PLAUSIBLE, meaning would the bad guys have taken that much of a risk to try something so exotic or out of the ordinary that they'd try exotic bullets or darts or whatever?

The bad guys' goals were to: 1) kill Kennedy; 3) shoot JBC to get him out of the way to make a clear shot for Kennedy; 3) make the shooting look as close to possible that the shots only came from their set dressing - the TSDB. We now know today that they succeeded with #1 and #2 but failed miserably with #3. The Z film proves otherwise and the throw down gun they used to frame Oswald would not have allowed anyone to pull it off.

But that's what the objectives were. So you really have to try to keep things plausible here - would they have taken a chance to try something exotic? I really don't think they would have.

If you watch the video where the guy is firing into the tank of water, watch the lead bullet one. Look how it slows down compared to all of the exotic ones. And this guy fired right on top of the tank literally. You mean to tell me that a shot from 66 yards away using just a plain old bullet could NOT just pierce the clothing, into skin and muscle and stop and leaving a shallow wound - and even, if possible, falling out somewhere where it's recovered and magically turned into the SBT? Based on common sense and plausibility, I think it's VERY possible.

We now arrive to the idea Sandy brought up, about how things moving in the air will eventually fall to the ground and his formula he used. Yes, it does make sense but let's just forget about this for a minute and discuss the ball player in the video below throwing home. I used to do this all the time when I played in HS and college - throwing a strike from the outfield to home. If you watch the video, the player is about 25-30 feet from the 390 foot ballpark wall. So that's a rough distance from where he threw it to home of about 120 yards.

If you watch the ball he throws it and it's starting to fall as it arrives at home plate. He threw it from 120 yards away, yet if you go back up to my graphic, a shot from the DT building to the limo has a rough distance of about 66 yards. I mean here's a human being throwing a ball a greater distance than the back shot and it's just starting to fall from the straight line and there's no doubt the player threw it probably at 80 MPH to beat the runner.

Yet, based on the discussion of this thread, we're expected to believe that a bullet, even a slow moving one, would not be possible to be fired from the DT into Kennedy's back, and just going through his clothing, making a piercing wound into his back, and then just stopping where it makes a shallow wound? I'm left trying to figure out why no one thinks this is possible. I think it's very possible.

Now I know Bob P is going to say, "Oh you don't understand ballistics and guns and distances and wounds" and so on. And I say to that...so what? I could never own a gun or fire one in my life but it doesn't mean you can't figure things out. And I think sometimes common sense and plausibility should have equal weight to trying to figure things out compared to formulas, being an expert with guns and bullets and ballistics, and so on.

Bob can also say "so you drank the koolaid, huh?" as if just because I believe in what Humes said about the back wound I've fallen for everything hook, line, and sinker. If I did fall for it all, then I wouldn't be explaining above how I think the shots played out from the DT building. In other words, Bob, not every single thing in the WC is a consipracy.

https://youtu.be/ZJA57vEc27o

https://youtu.be/A7d7QxJviv8

Edited August 21, 2016 by Michael Walton

[Cliff Varnell]

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

Cliff,

Can you tell me whereabouts in this document it says that the darts were used a lot. I skimmed through it the other day and they talked a lot about poisons, and about weapons going out and coming back in, and never any feedback on the weapons, etc. But I don't remember the part about darts being used a lot. I'm sure I just missed it. I'd like to read it for myself before I go around repeating it.

Of course if you have to read the whole thing to find it, then never mind. I'm assuming you kinda know where it is.

The Church Committee testimony of Charles Senseney.

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

pg. 170

<quote on>

Q: Were there frequent transfers of material between Dr. Gordon's office and your office, either the hardware or

the toxin?

Senseney: The only frequent thing that changed hands was the dog projectile and its loaders, 4640. This was

done maybe five or six in one quantity. And maybe 6 weeks to 6 months later they would bring those back and

ask for five or six more. They would bring them back expended, that is, they bring all the hardware except the

projectile, OK?

Q: Indicating that they have been used?

Senseney: Correct.

...Q: How much time usually elapsed between the time you gave them these weapons and the time they brought them back

to you expended?

Senseney: Usually 5 to 6 weeks.

<quote off>

Thanks Cliff.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the specification for the dog dart was that it should be able to penetrate clothing. And so it was really designed for humans. I think Senseny agreed with that statement. (As I said, I just skimmed over the testimony.)

I highly recommend close study of both Senseney's testimony and then-CIA Director William Colby's.

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf

pg. 17:

<quote on>

Mr. CHAIRMAN: Is it not true, too, that the effort not only involved not only designing a gun that could strike at a human target without knowledge of the person who had been struck, but the toxin itself would not appear in the autopsy?

Mr. COLBY: Well, there was an attempt—

Mr. CHAIRMAN: Or the dart.

Mr. COLBY: Yes; so there was no way of perceiving that the target was hit.

Mr. CHAIRMAN: As a murder instrument, that is about as efficient as you can get, is it not?

Mr. COLBY: It is a weapon, a very serious weapon.

<quote off>

With the body in front of them, the autopsists took seriously the possibility JFK was struck with a high tech weapon.

The FBI men took the scenario seriously.

And the CIA/military/FBN took the technology seriously.

JFK Pet Theorists don't take it seriously, not that that matters one iota...

Edited August 21, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Michael Walton]

Taking it seriously doesn't mean it actually happened, Cliff. That's one of the more interesting things I find on this forum - people get hooked on ideas that some government official said and think it's gospel. It's not. Government officials can be wrong too. James Humes was a "government official" yet some here don't want to believe what he said about the wound being shallow.

And Cliff, please don't now say "it's not my theory..." It's obvious that even though someone else came up with it, YOU believe it. So disavowing by saying someone else came up with it falls pretty flat in my book.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 8/21/2016 at 7:31 AM, Michael Walton said:

We now arrive to the idea Sandy brought up, about how things moving in the air will eventually fall to the ground and his formula he used. Yes, it does make sense but let's just forget about this for a minute and discuss the ball player in the video below throwing home. I used to do this all the time when I played in HS and college - throwing a strike from the outfield to home. If you watch the video, the player is about 25-30 feet from the 390 foot ballpark wall. So that's a rough distance from where he threw it to home of about 120 yards.

 

If you watch the ball he throws it and it's starting to fall as it arrives at home plate. He threw it from 120 yards away, yet if you go back up to my graphic, a shot from the DT building to the limo has a rough distance of about 66 yards. I mean here's a human being throwing a ball a greater distance than the back shot and it's just starting to fall from the straight line and there's no doubt the player threw it probably at 80 MPH to beat the runner.

 

Yet, based on the discussion of this thread, we're expected to believe that a bullet, even a slow moving one, would not be possible to be fired from the DT into Kennedy's back, and just going through his clothing, making a piercing wound into his back, and then just stopping where it makes a shallow wound? I'm left trying to figure out why no one thinks this is possible. I think it's very possible.

Mike,

The only reason that baseball made it to home base is because the guy aimed high... way high. Using your numbers (and ignoring wind resistance for simplicity), I calculated that he had to have aimed it 151 feet high. (My calculation, using your estimated numbers, is below.)

If you draw a straight line from the point where the thrower released the ball, following the path of the ball before it has dropped appreciably, you will see that he did indeed aim very, very high.

 

image

 

Now go back and watch the baseball video again. Had the thrower aimed DIRECTLY at the catcher, do you think the ball would have landed anywhere close to him? The answer is, of course not. In fact, it would have landed 98 yards short of the catcher. (I'll show you the calculation if you want to see it.) The ball would have traveled only 22 yards before hitting the ground. (For this calculation I assumed the "bullseye" was 5 ft above ground level.)

NOTE: I don't believe that the guy who threw the ball consciously aimed it 151 ft above the catcher. Of course not. He instinctually aimed it in such a way that it would arrive at home base, based upon his past experience. But regardless, the aim of the ball was roughly that high. (Again not taking air resistance into account.)

Calculation

80 mph = 117 fps

120 yards = 360 ft

drop = 16 x (d/v)^2 = 16 x (360/117)^2 = 151 feet

 

EDIT: A few days after posting this, I recalled that the formula I used was an approximation I had derived for a particular application (where a bullet travels at a near constant velocity). And I realized the formula wouldn't provide a very accurate answer for this baseball application. So I re-did the problem and posted it here. The true answer is 197 feet, not 151.

Edited April 23, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

We now arrive to the idea Sandy brought up, about how things moving in the air will eventually fall to the ground and his formula he used. Yes, it does make sense but let's just forget about this for a minute and discuss the ball player in the video below throwing home. I used to do this all the time when I played in HS and college - throwing a strike from the outfield to home. If you watch the video, the player is about 25-30 feet from the 390 foot ballpark wall. So that's a rough distance from where he threw it to home of about 120 yards.

If you watch the ball he throws it and it's starting to fall as it arrives at home plate. He threw it from 120 yards away, yet if you go back up to my graphic, a shot from the DT building to the limo has a rough distance of about 66 yards. I mean here's a human being throwing a ball a greater distance than the back shot and it's just starting to fall from the straight line and there's no doubt the player threw it probably at 80 MPH to beat the runner.

Yet, based on the discussion of this thread, we're expected to believe that a bullet, even a slow moving one, would not be possible to be fired from the DT into Kennedy's back, and just going through his clothing, making a piercing wound into his back, and then just stopping where it makes a shallow wound? I'm left trying to figure out why no one thinks this is possible. I think it's very possible.

Mike,

You say that the ball starts falling as it arrives at home late. But can that be true? Gravity is what makes the ball drop. Do you think that gravity was in effect only when the ball neared home plate?

The truth is that the ball started dropping the moment it left the throwers hand. It doesn't look like it's dropping, but that's because he didn't throw the ball horizontally.... the threw it at an upward angle.

I have a question for you... don't you believe in science? If you do believe in science then you should believe what I and others have been telling you. The equation I introduced a few posts ago is a scientific equation that describes how far an object will fall due to gravity. I didn't make that equation up... it is well known to scientists, physicists, ballistics experts, and even guys like me who took Physics 101 in college. I showed you my source for the equation, which I used because I don't have it memorized. I got if from the Wikipedia article titled Equations for Falling Bodies.

Do you think that you are smarter than all the scientists and physicists in the world? Smarter than Sir Isaac Newton, the man who formulated the concepts first describing the effect of gravity on falling objects and planetary motion? (BTW, Isaac Newton also invented a whole branch of advanced mathematics, that being calculus. His estimated IQ is close to 200)

Why don't you go to Yahoo Answers or Quora and ask the people how far a 300 fps bullet will drop upon traveling 150 feet. Ask it in the Physics section. You will quickly find out that we are right and you are wrong. I am certain of that.