Michael Clark Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 (edited) This thread became unwieldy inasmuch as someone wanting to browse it for some answers quickly gets bogged down in loads of information. : http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/22338-any-prevailing-theories-on-the-back-wound/&page=1 I am opening this thread with the idea that the linked thread might retain the abundant data and minutia while the foregoing thread might demonstrate some brevity. (Callmeadreamer) Another back wound thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/22956-jfks-shallow-back-wound-revisited-for-the-umpteenth-time/&page=15 Cheers, Michael Edited March 2, 2017 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted March 1, 2017 Author Share Posted March 1, 2017 -if the back wound was truly probed to a couple inches, I am at a loss for an explanation. -I am not buying the tumbling bullet theory -that bruise on JFK's back speaks to a close-up application of some device, IMO. (Some kind of bolt throwing device?) Cheers, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 (edited) Lt. Lipsey is a good source for information on this wound. He said that half the autopsy was spent looking for the bullet or fragments related to the back wound. None were found. It was a real mystery. I think one of the FBI guys called his guys and asked what kind of ammo could disappear like that. An ice bullet? One that completely fragments? The short bullet track that Humes described is theoretically impossible, unless the bullet shot from a handgun at a fairly short distance. Here's why: Only a low-power bullet could have made so little damage. The primary thing that makes a bullet low-powered is that it is shot at a low velocity. A low-velocity bullet cannot be shot from a great distance and be expected to hit its target. That's because by the time the bullet reaches it's target, it will have dropped too far (due to gravity) to hit the bullseye. Here are what some people believe about the bullet that made this wound: David Lifton: The bullet wound is fake. It was made after the shooting to make it look like someone was shooting from behind. Cliff Varnell: The autopsists considered the possibility of the projectile being a blood soluble projectile. This had to have been shot from a short range. Robert Prudhomme: The bullet is a frangible type... one that breaks up into dozens or hundreds of pieces. These bullets do a lot of damage. For Robert's theory to hold, Humes had to have seen a lot of damage to the lung and had to have hidden that fact from the autopsy audience. My money is on the frangible bullet, but a failed one. It would haven been shot from a rifle. It failed and broke up prematurely. It's fragments hit a rib bone, which absorbed the energy without a lot of damage to the tissue. The bullet hit at a steep angle (like 45 degrees), and the particles were deflected downward upon impact with the rib bone. I know that that is an elaborate and highly speculative hypothesis. But there seems to be no simple solution that can explain the back wound. Edited March 2, 2017 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 Michael, You should take a look at my hypothesis here: Why Humes Thought the Back Missile Hit at a Sharp Angle -- a Hypothesis If nothing else, just take a glance at my diagrams. Pat Speer describes his 45 degree theory in a post right after mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted March 1, 2017 Author Share Posted March 1, 2017 (edited) Edited March 1, 2017 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted March 1, 2017 Author Share Posted March 1, 2017 2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Michael, You should take a look at my hypothesis here: Why Humes Thought the Back Missile Hit at a Sharp Angle -- a Hypothesis If nothing else, just take a glance at my diagrams. Pat Speer describes his 45 degree theory in a post right after mine. Thanks Sandy, I will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted March 1, 2017 Author Share Posted March 1, 2017 My thinking is very much in flux about all of this. Some other points: keeping in mind, if you will, that I hold no photo evidence, or any Parkland or Bethesda accounts to be necessarily factual. -I've seen no photos of Connally wounds -Any back wound photos that exist or might turn-up could be from either victim -Any chest wound photos that exist or might turn-up could be from either victim Cheers, Michael - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted March 2, 2017 Author Share Posted March 2, 2017 Connally's leg wound is kind of a mystery as well, if you don't believe in a magic, pristine, CE399. Cheers, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 48 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Lt. Lipsey is a good source for information on this wound. He said that half the autopsy was spent looking for the bullet or fragments related to the back wound. None were found. It was a real mystery. I think one of the FBI guys called his guys and asked what kind of ammo could disappear like that. An ice bullet? One that completely fragments? The short bullet track that Humes described is theoretically impossible, unless the bullet shot from a handgun at a fairly short distance. Here's why: Only a low-power bullet could have made so little damage. The primary thing that makes a bullet low-powered is that it is shot at a low velocity. A low-velocity bullet cannot be shot from a great distance and be expected to hit its target. That's because by the time the bullet reaches it's target, it will have dropped too far (due to gravity) to hit the bullseye. Here are what some people believe about the bullet that made this wound: David Lifton: The bullet wound is fake. It was made after the shooting to make it look like someone was shooting from behind. Cliff Varnell: The projectile is an ice bullet or dart. This had to have been shot from a short range. Robert Prudhomme: The bullet is a frangible type... one that breaks up into dozens or hundreds of pieces. These bullets do a lot of damage. For Robert's theory to hold, Humes had to have seen a lot of damage to the lung and had to have hidden that fact from the autopsy audience. My money is on the frangible bullet, but a failed one. It would haven been shot from a rifle. It failed and broke up prematurely. It's fragments hit a rib bone, which absorbed the energy without a lot of damage to the tissue. The bullet hit at a steep angle (like 45 degrees), and the particles were deflected downward upon impact with the rib bone. I know that that is an elaborate and highly speculative hypothesis. But there seems to be no simple solution that can explain the back wound. Sandy, please don't ascribe to me the scenario that JFK was hit with a blood soluble round which dissolved in his body. It was the autopsists who first thought that, while the body was in front of them. If he were hit in the back with a frangible round why didn't any of it show up on x-ray? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 2 minutes ago, Michael Clark said: Some other points: keeping in mind, if you will, that I hold no photo evidence, or any Parkland or Bethesda accounts to be necessarily factual. LOL, well at some point you'll either have to 1) accept some of the evidence as being factual, or 2) accept that you'll never have any idea what happened. IMO there is some testimony that can be taken as factual. For example, if the testimony hurts the official story, there's a good chance it is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 11 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: Sandy, please don't ascribe to me the scenario that JFK was hit with a blood soluble round which dissolved in his body. Okay, sorry. 11 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: It was the autopsists who first thought that, while the body was in front of them. If he were hit in the back with a frangible round why didn't any of it show up on x-ray? My hypothesis states that the particles from the frangible bullet are so fine that they are difficult to distinguish on x-rays. Especially when they are inline with bone. Remember, there was damage to the transverse process of a vertebrae, and no fragments could be seen there either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 18 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Okay, sorry. My hypothesis states that the particles from the frangible bullet are so fine that they are difficult to distinguish on x-rays. Especially when they are inline with bone. Remember, there was damage to the transverse process of a vertebrae, and no fragments could be seen there either. Are you sure that it's even possible for all bullet fragments to be so fine? The damage to the T1 transverse had nothing to do with the back wound, which was several inches lower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted March 2, 2017 Author Share Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: Are you sure that it's even possible for all bullet fragments to be so fine? It's not possible in my book. Frangible does not mean vaporizing. Frangable means fragmentating. The best it can do is to leave it unidentifiable. Cheers, Michael Edited March 2, 2017 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 18 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: Are you sure that it's even possible for all bullet fragments to be so fine? What I'm sure of is that even a lead fragment will be nearly invisible on an x-ray if it is small enough. What I don't know is what the capabilities of the CIA were in terms of frangible bullets in 1963. Or whether they would actually have any interest in such a bullet with fine enough particles that they are hard to discern on x-rays. 18 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: The damage to the T1 transverse had nothing to do with the back wound, which was several inches lower. I was just making the point that the bullet fragment that caused that damage couldn't be seen on an x-ray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 11 minutes ago, Michael Clark said: 29 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: Are you sure that it's even possible for all bullet fragments to be so fine? It's not possible in my book. Frangible does not mean "vaporizing". Frangable means fragmentating. The best it can do is to leave it unidentifiable. Cheers, Michael Who said anything about vaporizing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now