A new proposal re the JFK shots and wounds

[Joseph McBride]

[Joseph McBride]

[Joseph McBride]

[Cliff Varnell]

That would have caused a twist at T1??

Better chance for the cream cheese moon scenario...

Thanks, Joe!

Edited July 13, 2020 by Cliff Varnell

[Ron Bulman]

45 minutes ago, Joseph McBride said:

Thank you for a picture I've never seen before.  Maybe the closest  to the position of when he was shot ever other than arms raised, feet/knees down.   Thought provoking.

[Cliff Varnell]

12 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Thank you for a picture I've never seen before.  Maybe the closest  to the position of when he was shot ever other than arms raised, feet/knees down.   Thought provoking.

Magic Corset Theories?

[Micah Mileto]

On 7/11/2020 at 9:18 PM, Greg Doudna said:

I have a proposed new solution on the bullets and wounds of JFK which I believe has not previously been proposed, and solicit criticism or counterevidence. My argument proposes to establish two key conclusions. The first is that the stretcher bullet at Parkland came from JFK, not Connally. The second is that the entrance wound of the bullet that exited JFK's throat was the occipital rear entrance wound at the back of JFK's head, and that this bullet, after passing through JFK's throat, then continued into Connally causing all of Connally wounds. This shot occurred at about Z323 or thereabouts, less than a second after the head shot of Z313. In other words, a modified Single Bullet Theory but with a different entrance wound than has heretofore been considered. Following I outline the arguments supporting these two conclusions. But first:

Negative finding of fact: the WC and HSCA Single Bullet Theory, aka the "Magic Bullet" (entrance JFK upper back; exit JFK throat; cause all wounds of Connally; bullet found in nearly pristine condition on the stretcher at Parkland) can be excluded. (As brought out by Dr. Cyril Wecht and others; nothing original here.)

-- The vertical trajectory is wrong, and the near-pristine nature of the stretcher bullet/C399 is incompatible with a bullet that struck the bone in Connally's wrist.

-- However although the Single Bullet Theory of the WC and HSCA is not correct, it was believed that it must or could only be correct by the majority of WC and HSCA on the basis of a perceived inability to explain where the bullet that exited JFK's throat went if it did not go into Connally. (This was the major argument of Bugliosi in defense of the WC single-bullet against Dr. Wecht.) The reconstruction that the bullet went into Connally and caused Connally's wounds seemed to be the best explanation of this point. Arlen Specter said that point was key to his own belief that the single bullet explanation was correct. Perception that the single-bullet explanation must be correct caused pressure to "raise" the location of the entrance wound on JFK's upper back (as in Gerald Ford's famous hand-drawn edit moving higher the position of the entrance wound in JFK's upper back). 

With this negative finding out of the way, I turn to the positive argument.

1. The Parkland stretcher bullet came from JFK, not Connally

-- It can be shown the Parkland stretcher bullet did not come from Connally. First, it was not found on Connally's stretcher and there is no positive reason to link it to Connally. Second, the stretcher bullet was in near-pristine condition inconsistent with a bullet that struck the bone in Connally's wrist and fractured. And third, a fragment of the bullet that hit Connally fell out of Connally's thigh in the operating room, inconsistent with the near-pristine condition of the stretcher bullet which is not missing any fragments of itself. 

-- At the same time, it can be shown the Parkland stretcher bullet did come from JFK. First, there is witness testimony associating a bullet with JFK's body at Parkland. Second, the stretcher bullet was found in the emergency receiving area of Parkland and there were only two known gunshot victims there, one of whom (Connally) is excluded as the source of that bullet on independent grounds, process of elimination argument. And third, the condition of the stretcher bullet--near-pristine--is what would be expected from a bullet matching the specific description of one of the gunshot wounds of JFK, namely the bullet of the upper back entrance wound which did not penetrate very deeply into JFK's body. Fourth, a friend of Secret Service Special Agent Kinney, after Kinney's death, has recounted that Kinney told him he found a bullet that had fallen out of JFK in the presidential limousine while at Parkland, and that he, Kinney, had walked into the emergency area of the hospital and had placed that bullet somewhere there. And fifth--this is the original part of my contribution to this point--a reconstruction of the circumstances of how the bullet came to be on the specific stretcher at the location the bullet was found (not written out here).  

-- Whether the Parkland stretcher bullet was C399 or C399 is a secondary substitution for the stretcher bullet is a distinct issue and not necessary to resolve here. All witnesses report the stretcher bullet was near-pristine, with the only discrepancy being that some witnesses have reported the stretcher bullet was pointed whereas C399 is rounded; also, that persons in the chain of custody refused to corroborate that C399 was the bullet they handled. The present argument is unaffected no matter which way that issue is resolved, since in either case the stretcher bullet was near-pristine and came from JFK, which are the key points here.

2. Modified single bullet theory in which the bullet entered at the rear of JFK's head (not previously considered; changes everything).

-- the throat wound of JFK, seen by some at Parkland before a tracheometry over the bullet hole destroyed the evidence of the wound, was thought to be an entrance wound by some observers, but there is recognition that it is not always easy to be certain whether a given bullet hole is an entrance or exit, and in any case this one was not examined and could not be examined more closely once the tracheometry was done.

-- in fact the throat wound cannot have been an entrance, because there is no exit. The possibility that a bullet entered JFK's throat and did not exit but remained in JFK's neck can be excluded for this reason: at the autopsy from witness reports there was a major attempt to "find the bullet" that was believed to be in JFK's body undiscovered, and X-rays were taken for that purpose. But no bullet was identified in JFK's body from the X-rays.

-- The JFK throat wound therefore was an exit. But an exit wound requires an entrance on the other side of the body and in a trajectory that is possible for a direction of a bullet fired at JFK. There are only two bullet wounds on the rear of JFK, both independently identified as entrance wounds, and so the bullet of the throat wound must be one of those two. That the occipital wound at the back of JFK's head was an entrance wound (and not an exit wound) is established from beveling in the skull at the point of that bullet's entry (cite specifics here). 

-- Because the occipital rear entrance wound of JFK has never been considered possible as the point of entry of the bullet that exited JFK's neck, it was perceived that the upper back entrance wound of JFK must be the entrance of the bullet that exited JFK's neck.

-- The reason the rear occipital wound of JFK's head was not considered as a possible entrance for the bullet of the throat exit wound can easily be reconstructed. Two reasons: first, it was believed that there was only a single head shot, and therefore the immense damage blowing out a major part of JFK's brain cavity required that bullet to do it, and therefore that bullet could not have simultaneously exited the throat. And second, the vertical trajectory is too steep to be compatible with that of a shot fired from a building to the rear of JFK sitting in an upright position. If the vertical trajectory from the 6th floor TSBD is about 16 degrees downward, the vertical trajectory of rear occipital to throat exit of JFK might be in the 30-40 degree range (these are guesses from me, not data or measurements, which I have not undertaken). There is no known time from the Zapruder film prior to the head shot at Z313 which would have JFK in a posture or position which would not have a difference in magnitude of trajectory which excludes it from consideration. For these two reasons, the rear occipital entrance as the bullet which exited JFK's throat--the proposal I argue here--was considered a non-starter at the outset, not even on the table for consideration. It is not that this possibility can be found discussed and then rejected for reasons a,b,c. It has simply never even been brought up for discussion as a possibility in the major discussions. 

-- As seeming airtight as both of those reasons seemed at the time (for excluding an occipital rear head entrance for the JFK throat exit wound), it happens that both objections in fact are illusory, and the piercing of these illusory objections causing them to disappear is key to the present proposal. First, in recent years multiple researchers have argued very convincingly that there were in fact two shots to JFK's head, not just one. I am thinking particularly of the work of Gary Aguilar here. In any case, it is convincing. Two shots to JFK's head is revolutionary, but one important implication of the two-JFK-head-shots finding has been missed until now: it in principle removes one of the two main reasons just cited for why the rear occipital wound was never considered for association with the throat exit wound. It was my noticing that (and following working out my analysis of the Parkland stretcher bullet as coming from JFK) that launched my thinking toward working out the theory of the present outline.

-- The other reason considered to make the rear occipital JFK wound a non-starter (for the throat exit wound)--the vertical trajectory too steep--is decisive in excluding such a reconstruction at all points of Zapruder except at the one point at which independent argument places the timing of the shot that caused that rear-occipital wound of JFK's head, namely ca. Z323 or thereabouts, ca. 0.7 seconds after the head shot of Z313.

-- The head shot of Z313--the shot that blew out JFK's skull and brains--knocked JFK's head rapidly and severely backward and to the left (pivoting backward on the neck like whiplash) and also knocked JFK's body leftward. This dramatic and rapid change in the position of the rear occipital entrance wound compared to the throat wound lowered the angle of the trajectory such that at ca. Z323, the time that blur analysis indicates for the final shot 0.7 seconds after the Z313 head shot--and the angle of the trajectory can now be seen correct. Studies remain to be done--all I have done is look at the Zapruder frames at Z313f many times and try to mentally envision approximate angle of trajectory. But because other grounds call for the rear occipital wound as the entrance for the bullet that exited JFK's throat, I believe this is the solution. The sudden distortion in the positioning of JFK's head and body posture at this precise point in the Zapruder sequence at the time indicated for the final shot brings the vertical trajectory in alignment with a shot fired from a building to the rear. 

-- Many witnesses heard the final two shots very close together, and commented on this phenomenon so specifically that that witness testimony is very compelling. This witness testimony corresponds to blur analysis of the Zapruder frames--blur analysis being the gold standard method for identifying times of the gunshots in Zapruder--indicating the head shot at Z313 and another shot--the final shot--about 0.7 seconds later at ca. Z323. 

-- Since there is convincing argument from medical evidence on independent grounds for two head shots, and since the head shot of Z313 is the one that did the major brain and skull damage to JFK (with good grounds for identifying the source of that shot as the Grassy Knoll), the shot of Z323 was the second head shot, the rear occipital entry at the back of JFK's head.

-- Separately and independently, there has already been argument set forth that Connally was hit after Z313 rather than earlier, based on analysis of his movements and witness testimony (cite, describe, and discuss). Although the timing of the shot that hit Connally is debated, the stronger argument seems to be the post-Z313 argument. WC and HSCA had Connally hit earlier, but ca. Z323 makes better sense on a number of grounds. (Argue specifics and details on this point here.) 

-- The conclusion is a modified single-bullet theory in which at ca. Z323 a single bullet entered the rear occipital of JFK's head, exited JFK's throat, and proceeded to hit Connally causing all wounds to Connally. The bullet fractured when hitting the bone of Connally's wrist and pieces were found under Nellie Connally's seat, hitting the windshield and falling to the front of the limousine, and a piece lodged in Connally's thigh. 

-- With this reconstruction longstanding problems in understanding the JFK shots and wounds may in one fell swoop be solved. With an earlier shot hitting JFK in the upper back, another shot accounting for the street and kerb hit and then Tague (if he was grazed by a fragment of concrete spun his way by that bullet), and the final two shots to the head of JFK with the final one being a single bullet hitting both JFK and Connally, all data can be accounted for in terms of four shots total, with the final two very close together, such that some witnesses might hear the final two as one. 

The shot to JFK's upper back again

-- At the JFK autopsy according to witness testimony there were many attempts to probe the wound in JFK's upper back, attempting to find a path to the throat wound, which were unsuccessful. There were also X-rays with attempts to "find the bullet" suspected to be lodged inside JFK, but none was seen in the X-rays. Humes probed the upper back wound with his little finger and reported the wound was only about an inch deep. This back wound was not connected to the throat wound. Furthermore, the direction of the bullet entering the back wound was found to be somewhat downward, consistent with a trajectory of a shot fired from a rear building sloping downward into JFK's back (rather than the slightly-upward trajectory necessitated if the exit was through JFK's throat). 

-- All of the evidence with respect to the wound of the upper back of JFK is consistent with an entrance wound which the bullet barely penetrated--a wound so shallow, in fact, that the bullet of that wound fell back out, and was found as the stretcher bullet at Parkland.

-- In this reconstruction, JFK's raising of his arms and elbows and appearing to be reaching both hands to his throat, of Zapruder, becomes a reaction not to the bullet of the rear occipital entrance and exiting through his throat--that shot has not happened yet--but rather is a reaction to the shot that hit JFK in the upper back.

There was a conspiracy

-- In the establishment as a finding of fact--from blur analysis and other argument--of two final shots 0.7 seconds apart--it is the timing between shots (not the total time required for all shots) is the key evidence which excludes explanation in terms of a single shooter. The establishment as a finding of fact--from medical analysis and argument--that there were two head shots not one to JFK, also establishes more than one shooter, since the two shots can only have been very close together per Zapruder, too close in time between shots for both to have been done by a single shooter.

-- That (preceding paragraph) adds to the already-known lines of evidence indicating the first head shot, at Z313, came from the right or front. Such evidence includes the reaction of JFK when hit with this shot in Zapruder; the bloody matter from JFK's head splattering motorcycle police officers to the rear and to the left; witnesses hearing a gunshot and smelling gunsmoke near the Grassy Knoll. The explanations offered for JFK's sharp head movement to the rear and to the left at Z313 as caused by a shot from the rear are insubstantial upon examination, and have served only to obfuscate. A witness, the deaf Ed Hoffman, whom I judge credible, saw from a distance the shooter at the Grassy Knoll. The witnesses who encountered an unexplained Secret Service person who has not been identified corresponds with what Hoffman witnessed and suggests the mechanism of that shooter's escape was impersonation of an investigating officer in the moments following the shooting. A shot from the Grassy Knoll establishes more than one shooter, since other shots--the shot that hit JFK's upper back, and that which entered the rear occipital of JFK's head--originated from the rear, in a different location. There was more than one shooter, hence conspiracy (planning by two or more to commit a crime).  

Metacomment 

-- Drawing on Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, and my study under Martin Bernal who supervised an M.A. for me at Cornell and who analyzed "the sociology of scholarship", along with a fascination I have had with this topic, this comment. After an existing paradigm or theory is established and entrenched, it gathers numerous other points which are interpreted and seen as supporting the theory. After this passes a certain point it is extraordinarily difficult to dislodge a theory simply and only by showing factual refutations of any specific point The human mind--including the scientific mind--will (if honest) acknowledge problems in theories, and look for alternative explanations which will allow the paradigm to remain. If no alternative explanation is at hand, in most cases in the humanities or social sciences (hard physical sciences excepted) theories which have served well and are considered productive and familiar, are rarely overthrown or rejected simply because someone showed a mere key fact to be false. What is required for minds to change in these cases is not only the factual refutation--a necessary but not sufficient condition--but also the presentation of an alternative and superior narrative or story which better accounts for the facts in their totality. (Even then Kuhn showed that scientists rarely change paradigms mid-life; they simply die out and younger scientists gravitate to the newer theory based on its superior explanatory power.)

-- On the matter of the JFK assassination, the bullets and medical wounds establishing more than one shooter is absolutely critical, the difference between a case that is closed and a case that remains open. Although a number of theories of the shots and explanations of the wounds of JFK and Connally have been offered, arguably each have suffered from their own problems if they do not take into account the two points offered here: the stretcher bullet at Parkland as coming from JFK; and the modified single bullet theory in which the bullet entered not in JFK's upper back but entered at the rear occipital of his head, in the second of two head shots which occurred at ca. Z323. 

If this stands, this could not only be satisfying in being correct, but could become seen to be correct by those who have assumed the WC had the best explanatory narrative to account for the facts of the ballistics and medical evidence.

Appeal

The above is an outline only, setting forth the argument obviously in abbreviated form. I sincerely request the strongest possible falsification of any key point of this argument. I am more interested in getting it right than in being right. Thank you in advance for comments!

At this point, why not? Has anybody done an essay long enough to encapsulate all possible knowledge and theories regarding the gurney andgurney bullet?

[Cliff Varnell]

1 minute ago, Micah Mileto said:

At this point, why not? Has anybody done an essay long enough to encapsulate all possible knowledge and theories regarding the gurney andgurney bullet?

Since JFK had a shallow wound in the soft tissue between his 3rd Thoracic Vertebrae and the upper margin of his right scapula, we can safely rule out a 6.5mm FMJ round.

Other than a study of the FBI role in the cover-up, CE-399 is at best useless and at worse an energy wasting distraction.

[Cliff Varnell]

Back in 2017 I reacted to the hung jury CAPA Mock Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald with deep dismay.  The first reports said the Oswald defense was the acoustics and the Neutron Activation Analysis of bullet fragments and paraffin wax.

The acoustics and the NAA — two of the more pernicious rabbit holes.  “Ah hell, where’s CE-399?” I wondered.  Then I learned the provenance of the Magic Bullet was indeed part of the defense.  “Ah hell,” I further wondered, “Where’s the head wound/s?”  And right on cue I found Jim DiEugenio on Deep Politics Forum raving about what a great job Mark Chesser did with the head wound/s at the Mock Trial.

The grand slam of Rabbit Holes!

Nothing like taking an open-and-shut cold case conspiracy and making it a debate over evidence which takes an advanced degree to verify!

No wonder the conspiracy factualist view loses support with younger folks.

 

[Greg Doudna]

Cliff, forget the role of JFK's corset or back brace in that T1 transverse process fracture. A gunshot directly accounts for it--the head shot at Z313 from a sidewards trajectory hitting JFK's head with great force. Zapruder clearly shows JFK's head and neck knocked violently leftward and backward. The stress of that force, with focus here on the sideways component of that violent force (the cause of so many transverse process fractures), then causes that fracture in JFK (the way identical fractures of the T1 transverse process invariably happen). It was not that the bullet hit bone at T1, but it was the direct effect of the impact of the Z313 bullet causing violent stress and force sideways that caused it. Can that be excluded as a reasonable causative explanation for that damage: in which it was a hit with a bullet that caused it, but the bullet did not strike or make physical contact with bone at T1 directly, and the bullet that caused that fracture was the one of Z313? 

Edited July 13, 2020 by Greg Doudna

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Cliff, forget the role of JFK's corset or back brace in that T1 transverse process fracture. A gunshot directly accounts for it--the head shot at Z313 from a sidewards trajectory hitting JFK's head with great force. Zapruder clearly shows JFK's head and neck knocked violently leftward and backward. The stress of that force, with focus here on the sideways component of that violent force (the cause of so many transverse process fractures), then causes that fracture in JFK (the way identical fractures of the T1 transverse process invariably happen). It was not that the bullet hit bone at T1, but it was the direct effect of the impact of the Z313 bullet causing violent stress and force sideways that caused it.

And it left an air-pocket over-laying the right C7/T1 transverse processes?

Impossible!

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

Can that be excluded as a reasonable causative explanation for that damage: in which it was a hit with a bullet that caused it, but the bullet did not strike or make physical contact with bone at T1 directly, and the bullet that caused that fracture was the one of Z313? 

Yes, your pet theory is absolute rubbish.

[David Josephs]

Anthony... you have more supporters than you know, then. 

I'd highly suggest you read the SWAN SONG - MATH RULES thread....  it is long and very complicated but worth the time and effort...  you will see the FBI, Shaneyfelt and Gauthier and gang for who they were and what they did....in WCD298 and CE884

Conclusions are similar...  only that thread shows the math employed to sync the data to the 6th floor TSBD as opposed to where & when the shots actually originated...
sync all the data, films, photos into charts measurements and locations that simply doesn't work in Dealey Plaza..

In the process we see how and where the films were altered to cover a 2nd headshot, limo stop, a shot at z154. the crazy numbering of the frames, the timing discrepancies, the wide turn onto Elm, the shot further down past z313....

16 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Thank you in advance for comments!

Same for you Greg...  you present quite a lot of "accepted" info...  I think a careful read of that MATH read will help you see things in a different light...

FWIW
DJ

Use this search for "MATH" in thread titles... there are a number of generations of that thread thanks to Chris D....
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/search/?q=math rules&quick=1&type=forums_topic&search_in=titles

[Greg Doudna]

10 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Same for you Greg...  you present quite a lot of "accepted" info...  I think a careful read of that MATH read will help you see things in a different light...

FWIW
DJ

Use this search for "MATH" in thread titles... there are a number of generations of that thread thanks to Chris D....
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/search/?q=math rules&quick=1&type=forums_topic&search_in=titles

Thanks David Josephs. Unfortunately I read through about the first 3 pages of the 57 and, sad to say, I have no idea what he is talking about. I catch that there is some argument from math about a change in Zapruder film speed from 18 to 46 frames per second or something, but I could not work out what was the argument or point. One or two commenters on those first three pages expressed the same puzzlement. Would it be possible for you to say as simple clear description in a single paragraph what the argument is? I looked on Mary Ferrell re argument for Zapruder being altered and could not find much substantial. Do you know of a single print article (print much preferred by me over video if possible) that best makes whatever case you think is correct on that, such as this math that you mention? Thanks--

[Cliff Varnell]

On 7/12/2020 at 10:16 AM, Anthony Mugan said:

Hi
 

I shall probably not be popular with this, but...One of the things that was quite striking when I first began to study this subject was how none of the theories presented up to that point in time (more than 10 years ago now) worked fully across the full range of data.

Not true.  The autopsists’ speculation that JFK was hit in the back with a high tech round which dissolved fits the verified data.

Lots of folks are in denial about this given their biases against cartoons.

 

Edited April 12 by Cliff Varnell

[Steven Kossor]

A "vintage" Mannlicher Carcano rifle with an "underpowered bullet" that only penetrated "less than a finger's length" seems to be a balanced equation to me.  At least it is conceivable that the people who planted that rifle and CE 399 made that connection and hoped others would too.