Jump to content
The Education Forum

Why I don't believe CE 399 traversed both Kennedy and Connally.


Pat Speer
 Share

Recommended Posts

I list below some of the reasons I don't believe a single-bullet traversed both Kennedy and Connally as purported in the single-bullet theory.

1. On the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors were unable to probe the back wound beyond an inch or two.

2. The direction of the wound they were able to probe led sharply downward, at 45 or 60 degrees, when the throat wound, what they eventually determined to be the exit, was slightly above the back entrance.

4. Dr. John Nichols in the 1970's and Dr. David Mantik in the 1990's studied the overhead view of the bullet trajectory through the body and concluded that the bullet would have to have traveled through Kennedy's spine to exit through the middle of his throat. CE399 could not have struck the spine directly or its nose would demonstrate substantially more damage.

5. My own studies of the bullet trajectory on human cross-sections confirms the work of Nichols and Mantik. What's more I have found in the medical literature confirmation that Mantik's approach, using CT-scans to approximate a bullet's trajectory through the body, is scientifically valid.

6. While some single-bullet theorists, including Dr. Lattimer, have held that CE399 DID strike the transverse process of Kennedy's spine, with the underside of the bullet, he ignores that such a deflection would cause the bullet to tumble. The purported exit wound in Kennedy's throat was unusually small, and while it may reflect a shored exit of a bullet heading nose first, it is completely incompatible with the exit of a tumbling bullet.

7. A study of the wound ballistics literature indicates that a wound created by a high-speed bullet exiting in the middle of the throat is normally a lethal wound. The temporary cavity of a high-speed bullet would be likely to stretch or shear veins and arteries and cause extensive internal bleeding. Kennedy had only mild bleeding.

8. A study of the wound ballistics literature indicates that the trachea is especially prone to cavitation and is likely to receive extensive damage if struck by a high-speed bullet. Dr. Perry described the trachea wound as "small."

9. A trajectory analysis of the side view of Kennedy indicates that the back wound was slightly lower than the throat wound. This was confirmed by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel. They presented a drawing indicating that if Kennedy was leaning sharply forward at the moment of impact, a bullet could have traveled upwards within Kennedy's body while traveling downwards through space. The Zapruder film shows no such lean occurred. The trajectory analysis performed by NASA's Thomas Canning, moreover,which supported the single-bullet theory, was an absolute sham. In order to make Kennedy's wounds point back to the sniper's nest, he concluded that Kennedy was leaning forward, struck in the back, SAT UP, and was struck in the head at frame 313. I KID YOU NOT. While a bullet entering Kennedy's back could have been deflected upwards to exit from Kennedy's throat, the bullet's path through Connally was sharply downwards. This would mean that CE 399 would have to have been deflected upwards within Kennedy, and then been deflected downwards upon exit. Single-assassin theorists are straight-line kind of people, however, and refuse to promote this possibility, even though it is the only explanation for the wounds that doesn't involve moving the back wound upwards. Dale Myers, in order to sell his cartoon, simply moved the wound.

10. A line connecting the anatomical location of the back entrance, with the anatomical location of the throat exit, even if it somehow passes outside the spine, would crash through the first rib. If it somehow went over the first rib it would have to turn downwards to exit so low in the throat. If it passed below the first rib, it would almost certainly pierce Kennedy's lung. The autopsy report reflects that Kennedy's lung was bruised but not pierced.

10. The bruise on the apical tip of Kennedy's lung was in the shape of an UPSIDE-DOWN PYRAMID. While this bruise purportedly reflects damage created by the temporary cavity of a high-speed bullet, a study of the wound ballistics literature indicates that lung is the tissue in the body LEAST likely to bruise from cavitation. Lung bruises, moreover, are more regularly associated with bullets smashing into an overlying bone. Since the bruise was in a pyramid-shape, to follow, it appears to reflect an actual impact on the overlying bone; temporary cavities are conical. The nature of the bruise and the shape of the bruise, therefore, suggests that the bruise was caused by an impact on the first rib from above. I have not found anything indicating that a temporary cavity can travel through bone in such a manner. As a result, I suspect this indicates that the bullet itself impacted on the bone from above.

http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu18.html

You can't be a loser if you never quit, unless being a loser means not knowing when to quit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually you can disprove the Single Bullet Theory very easily if you just show when John Connally was actually wounded. It should be apparent to anyone with an IQ greater than 75 that the SBT is impossible with the wound to JFK's back so far below his neck. The reason that the Warren Commission was tricked into that conclusion is that the autopsy photos were "the property of the Kennedy family." I think I remember Specter saying "and out of deference to the Kennedy family, the autopsy photos were not shown." Of course, the Warren Commission used a drawing made from memory several months after the autopsy (show me another case in history where the autopsy photos and other evidence is controlled by the victim's family).

You can also understand that the SBT is wrong if you carefully look at Connally's wounds. The single bullet theory is not consistent with all those wounds.

I met with Dr. Wecht last year and told him you have been arguing for years about what did NOT happen, you've never shown what actually did happen. And of course, the majority of Americans do not believe the Warren Commission's conclusion of a single shooter, but virtually no one understands what did happen.

By the way, you may remember that Dr. Wecht was the lone dissenting member of the 1978 House Subcommittee on Assassinations. His basis was that the down angle of the bullet through Connelly was approximately 25 degrees, something that is impossible with the supposed entry wound to JFK below his neck.

So, if you don't believe the SBT, when was Connally shot? When you answer that question correctly, you'll also know who ordered the killing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually you can disprove the Single Bullet Theory very easily if you just show when John Connally was actually wounded. It should be apparent to anyone with an IQ greater than 75 that the SBT is impossible with the wound to JFK's back so far below his neck. The reason that the Warren Commission was tricked into that conclusion is that the autopsy photos were "the property of the Kennedy family." I think I remember Specter saying "and out of deference to the Kennedy family, the autopsy photos were not shown." Of course, the Warren Commission used a drawing made from memory several months after the autopsy (show me another case in history where the autopsy photos and other evidence is controlled by the victim's family).

The "Kennedy family forbade us" argument offered up by Specter is both a lame excuse and untrue. Specter's own memos in April and May, 1964 indicate he knew that Robert Kennedy had no objections. Katzenbach later testified RFK had no objections. Warren deserves some credit in that just before he died he wrote about the Warren Commission and took full responsibility for withholding the photos from Specter and the doctors. Even so, the "Kennedy family forbade us" story has been repeated many times since, mostly by the autopsy doctors, who were told that fib by Specter when they testified in March, 1964, and, apparently, never learned otherwise. It's possible that Specter believed it at that time as well. To their credit, at one time or another, the majority of the Warren Commission counsel have criticized this decision by Warren.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8. A study of the wound ballistics literature indicates that the trachea is especially prone to cavitation and is likely to receive extensive damage if struck by a high-speed bullet. Dr. Perry described the trachea wound as "small."

Pat, this cavitation near gas filled cavities will compress the gas. In this case the air in the throat and tubes leading to the lungs. With the collapse of the cavity, again there is air movement.

---Jackie sitting next to Kennedy clearly said she heard no sound from Kennedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting observations, Pat, you could also consider the forensic aspects of CE 399 itself. This bullet is supposed to have gone through two bodies and finally stopped within the left thigh of John Connally. However, no human tissue or blood were recovered from the bullet and not one single fibre of fabric from clothing was found on the bullet.

Also, when a bullet passes through a single layer of fabric it is quite usual for a few small scratches to be left on the bullet know as 'fabric striations' The Warren Commission would have us believe that CE 399 passed through four layers of clothing on Kennedy, four layers of clothing on the back and front of Connally's chest,

probably two layers of clothing around the right wrist of Connally and finally through a layer of clothing over Connally's left thigh.

How many fabric striations were found on CE 399 which had supposedly gone through all these layers of clothing? The answer is none whatsoever. Forensically there is no evidence to show that bullet CE 399 ever passed through anybody.

I don't believe that CE 399 transversed both Kennedy and Connally either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8. A study of the wound ballistics literature indicates that the trachea is especially prone to cavitation and is likely to receive extensive damage if struck by a high-speed bullet. Dr. Perry described the trachea wound as "small."

Pat, this cavitation near gas filled cavities will compress the gas. In this case the air in the throat and tubes leading to the lungs. With the collapse of the cavity, again there is air movement.

---Jackie sitting next to Kennedy clearly said she heard no sound from Kennedy.

__________________________________________

John,

So, for those of us who aren't so scientifically inclined, what's your point?

Respectfully, Thomas

__________________________________________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's not rocket science "The human trachea, or windpipe. The larynx, or voice box, lies at the entrance to the trachea. The two vocal cords are membranes that normally remain open and still. When they are drawn together, the passage of air makes them vibrate and produce sounds."

I think this point (#8) made by Pat could be important, It makes me think of Jackies tetimony for this reason ::

The temporary cavitation is usually called explosive. It's a large space (compared to the missile) created very quickly.(it'll pulsate and travel in the direction of the missiles path as well as some backblow) It'll obey the usual laws. Pressure in fluids tends to evacuate through the weaker or less resistant. In this case the trachea and into the larger sack called lung. If the trachea has been torn by the bullet I can imagine that much of the cavitation force goes to compressing the air in the lungs. Then both as the lungs and the air in it returns to 'rest', and the cavitation subsides there would be fast air movement through the trachea, holes and voice box.

Jackie, as far as I know, was quite clear about NOT hearing any sound from Kennedy. Therefore one can see that as a further indication that the trachea did NOT have a bullet pass through or close to it. IOW the initial report in TIME magazine describing the Bethesda autopsy report concluding that the first bullet hit the back but the front throat wound was (if there at all) caused by a fragment from the headshot.

Further, on of the lung lobes did have bruising. A bullet passing into the back on a down angle and only passing in a short distance will be surrounded by tissue. Experiments (such as Pat has mentioned) (see army.mil) have shown that the cavitation can cause damage to tissue and bone without the bullet itself striking it. When close to a cavity like the lung one would expect to find bruising.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further, on of the lung lobes did have bruising. A bullet passing into the back on a down angle and only passing in a short distance will be surrounded by tissue. Experiments (such as Pat has mentioned) (see army.mil) have shown that the cavitation can cause damage to tissue and bone without the bullet itself striking it. When close to a cavity like the lung one would expect to find bruising.

I trust that last line had a typo. The wound ballistics literature indicates that a bullet passing near the lung but not impacting the lung would be unlikely to cause the bruise described by the doctors, particularly since there was no evidence for a massive temporary cavity anywhere in the neck.

I'm not sure if a high-speed bullet hitting the trachea would necessarily cause a noise to be uttered, but it's definitely food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

indicate he knew that Robert Kennedy had no objections. Katzenbach later testified RFK had no objections. Warren deserves some credit in that just before he died he wrote about the Warren Commission and took full responsibility for withholding the photos from Specter and the doctors.

Actually the Warren Commisson was controlled by Hoover supplying the "evidence" and Johnson supplying the power when needed to ensure the coverup worked. There was absolutely no way that the Conspirators, Johnson and Hoover were going to allow autopsy information to be supplied to the Warren Commission. That part was fundamental to the coverup.

This is just another indicator who the conspirators were. It was Lyndon Johnson and Hoover all along. Why else would the government insist on something that isn't true, that one bullet passed through JFK after hitting him him in the back and exiting his throat, a situation that IF true, would mean the bullet would have to been traveling UP when it left Kennedy.

As anyone knows, the Warren Commission then said the bullet went DOWN when it passed through Connelly hitting him in the back, exiting his chest, breaking his right wrist, and then depositing A BULLET FRAGMENT in his left leg.

OF course, there is NOT enough mass missing from the magic bullet to deposit the material found in John Connelly's wrist and the fragment in his leg.

I'll give you another clue, but something I haven't researched, I just saw a reference to the bullet fragments found in the car do NOT have any blood or human tissue on the bullet fragments found in the car.

The quote: -- There were no traces of blood or human tissue on the bullet fragments that were found in the limousine when Donahue examined them at the National Archives, yet the Warren Commission said these fragments came from the bullet that plowed through the President's head.

This quote is from a rediculous paper that was trying to show another of the Secret Service fired the shot papers.

Is it true there were no Human blood or tissue on the bullet fragments? This should be true for CE840, the three bullet fragments found under Nellie Connally's seat. I doubt if it's true (but it is possible for the Connally shooting scenario) for the bullet fragments found toward the front of the car (CE 567, 569).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further, on of the lung lobes did have bruising. A bullet passing into the back on a down angle and only passing in a short distance will be surrounded by tissue. Experiments (such as Pat has mentioned) (see army.mil) have shown that the cavitation can cause damage to tissue and bone without the bullet itself striking it. When close to a cavity like the lung one would expect to find bruising.

I trust that last line had a typo. The wound ballistics literature indicates that a bullet passing near the lung but not impacting the lung would be unlikely to cause the bruise described by the doctors, particularly since there was no evidence for a massive temporary cavity anywhere in the neck.

I'm not sure if a high-speed bullet hitting the trachea would necessarily cause a noise to be uttered, but it's definitely food for thought.

I mean it, no typo (more likely misunderstanding)

based on reading this chapter:

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/ww.../chapter3.1.htm

However, I think you're right to raise doubt. What it seems to me to boil down to is the trajectory, energy and depth of penetration. One can quote the experiments in different ways depending on what one assumes or deduces the trajectory to be.

There would always be some temporary cavitation. Damage is often seen microscopically. Were slides of tissue around the entrance wound studied to see the extent of cavitation?

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further, on of the lung lobes did have bruising. A bullet passing into the back on a down angle and only passing in a short distance will be surrounded by tissue. Experiments (such as Pat has mentioned) (see army.mil) have shown that the cavitation can cause damage to tissue and bone without the bullet itself striking it. When close to a cavity like the lung one would expect to find bruising.

I trust that last line had a typo. The wound ballistics literature indicates that a bullet passing near the lung but not impacting the lung would be unlikely to cause the bruise described by the doctors, particularly since there was no evidence for a massive temporary cavity anywhere in the neck.

I'm not sure if a high-speed bullet hitting the trachea would necessarily cause a noise to be uttered, but it's definitely food for thought.

I mean it, no typo (more likely misunderstanding)

based on reading this chapter:

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/ww.../chapter3.1.htm

However, I think you're right to raise doubt. What it seems to me to boil down to is the trajectory, energy and depth of penetration. One can quote the experiments in different ways depending on what one assumes or deduces the trajectory to be.

There would always be some temporary cavitation. Damage is often seen microscopically. Were slides of tissue around the entrance wound studied to see the extent of cavitation?

John, here is the relevant part of that article you cited...

"Although the general structural makeup of the abdomen is similar to that of muscle, the thorax and head are quite different. The thorax is largely air filled, because of the large volume occupied by the lungs. Its walls are also more rigid than are those of the abdomen, because of the supporting ribs. The head is made up of a brain, essentially liquid, enclosed in rigid cranial walls. The temporary cavity in thorax or head will, therefore, be modified by various secondary conditions, and the expansion coefficient can be expected to be quite different in the three regions."

I've read a number of articles on gunshot wounds to the lung. The air in the lungs works as a buffer and the temporary cavity is absorbed within a short distance with very little bruising. Dr. Martin Fackler began a campaign some years back in order to try to correct many of the misimpressions created by the cult of speed." His short manifesto "What's Wrong with the Wound Ballistics Literature and Why" is considered by many to be the definitive statement on wound ballistics. He holds that those correlating massive damage to the relative speed of the bullet, without taking into account the specific location of the wound, the mass of the bullet and the behavior of the bullet--whether or not it tumbled or broke-up--are way off base. In most cases, the chief mechanism of wounding is not the temporary cavity but the permanent cavity.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...