Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

I have been in touch with some researchers about the back shot and the throat shot. If you reject the SBT, then you must posit alternate theories for those two shots. It's not enough to say that each was a separate shot. The back shot only penetrated an inch, according to the autopsy doctors. How can you account for that? If you assume that it was shot from one of the buildings, and when you consider the power and velocity it had to have JUST TO TRAVEL IN A STRAIGHT LINE for that distance, considering that gravity starts affecting it immediately, then how could JFK's soft tissues stop such a bullet practically on impact? And if it was a bullet, what happened to it? You can't just say it fell out. And if it did, surely it would have gotten tangled in his clothes and then found. It wasn't going to go out the same way it came in, right?  

And please consider that if you shoot a bullet into a tree of VERY hard wood, the tree may stop the bullet within a very short distance. Perhaps just an inch or two. But, if that happens, then the bullet is always highly deformed. It doesn't just stop unscathed. And it's because of Newton's Laws of Motion, that for the tree to stop the bullet, it is acting on the bullet- as much so as the bullet is acting on the tree.  In other words, if the true tissue is strong enough to stop the bullet, it is going to damage that bullet. And the quicker it stops the bullet, the more damage it is going to do to it. But, as you know, the Magic Bullet found on the stretcher was practically pristine. 

One researcher suggested that the back shot was an artifact, a fragment of a bullet that rickshayed off the street. But, that is totally presumptuous.  Unless there was a mark, a defect, in the street, indicating that a bullet struck it and went somewhere, why even go there mentally? It is so unsubstantiated, so totally hypothetical, it's very brazen to claim it.  

I refer you now to a piece by Dr. Gary Aguilar, an M.D. He correctly states that the back wound was JFK's FIRST wound. Damn straight it was. I am so glad to see him say that because I recently saw a piece on a prominent JFK website that said that the throat wound came before the back wound.  For goodness sake, we can see JFK reacting to the throat wound as soon as he emerges from from behind the sign in the Zapruder film. And what we are seeing there is an instantaneous reaction. He could only have been shot in the throat a split-second before because he was reacting to a blocked airway, and that is something you react to fast. Then our eyes are on him constantly for the remainder of the shooting spree. Can anyone seriously claim that JFK appears to be shot in the back after re-emerging from behind the sign? THAT IS RIDICULOUS! The back shot had to come before the throat shot. 

Dr. Aguilar reasons that both the back wound and throat wound were entrance wounds, and since the bullets did not remain in the body, since extensive x-rays were taken, then perhaps they were extracted before the autopsy. Then, he says:

"No autopsy  witnesses noted any wound in JFK’s body through which such a technically difficult retrieval could have been performed." 

RC: I agree that extracting a bullet would disrupt the tissue and very likely leave visible damage. 

"Alternatively, if very improbably, the bullet(s) might have been some sort of self-dissolving missile(s), such as the “ice bullet” Dr. Humes speculated about during the autopsy."

RC: Why is it so improbable when the Church Committee disclosed the existence of the CIA's heart attack gun which fired a frozen dart and was in development since 1952? Doesn't that have a bearing on the probability? The Church Committee members handled the gun and sighted down the muzzle of it. And since they had it in their possession, why didn't they put it through tests? And since they had CIA Director William Colby right there in front of them, and he was being very cooperative and forthcoming, why didn't they ask him, point blank, if it was ever used? And it's not that I think there is any chance he would have said, "Oh yeah, we used it on Kennedy," But,  it still would have been interesting and pertinent to solicit his response to that question. So, why didn't they ask it? 

Dr. Aguilar goes on to demolish the Single Bullet Theory. For instance, he points out that the track the bullet would have had to take to get from the location of the back wound to the midline of the throat would surely have struck a vertebral body, and that would have deformed the bullet (on the same basis as the example I gave of the hardwood tree). I agree, but to me, it's rather superfluous at this point because only an idiot could believe in the Single Bullet Theory. 

Note that Dr. Aguilar doesn't begin to lay out alternative explanations for the back and neck shots, and nobody has. No researcher has laid out a comprehensive scenario for those shots that accounts for all the known elements, including JFK's bizarre dyskinesia and his obvious mental impairment.  And you need to listen to me when I tell you that JFK's bizarre dyskinesia and his obvious mental impairment HAD to be the result of those shots.  


https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm