If we dismiss the claim that the back shot and the throat shot were continuous, and we should for multiple reasons: including that the bullet path would have impacted the spinal cord, as per Dr. David Mantik, and the fact that Dr. Humes said the back wound was 7 mm wide and Dr. Perry said the throat wound was 5 mm wide. How could an exit wound be smaller than an entrance wound when a bullet, cutting through the body, pushes along a head of tissue?
And remember: they could have dissected Kennedy and found out for sure, but they didn't.
So, if we dismiss the single bullet traversing Kennedy as mere fiat, a State decree, what are we left with?
We are left with a shallow wound in his back with no missile found and a shallow wound in his throat with no missile found.
But, how could a bullet traveling at 2000 feet per second be stopped, and I mean reach zero velocity over the course of one inch of travel just by passing through skin, fascia, and muscle? How can those tissues put up enough resistance to stop such a bullet in an inch?
The theory arose that it was a "short shot"; that there wasn't enough gunpowder, or defective gunpowder, resulting in a weak bullet that could be stopped easily.
But, that is nonsense, and I want you to read this by Robert Prudhomme, who is Canadian:
A bullet entering the back at the level of T3 and 1.5-2 inches to the right of the spine would have nowhere to go but into the Right Upper Lung (RUL).
As I have pointed out many times, it has long been held as fact that the bullet that hit JFK's back only penetrated the flesh of his back a mere inch; not far enough to enter JFK's right pleural cavity. This shallow penetration, supposedly probed by Commander Humes' finger, is credited to a phenomenon known as a "short shot", in which a rifle cartridge is either loaded with an insufficent gunpowder charge or the entirety of the gunpowder charge in the cartridge does not ignite, drastically reducing the muzzle velocity of the bullet.
In order to reduce the penetrating power of a 6.5mm Carcano bullet, at a 50 yard range, to the point where this bullet will not penetrate more than an inch in soft tissue, its normal muzzle velocity of 2200 feet per second would have to be reduced to less than about 400 feet per second (fps). This presents all kinds of problems in a) accurately hitting within 20 feet of your target and 
actually getting the bullet to its target.
If you have a rifle that is properly sighted in at a range of, for argument sake, 100 yards, and you chamber a good round into the breech, hitting a target at 50-100 yards is a simple matter of aiming and squeezing the trigger. However, bullets begin to drop as soon as they leave the barrel, and if that bullet leaves the barrel travelling at 1/5th the expected velocity, and the shooter is aiming in a normal fashion and expecting his bullet to be travelling 2200 fps, that bullet will end up impacting the ground (or pavement) far short of the aim point. In the case of JFK, I would not even expect it to hit the back of the limo. This is why it is called a "short shot", as the bullet impacts far "short" of the point of aim.
The next problem you would have with such a slow moving bullet is stability in flight. While the rifling grooves in the rifle's barrel that impart a gyroscopic spin to the bullet in flight account for most of the bullet's stability, the velocity that bullet is travelling at also plays a big part in whether the bullet remains stable in flight, or whether it begins to yaw and tumble on its way to its target. I have seen this problem when handloading rifle cartridges and experimenting with different types of gunpowder, different loads of gunpowder and different weights and styles of bullets. Just by changing the velocity of the bullet slightly, by adding more or less gunpowder, it is possible to over- or under-stabilize a bullet, with the resulting "keyhole" effect on a paper target. A "keyhole" is when a tumbling bullet goes through a paper target side on, leaving the inevitable "keyhole" in the target instead of a round hole. If a bullet still travelling in excess of 2000 fps can be under-stabilized by a reduction in velocity, imagine the lack of stability in the typical 2200 fps bullet reduced in velocity to only 400 fps.
Quite frankly, I don't believe such a slow bullet could have ever made it to JFK's back, making the shallow back wound a myth; at least in my eyes anyways.
Now, I want to point out that Dr. Humes said that the back bullet came in at a downward inclination of 45 to 60 degrees, and that is complete, total nonsense. The angle of inclination from the 6th floor window was 18 degrees. One would have to shoot from a helicopter to get an inclination of 45 to 60 degrees.
But, the point is that the short shot theory is total nonsense. A short shot would not have reached Kennedy at all. It would have fallen to the ground before it got to him.
And let's harp on the fact that no back bullet was found, not at the autopsy nor in the x-rays. I know that many people have helped themselves to the "it fell out" theory, but that's nonsense too. JFK was wearing a shirt and jacket, and I presume a t-shirt, which remained on him. So, for a bullet to "work itself out", it would have had to backtrack through the same holes in his clothes that were created when it entered. How could it possibly do that? It couldn't. The people who claim it are idiots. And then, the idiots claim either that the bullet, after coming out, got caught in the seat (how?) or that it fell to the floor of the limo (again, how?) It's all mindless blather, and that includes Paul Landis, who recently claimed that he's the one who found the bullet "stuck to the seat" and decided, on the spur of the moment, to alter history and plant it on a stretcher in the hospital. Such nonsense. It's noise. Disinfo noise.
The back shot definitely was shallow; extremely shallow. The wound contained no bullet, and that's because the missile dissolved. Now, I will admit that that is not what Robert Prudhomme concluded. He concluded that it must have been a frangible or explosive bullet. But, that isn't reasonable either because JFK was shot in the head with a frangible or explosive bullet, and the result was that numerous tiny bullet fragments were seen in his brain. Nothing comparable to that was found in JFK's lung or elsewhere.
And it's easy to understand why they used a frangible bullet in shooting him in the head from the north side of Elm: BECAUSE JACKIE WAS SITTING ON THE OTHER SIDE. They couldn't risk an FMJ bullet traversing his head and striking her. They needed her to be standing next to LBJ when he was sworn in, LIKE SHE WAS A SURROGATE FOR JFK, BESTOWING HIS BLESSING ON THE WHOLE EVIL PROCEEDING.
So, they didn't want to hurt or kill her, and hence, they used a frangible bullet for the fatal head shot. But, they had no reason to use a frangible bullet to shoot him in the back.
And why shoot him in the back if they were trying to kill him? Why didn't they shoot him in the head? And, the right side of the back is not the side that the heart is on. So, they weren't going to kill him with that shot. So, what was the point of wounding him?
It's what I've been saying: that shot was a frozen projectile with a toxic payload. The weapon for it definitely existed. It's neither a pipe dream nor a fantasy. If you'd like to read the discussion about the back shot on Education Forum, here is the link. And you'll notice that Ron Ecker tries to straighten Robert Prudhomme out about what really happened. Good-on-ya, Ron. You the Man.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.