# JFK autopsy photos-consistent with x-rays? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 9, 2006, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009 "2006-04-09T23:47:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/21 "2006-04-10T22:38:46Z")
> [@bup](#): > > xt, I’m pretty sure you’re being whooshed. Go back and read the sentence about the “splat bullet” and tell me s/he wasn’t joking. I suppose its possible I am at that. However, having followed bigpappadiaz through several threads now I have to say…I’m still uncertain. S/he really does have some rather esoteric ideas about a wide ranging number of topics. Of course, it may be a reverse whoosh on YOU (you might say a conspiricy to whoosh you…). 😛 Read through some of big’s posts and then think it through… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/22 "2006-04-10T23:08:27Z")
This is one of the few times that I (partially) agree with the conspiracists. I do not buy the single bullet theory because I feel the ballistic evidence is insufficient. Therefore, while I don’t believe the Warren Commission was covering anything up, or that everyone in the car was in on it (including Gov. Connolly, who was critically injured), I do believe that they were wrong and that Oswald may not have been the only one shooting. ---
**Author:** ![Euthanasiast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Euthanasiast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euthanasiast)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/23 "2006-04-10T23:26:48Z")
I have covered the bullet fragments elsewhere on this forum: > [@Euthanasiast](#): > > In the matter of the findings in regards to the high powered rifle that was identified as the murder weapon (6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano) and fired by one Lee Harvey Oswald, The death certificates, The Warren Report, articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association, and other sources state that the president was killed by wounds inflicted by high-velocity missiles from a high-powered rifle later identified as the 6.5mm Carcano. The findings are based on facts that the level of extensive damage sustained by the President’s skull and brain could ONLY have been the result of high-velocity missiles. The problem is that the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-powered weapon. At a muzzle velocity of 2,000 feet per second it classifies as a low to medium velocity weapon. Indeed the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a rifle at all. It is a carbine. The major trauma that the President endured had to have been inflicted by one or more high-velocity weapons. This level of trauma sustained could not have been caused from Oswald’s Carcano. > > The ammunition that Oswald is alleged to have used was standard full-metal jacketed military ammunition, one round of which was found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital. This kind of ammunition conforms to Geneva Convention Standards for humane conduct of warfare. It is not intended to maim. It does not explode. It generally remains in one piece. The lateral cranial X-ray of the President’s head, however, displays a pattern of debris as effects of the impact of an exploding bullet, which could not have been caused by the ammunition that Oswald was found to have used, thereby exonerating him. Also, the axis of metallic debris shown in these X-rays is inconsistent with a shot from behind but consistent with a shot that entered the area of the right temple. > > The official autopsy report was contradicted by more than 40 eyewitness reports and was inconsistent with House Select Committee of Assassinations diagrams and photographs. These 40 eyewitnesses included spectators in Dealey Plaza, physicians and nurses at Parkland Hospital, Navy medical technicians and FBI agents at Bethesda Naval Hospital, who report a massive blow-out to the back of the head. These eyewitness reports are rejected on the basis of the X-rays, which have been fabricated in at least two different ways. Through the employment of optical densitometry studies, the lateral cranial X-rays has been fabricated by imposing a patch over a massive defect to the back of the head, which corresponds to the eyewitness reports describing “the heel” shot. Material that was much too dense to be normal skull material was used and by looking closely at the X-ray anyone can see this for themselves. As It turns out, although not common knowledge at the time, instructions that could be followed to create composites were available in contemporary radiology publications. It is possible to replicate the results in a radiology darkroom using these techniques. > > There is extensive additional evidence in regards to the autopsy photographs having been tampered with, altered, created, or destroyed. Eyewitness reports from John Stringer, THE OFFICIAL AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHER, show that the photographs of the brain shown in the official set ARE NOT those that he took at the time; from Robert Knudsen, White House photographer, who has reported having in his possession–at one and the same time–photographs that displayed a major blow-out of the President’s head and others that did not; and from Saundra Spencer, who processed the photographs, who explains that she knows that they are not one in the same because they do not have the same physical markings as other photographs she processed using the same film, some of which she still possesses. So what we have are those people that took part in the photography for the autopsy claiming that parts of the photographic record have been altered, created, or destroyed. > [@xtisme](#): > > This stuff has been so throughly debunked by so many sources (I just watched Peter Jennings really good debunking on the History Channel over the weekend) that you would think people would let go. But it hasn’t been debunked. I admit that the theories are getting harder and harder to take seriously over the years, but there are plenty of questions that have not been properly addressed in regards to this case. Perhaps all of the **real** answers can in some way point to LHO as the lone assassin and that all of this can be explained. What I do hold to be certain is that the answers that we **have** been given are inaccurate. Single bullet theory? The Jet Effect? As someone who has extensive exposure to rifles I am not amused. Any lawyer worth his salt could have gotten LHO an innocent verdict due almost entirely to the flaws in the investigation and the amount of reasonable doubt left in the case. I’m not saying that automatically makes him not guilty, but a decent lawyer could have seen to it that a jury voted that way. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/24 "2006-04-10T23:43:20Z")
> [@bigpappadiaz](#): > > Because he didn’t. The driver did it and they all hid it in plain sight. The bullet used was one of those “splat” bullets that blew a chunk of his head out and pushed it back and to the left, thus the fragments. You can see the governor lean out of the driver’s way. Only if you rely on the notoriously degraded copy of the Zapruder film touted by [William Cooper](http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/cooper_m.html). Better versions of [the film](http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/) show that what was supposed to be driver William Greer turning and (extremely awkwardly) holding a shiny pistol in front of his face is actually the reflections off his colleague in the next seat William Kellerman’s [hair (the “barrel”) and forehead (the “hand”)](http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg). ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/25 "2006-04-10T23:59:52Z")
> [@bonzer](#): > > William Kellerman Ach, **Roy** Kellerman. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/26 "2006-04-11T00:52:17Z")
> [@Euthanasiast](#): > > But it hasn’t been debunked. I admit that the theories are getting harder and harder to take seriously over the years, but there are plenty of questions that have not been properly addressed in regards to this case. Perhaps all of the real answers can in some way point to LHO as the lone assassin and that all of this can be explained. What I do hold to be certain is that the answers that we have been given are inaccurate. I’m sorry, but all of this HAS been debunked…repeatedly. On this board for one thing. Every one of the objections you made in the post you quoted have been answered…here and elsewhere. Every…one…of…them. I’m not about to get dragged into another CT thread though where the CT guys play fast and loose. I was totally put off by the bullshit in the 9/11 CT thread. If you would like to show some physical evidence to back up any of your claims (such as the rifle wasn’t powerful enough over the distances (85 yards IIRC) it was fired, or the fragementation of the bullet) by REPUTABLE sources then I’ll see what I can dig up to debunk it. You first though this time…and understand that conjecture from non-experts or eyewitness accounts do NOT constitute physical evidence. Or you could watch the Peter Jennings thing on the JFK CT…most (if not all) of your objections were covered there and its in a more palatable form than dull cites (though they do tend to gloss some things over). You being a member you could always just do a search on the board…there have been myriad JFK CT threads here. All of them that I’ve seen have ended pretty much the same way the recent 9/11 CT train wreck ended…with plenty of facts on the debunkers side and a lot of hand waving an nitpicking on the CT’s side. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Euthanasiast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Euthanasiast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euthanasiast)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/27 "2006-04-11T02:09:25Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I’m sorry, but all of this HAS been debunked…repeatedly. On this board for one thing. Every one of the objections you made in the post you quoted have been answered…here and elsewhere. Every…one…of…them. I’m not about to get dragged into another CT thread though where the CT guys play fast and loose. I was totally put off by the bullshit in the 9/11 CT thread. If you would like to show some physical evidence to back up any of your claims (such as the rifle wasn’t powerful enough over the distances (85 yards IIRC) it was fired, or the fragementation of the bullet) by REPUTABLE sources then I’ll see what I can dig up to debunk it. You first though this time…and understand that conjecture from non-experts or eyewitness accounts do NOT constitute physical evidence. > > Or you could watch the Peter Jennings thing on the JFK CT…most (if not all) of your objections were covered there and its in a more palatable form than dull cites (though they do tend to gloss some things over). > > You being a member you could always just do a search on the board…there have been myriad JFK CT threads here. All of them that I’ve seen have ended pretty much the same way the recent 9/11 CT train wreck ended…with plenty of facts on the debunkers side and a lot of hand waving an nitpicking on the CT’s side. > > -XT Peter Jennings is no authority on the assassination of JFK, and I never said anything about the rifle not being powerful enough over distances to do the damage. The rifle is not powerful enough to produce the level of trauma that is indicated by the autopsy reports. The distance has nothing to do with it. I have read the previous threads on this subject. My objections and statements in the above post have not been properly addressed in any of them. Not. A. Single. One. Of. Them. Previously when I come up against detractors in regards to this discussion, I find that none of them can address my statements directly, but dismiss them off hand by mentioning something like, “This has already been debunked!” I then ask for a cite, and I don’t get one, or I get something along the lines of, “Read Case Closed, by Posner!” I have read it, in case you were wondering. The official White House photographer isn’t reputable enough to comment on the photographs that he took? He can’t say for sure whether he took them or not? The developer of the film? None of the eye witnesses? I’m not like previous CT’s in that I don’t jump to conclusions. I take nothing for granted. I have come to my conclusions after many, many years of careful observation and study. I have done my homework. Take a look at my quote above where I outline a short series of facts about the case and debunk one of them, just one, and I’ll go away. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/28 "2006-04-11T02:24:04Z")
> [@Euthanasiast](#): > > I’m not like previous CT’s in that I don’t jump to conclusions. I take nothing for granted. I have come to my conclusions after many, many years of careful observation and study. I have done my homework. Señor Diaz should take a cue from you. He thinks _four_ years is long enough to come to a conclusion! ---
**Author:** ![bigpappadiaz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a698b9/32.png) [@bigpappadiaz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bigpappadiaz)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/29 "2006-04-11T02:41:15Z")
Four years plus however much time the original conspiracy theorist I read spent thinking. I’m sure there was a lot of thinking that went on between now and then. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/30 "2006-04-11T03:46:43Z")
> [@Euthanasiast](#): > > Peter Jennings is no authority on the assassination of JFK, and I never said anything about the rifle not being powerful enough over distances to do the damage. The rifle is not powerful enough to produce the level of trauma that is indicated by the autopsy reports. The distance has nothing to do with it. Nope, he isn’t…good thing he didn’t do most of the talking, huh? 😛 As for the autopsy report, do you have a cite about this disparity? Obviously if its in the forensics report that a bullet fired from the rifle could not have made the wound then you should be able to get that cite (by a reputable source) easily enough…its all been declassified after all. Are you seriously saying that in none of the threads have any of your concerns about the ‘single bullet theory’ or the ‘magic bullet’ or the ‘jet effect’ (though I have to admit I’m unsure which one this is now…its been a while) been addressed? I’m sorry but…did you READ the threads? I know for a fact that the first two have been addressed…because I remember doing it myself at least once. But, I’ll tell you what. As I asked, present physical evidence from reputable sources laying out exactly what the claim (for example forensics data from a reputable source stating in no uncertain terms that it is not possible for the bullet fired from LHO’s gun recovered at the crime scene could have made the injury to JFK’s skull) is and backing it up with solid evidence and I promise to look at it closely and give you a reply. I’m NOT going to get sucked into another series of blury pictures, amorphous videos and questionable eyewitness accounts with nothing to back any of it up…I just got burned in an 8 page train wreck so understand I’m a bit leery here. If you want to present a case of what you thing are genuine anomolies to the case and back it up with real data…well then I’ll do my part. > [@Euthanasiast](#): > > The official White House photographer isn’t reputable enough to comment on the photographs that he took? He can’t say for sure whether he took them or not? The developer of the film? None of the eye witnesses? Frankly no. It was a chaotic scene with a hell of a lot happening at once. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. Back up your claims with real physical evidence if you can. Other wise we are back to the subjective ‘he said/she said’ dance that will get no where. > [@Euthanasiast](#): > > I’m not like previous CT’s in that I don’t jump to conclusions. I take nothing for granted. I have come to my conclusions after many, many years of careful observation and study. I have done my homework. Ok, fair enough. As I said, if you can back up your claims with real physical evidence or analysis from reputable sources then I’ll certainly be interested in seeing it. > [@Euthanasiast](#): > > Take a look at my quote above where I outline a short series of facts about the case and debunk one of them, just one, and I’ll go away. I’ll be honest…I’m really looking for a bit more than that myself. Forensics and computer modeling have come a long way. I’ve SEEN the entire episode modeled via computer with all the forensics data plugged in…and frankly it all works without a hitch. So…I’d need to see a similar level of effort, of data and of physical evidence used to confirm a counter theory. Is that not fair? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/31 "2006-04-11T04:18:49Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I was totally put off by the bullshit in the 9/11 CT thread. If you would like to show some physical evidence to back up any of your claims (such as the rifle wasn’t powerful enough over the distances (85 yards IIRC) it was fired, or the fragementation of the bullet) by REPUTABLE sources then I’ll see what I can dig up to debunk it. You first though this time…and understand that conjecture from non-experts or eyewitness accounts do NOT constitute physical evidence. > -XT Oswald used a heavy metal jacketed bullet. A substantial hole was blown out of JFK’s head suggesting a [fragmenting bullet](http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/griffith/Head_shot_from_front.html). There are 40 metal fragments in Kennedy’s head and a key piece of evidence that would identify the type of bullet jacket went missing (his brain). I suppose it’s easy to misplace an assassinated president’s brain. Probably happens all the time. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/32 "2006-04-11T05:13:00Z")
> [@Me](#): > > Are you seriously saying that in none of the threads have any of your concerns about the ‘single bullet theory’ or the ‘magic bullet’ or the ‘jet effect’ (though I have to admit I’m unsure which one this is now…its been a while) been addressed? I’m sorry but…did you READ the threads? I know for a fact that the first two have been addressed…because I remember doing it myself at least once. My fuzzy brain is now functioning again. I recall what the [jet effect](http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/headwnd.htm) is now. > [@](#): > > Q. What is your opinion, based upon the expertise that you have acquired in these 18 years at the Edgewood Arsenal in wound ballistics, with respect to the question of the direction from which the bullet came that struck the President in the head? > > A. Well, the President in 313, the head appears to have moved slightly forward from the previous frame. Now, I say appears, because unless you measured this precisely you don’t know. But it appears to have moved slightly. > > And this would not be inconsistent with the momentum of the bullet being transferred to the head. Whereas I said a bullet cannot knock a person down or move a body in any violent way, it could conceivably move the head a little bit. We fired at human skulls filled with gelatin sitting on the table, and they would roll off the table. And this apparent side movement of the head is in the correct direction if the bullet came from the book depository. > > Q. That is, from the rear of the President? > > A. From the rear of the President. > > Q. Now, then, what can you tell us with respect to the subsequent action of the President’s head and body after that initial apparent slight movement forward? > > A. There could be two reasons for it. One reason, there is a jet of blood and brain material from the head, some bone seemed to fly up in the air, but the bulk of it appears to fly forward and maybe slightly to the right. This gives an indication that that is possibly in the direction that the bullet exited from the skull. > > Q. Now, was there any movement of the President’s head and body associated with that? > > A. That material going in that direction would have a tendency as a result of this jet effect to push the head in the other direction. This was demonstrated by Louis Alvarez in California several years ago by shooting melons. When you could get a jet of honeydew melon going out the front, the melon would roll toward the gun, showing that there is some movement from this jet effect. > > Q. That also a moderate movement? > > A. That would be moderate, yes. Now, most of the movement you see of the President moving backwards and his body moving sideward I believe is a neuromuscular reaction. > > Another factor that could be involved is acceleration of the car. I have no idea of when the car started to accelerate. But at any rate, it is typical of animals or humans struck on the head to have a violent muscular reaction to it. And this is what is appears to me. Certainly the bullet didn’t knock him backwards and sideways. This was, I think a neuromuscular reaction. > > … > > Q. Have you ever seen an instance in which an animal body, from the impact of the bullet itself, thrust violently in the direction away from the gunner? > > A. Never. > > Q. Do you have an opinion, then, based upon your work in this field over the years, as to whether President Kennedy’s body would have moved in the fashion that it did after the fatal shot in the head, that movement being a consequence of the impact of the bullet? > > A. As a result of the momentum imparted to the body by the bullet? > > Q. Yes. > > A. No, it wouldn’t. > > Q. Are you saying – > > A. The President weights a lot more than a 100 pound goat, and if a bullet wouldn’t move a 100 pound goat it isn’t going to move the President. This just doesn’t happen. So…‘jet effect’. I’m not sure whether it was ever resolved if this was what caused the famous ‘back and to the left’ motion or whether the consensus was that it was a combination of the involuntary acceleration of the car coupled with “a neuromuscular response activated by the destruction of the centers”…i.e. Kennedy was shot in the head and lost all nervous/muscular control (this tends to happen when half your brain is blown out). The consensus though from every panel I’ve seen is that he was definitely shot in the BACK of the head, reguardless of the exact mechanism that caused him to appear to jerk ‘back and to the left’. Whats your specific problem with this? That ‘the jet effect’ may not have been the major contributing cause of Kennedy jerking ‘back and to the left’? Fair enough…I’m not entirely convinced of that either. Or is it that because the exact mechanism (or mechanisms as IMHO it was a combination of a lot of things happening at once) is unknown that this somehow means that Kennedy was not shot in the back of the head? Because all the forensic data clearly indicates he was…even if the exact mechanism that caused his final motion is not quite clear. -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/33 "2006-04-11T05:26:13Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Oswald used a heavy metal jacketed bullet. A substantial hole was blown out of JFK’s head suggesting a fragmenting bullet. There are 40 metal fragments in Kennedy’s head and a key piece of evidence that would identify the type of bullet jacket went missing (his brain). I suppose it’s easy to misplace an assassinated president’s brain. Probably happens all the time. [This](http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/macpher.htm) doesn’t really answer the question you raised about the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head unfortunately (its actually in MacPherson’s book, but unfortunately I can’t find the reference online…and its getting a bit past my bed time :)). I’ll see if I can dig something up tomorrow, time permitting…there really isn’t much controversy over any of this stuff from the experts so it shouldn’t be too hard to find plenty of cites. However, it does have a brief paragraph about the autopsy that I thought I’d post…just as food for thought. > [@](#): > > G: Have you had a chance to review the JFK-related wound ballistics work of Drs. John Lattimer and Martin Fackler? If so, can you provide a brief critique? > > MacP: I have read this work and have referred to it to look up Thorburn’s name in the previous answer. The main aspect of the Kennedy assassination that would surprise most people is how uncontroversial the wound ballistics aspects are among the physicians in the country who are most experienced in gunshot trauma (I am not one of these, but have talked to several). It is a sad truth that most autopsy reports are full of errors and inconsistencies which are obvious to any careful review; it shouldn’t be like this, but it is. The problems with the Kennedy autopsy do not require a conspiracy to explain, they are more or less business as usual exposed to the glare of careful examination. Likewise, the work of Lattimer and Fackler is simply a very sound, complete, and careful examination and reconstruction of that facts that should be the standard in all cases, but isn’t. > > Some argument can be made in the typical investigation that the talent and resources just are not available to meet a first class standard, but one can hardly argue that this situation is applicable to the Warren report. The Warren commission should have used all of the best talent available to make the most complete analysis possible, but they didn’t. In fairness, it is always easier to criticize than to perform. “I suppose it’s easy to misplace an assassinated president’s brain. Probably happens all the time.” Appearently there is a grain of truth here even though you meant it sarcastically. 😉 -XT ---
**Author:** ![Euthanasiast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Euthanasiast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euthanasiast)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/34 "2006-04-11T08:44:41Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > As for the autopsy report, do you have a cite about this disparity? Obviously if its in the forensics report that a bullet fired from the rifle could not have made the wound then you should be able to get that cite (by a reputable source) easily enough…its all been declassified after all. As I’ve stated already, the death certificates, The Warren Report, articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association, and other sources state that the president was killed by wounds inflicted by **high-velocity missiles from a high-powered rifle later identified as the 6.5mm Carcano**. It was later identified as such because the first identification on the scene was that of a Mauser. It was only later that it became a Carcano. I don’t need a cite from the forensics report that says that the Carcano was a low to medium velocity weapon (carbine) and could not have produced such high level of damage, as that is common knowledge that isn’t disputed anywhere. > [@xtisme](#): > > Frankly no. It was a chaotic scene with a hell of a lot happening at once. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. Back up your claims with real physical evidence if you can. Other wise we are back to the subjective ‘he said/she said’ dance that will get no where. Chaotic or not, Robert Knudsen, White House photographer, reported having in his possession–at one and the same time–photographs that displayed a major blow-out of the President’s head and others that did not. How chaotic must a situation be where that happens? Then Saundra Spencer, who processed the photographs, still possesses developed film that does not have the same physical markings as other photographs she processed using the same film. How chaotic must a scene be in a dark room after the fact in order for processed images to contradict one another? > [@xtisme](#): > > Ok, fair enough. As I said, if you can back up your claims with real physical evidence or **analysis from reputable sources** then I’ll certainly be interested in seeing it. Regarding the wound to the president’s head being described as an exit wound: Dr. Kemp Clark–“I examined the wound in the back of the President’s head.” Dr. Kemp Clark CE-392–“ **two external wounds** … the other in the occipital area of the skull…a large wound of the occipitalparietal area.”–Dr. Kemp Clark (this is under oath) WC testimony–“I examined the wound in the back of the President’s head.” He noted the “presence of much larger wound in the right occipital region.” (again, under oath) Dr. Robert McClelland–“As I took the position at the head of the table, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound.” Nearly every Dallas doctor, while under oath, was asked by the Warren Commission where the head wound was located. Each doctor placed the exit wound in the back of the President’s head. Not one of them said he did not know, could not remember, or did not have an opportunity to observe. As a matter of fact they were about to open the chest to do a heart massage when Dr. Jenkins stopped the procedure dead in its tracks by saying, “Before you open that chest, you’d better step up and take a look at this head wound.” The chest was not opened. I have similar examples from doctors Paul Peters, Ronald Jones, Gene Akin, and Robert McClelland. Does this sound like people who were not completely sure of what they were looking at to you? Do you believe that everyone under such a tremendous amount of stress would all have the same hallucination? Regarding the jet effect: [A critical look at Luis Alvarez’s jet effect explanation for the head movement of John Kennedy when he was assassinated on November 22, 1963 by Tony Szamboti, mechanical engineer](http://www.geocities.com/whiskey99a/jeteffectrebut.html) Your quote from Edgewood Arsenal is also addressed in respect to human skulls filled with gelatin not being an accurate representation of **live** bone. Not that I need a scientific explanation from a mechanical engineer, but I suppose it helps. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/35 "2006-04-11T23:01:00Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > [This](http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/macpher.htm) doesn’t really answer the question you raised about the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head unfortunately (its actually in MacPherson’s book, but unfortunately I can’t find the reference online…and its getting a bit past my bed time :)). I’ll see if I can dig something up tomorrow, time permitting…there really isn’t much controversy over any of this stuff from the experts so it shouldn’t be too hard to find plenty of cites. > > However, it does have a brief paragraph about the autopsy that I thought I’d post…just as food for thought. > > “I suppose it’s easy to misplace an assassinated president’s brain. Probably happens all the time.” > > Appearently there is a grain of truth here even though you meant it sarcastically. 😉 > > -XT The book looks like an interesting read but it leans closer to my point than away from it. Quote: G: Is it possible to deform a bullet the way CE399 is deformed by firing the bullet into water? MacP: Probably not. Bullet 399 really isn’t deformed much; a point often made by those who dispute the “single bullet” conclusion. The bullets used in this assassination are much more resistant to deformation than most rifle bullets. The major effect in bullet 399 is “toothpasting”, i.e., a small amount of the lead core has been squeezed out of the jacket base like toothpaste from a tube. This probably occurred when the bullet hit Connally’s ribs at a high yaw angle after it had been considerably slowed by travel through soft tissue (a bullet in a reconstructed firing showed deformation similar to and slightly larger than bullet 399). The bullet would yaw in water, but probably would not “toothpaste” without contact with a hard object. It’s the final shot that I find most interesting. It appears to me that the bullet that struck Kennedy was not a heavy metal jacket design. It came apart in his head and created a shock wave which blew out a large section of skull. It’s not the lead that needs identifying but the bullet’s jacket. This would prove or disprove a different type of bullet. I’ve seen demonstration’s of Oswald’s bullet and it tends to pass through an object relatively intact. A thinner jacketed bullet is more likely to fragment and blow an object apart. Also, looking at Kennedy’s head position in [frame 312](http://www.zimmermanjfk.com/frontmenu_000010.htm) it was nowhere near the line of site that was needed for Oswald to create the entry/exist wound. The bullet would have had to move at a right angle to exit the right side. There is nothing inside a skull to deflect a bullet or a fragmenting bullet. The exit wound should correspond roughly to the line of site of the entry wound. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/36 "2006-04-12T20:35:59Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > It’s the final shot that I find most interesting. It appears to me that the bullet that struck Kennedy was not a heavy metal jacket design. It came apart in his head and created a shock wave which blew out a large section of skull. I don’t see how you get from the fact that it was heavily jacketed and the neck shot didn’t fragment, to the head shot should not fragment. The neck shot was deformed when it hit a glancing blow to a rib bone _after it had been slowed down_. The head shot bullet hit skull bone at full speed. > [@](#): > > Also, looking at Kennedy’s head position in [frame 312](http://www.zimmermanjfk.com/frontmenu_000010.htm) it was nowhere near the line of site that was needed for Oswald to create the entry/exist wound. The exit wound did not need to be centered around the line-of-sight bullet path. It seems plausible to me that his head was down, with his face angled to the left, exposing the back top right of his skull to an off-center shot. Since it was off-center, it cracked open more skull bone on the top right. The shock wave inside his skull would propagate out perpindicularly to the line of travel, and it would explode out the top right because the weakened skull at that point was not enough to contain the pressure, in other words, perpindicular to the bullet path. The shock wave hitting the lower left portion of his skull is would tend to push it down and to the left, but this is just another way of thinking about the jet effect. And I’m not at all convinced that the jet effect explains Kennedy’s body’s motion immediately after the shot, by the way. There seems to be too much inertia there for a bullet to explain, and certainly too much for any shot from the front/right. I think the motion of his body is more plausibly explained by muscular spasms due to his nervous system getting a sudden major overload. The bullet would have had to move at a right angle to exit the right side. There is nothing inside a skull to deflect a bullet or a fragmenting bullet. The exit wound should correspond roughly to the line of site of the entry wound. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carnac_the_Magnificent)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/37 "2006-04-13T00:16:12Z")
> [@Euthanasiast](#): > > I don’t need a cite from the forensics report that says that the Carcano was a low to medium velocity weapon (carbine) and could not have produced such high level of damage, as that is common knowledge that isn’t disputed anywhere. Above, you promised to stop posting if someone proved you wrong. Your contention–that a Carcano “could not have produced such high level of damage, as that is common knowledge that isn’t disputed anywhere”–is patently untrue. Plenty of authorities would dispute your assertion. Cite of muzzle velocity/muzzle energy: “The Norma factory load for the 6.5x52 is loaded with a 156 grain Alaska bullet at a muzzle velocity (MV) of 2428 fps and muzzle energy of 2043 ft. lbs.” A muzzle energy of 2,043 ft. lbs is more than powerful enough to inflict such damage. Can you prove that it is not? Re: the confusion between the Carcano and a Mauser, here’s from Wiki: “Although this rifle is often called “Mannlicher-Carcano” especially in US parlance, that name was never official, as little as the even less correct moniker “Mauser-Paravicino.” Its official designation in Italian is simply Mod. '91 (“il novantuno”). The name Mannlicher-Carcano is also misleading because the rifle’s bolt action was based on a German Mauser-style bolt action, not the Austrian Mannlicher-style. The Mannlicher designation comes from the fact that the rifle uses a Mannlicher-type magazine system.” Under stress, people make mistakes. Under extreme stress, extreme mistakes. Confusing a Carcano and Mauser doesn’t seem improbable. Now, will you honor your promise and stop posting on this silly topic? ---
**Author:** ![Euthanasiast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Euthanasiast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euthanasiast)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/38 "2006-04-13T08:14:48Z")
> [@Carnac the Magnificent!](#): > > Above, you promised to stop posting if someone proved you wrong. Your contention–that a Carcano “could not have produced such high level of damage, as that is common knowledge that isn’t disputed anywhere”–is patently untrue. Plenty of authorities would dispute your assertion. > > Cite of muzzle velocity/muzzle energy: “The Norma factory load for the 6.5x52 is loaded with a 156 grain Alaska bullet at a muzzle velocity (MV) of 2428 fps and muzzle energy of 2043 ft. lbs.” Oh, it is patently false! Oh my, I feel like such a fool! **Carnac the Magnificent** says so. Excuse me while I curl up in the fetal position and shake in fear for an hour or so. So just where is that part where you **prove** me wrong? How is it patently untrue? Where are these ‘plenty of authorities’ in which you are referring? > [@Carnac the Magnificent!](#): > > A muzzle energy of 2,043 ft. lbs is more than powerful enough to inflict such damage. Can you prove that it is not? No it isn’t. And furthermore the burden of proof doesn’t fall on me to prove anything one way or the other. It falls on the Warren Commission and their proponents to prove that it can do the damage once a point is raised that it cannot. They are the ones citing that the rifle is capable of the damage. They must account for the discrepancies in their cite. This is a fundamental element in how the justice system works. It is also a fundamental element that would have come up had LHO made it to trial. Again, it is called **burden of proof** I suggest that you not ignore that. > [@Carnac the Magnificent!](#): > > “Although this rifle is often called “Mannlicher-Carcano” especially in US parlance, that name was never official, as little as the even less correct moniker “Mauser-Paravicino.” Its official designation in Italian is simply Mod. '91 (“il novantuno”). The name Mannlicher-Carcano is also misleading because the rifle’s bolt action was based on a German Mauser-style bolt action, not the Austrian Mannlicher-style. The Mannlicher designation comes from the fact that the rifle uses a Mannlicher-type magazine system.” > > Under stress, people make mistakes. Under extreme stress, extreme mistakes. Confusing a Carcano and Mauser doesn’t seem improbable. > > Now, will you honor your promise and stop posting on this silly topic? First of all, it is **not** a rifle, it is a carbine. Second, it was District Attorney Wade who made the assumption that it was a Mauser. > [@](#): > > Just after the arrest of Oswald, Dallas law enforcement officials announced that they had found the murder weapon. Wade and his associates studied the rifle. It was shown to the television audience repeatedly as some enforcement official carried it high in the air, with his bare hands on the rifle. After hours of examination Wade said without hesitation that “the murder weapon was a German Mauser.” Which is odd because they do not look alike to anyone that knows anything about the two firearms, like you for instance. I’ve fired them both. One is a 6.5mm, the other a 7.65mm with a slightly higher muzzle velocity. The latter could inflict the demonstrated damage, not the former. Have you looked at the xrays? Fired a rifle? I am not waxing asshole here, I genuinely want to know how you came to the conclusion that you did. I love how you guys cite extreme stress for every screw up that happened that day (the rifle being identified as a Mauser initially, the initial assessments by the doctors at Parkland Hospital regarding the right occipital-parietal wound as an exit wound). To hear you tell it, the most credible people that were on the scene that fateful Friday were the ones that just didn’t soil themselves. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/39 "2006-04-13T12:07:26Z")
… you don’t even know what a rifle is, apparently. It’s like squares and rectangles. Most carbines are rifled, making them rifles. Not all rifles are carbines. A carbine is a short rifle. That’s all. It tends to be less powerful due to the shortened barrel, but not horribly so. I see nothing that prevents a carbine from doing the damage as presented. ---
**Author:** ![Euthanasiast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Euthanasiast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euthanasiast)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/40 "2006-04-13T12:23:32Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > … you don’t even know what a rifle is, apparently. It’s like squares and rectangles. Most carbines are rifled, making them rifles. Not all rifles are carbines. > A carbine is a short rifle. That’s all. It tends to be less powerful due to the shortened barrel, but not horribly so. > I see nothing that prevents a carbine from doing the damage as presented. The fact that it is a carbine isn’t what prevents it from being able to do the damage. The fact that it is a **low to medium velocity weapon** is what prevents it (also the type of round and caliber). Please tell where I said that the weapon was unable to do the damage **because** it was a carbine. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009.md?page=3)