# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/41 "2006-04-13T14:41:25Z")
> [@Euthanasiast](#): > > The fact that it is a **low to medium velocity weapon** is what prevents it (also the type of round and caliber). Is 2000 to 2400 fps normally considered low to medium velocity? You mentioned earlier that it is generally accepted, or not in dispute, that this round was not capable of doing said damage to Kennedy’s head. I’m pretty darn familiar with the JFK arguments, and I haven’t even come across this one before. Can you provide some backup cites from relevant experts? ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/42 "2006-04-13T14:56:58Z")
> [@Euthanasiast](#): > > Which is odd because they do not look alike to anyone that knows anything about the two firearms, like you for instance. So if a firearms expert who had fired both rifles himself was the first to the scene, and had identified the rifle as a Mauser, that might be significant. As it is, the police came across the rifle in their search and mis-identified the Carcano as the much more common Mauser. [And they look very much alike.](http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/mausercarcano.jpg) Further, the recovery was filmed by a newsreporter contemporaneously, and his film confirms that it was the Carcano. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/43 "2006-04-13T15:30:15Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > 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. It’s the nature of the bullet used by Oswald. A heavy metal jacketed bullet will remain intact because of the thicker jacket. Thin wall jacketed bullets do not. If you know someone who collects guns go out on a firing range and compare the results of a thin-wall .225 (M-16) and something comparable to the thick walled 6.5 mm from a Mannlicher-Carcano. The bullets behave quite differently on liquid filled objects such as a gallon milk jug. > [@CurtC](#): > > 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. I disagree that an exit wound (from a shock wave) need not be centered. The laws of physics dictates that it should continue in the direction it started. I agree that weaker material in the skull will give way first but that should also apply to the left side of the skull which was more in line with Oswald’s shot. I see no reason to wait until 2017 for the release of the remaining documents from the Warren Commision. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/44 "2006-04-13T16:34:38Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I disagree that an exit wound (from a shock wave) need not be centered. The laws of physics dictates that it should continue in the direction it started. I agree that weaker material in the skull will give way first but that should also apply to the left side of the skull which was more in line with Oswald’s shot. Kennedy’s face was looking down and to the left when the fatal shot hit. The shot was off-center, entering in the back of his head, exiting somewhere above and behind the right temple. The crack of the bullet impact shattered the skull more on that side, and the fluid shock blew the material out, resulting in an exit wound that spanned the bullet’s entry and exit points, and most of the head in-between. The bullet also shattered somewhat on impact (find me a cite that says it couldn’t), some pieces were left in, most exited. One may have chipped concrete that hit James Teague. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/45 "2006-04-13T16:44:24Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > Kennedy’s face was looking down and to the left when the fatal shot hit. The shot was off-center, entering in the back of his head, exiting somewhere above and behind the right temple. The crack of the bullet impact shattered the skull more on that side, and the fluid shock blew the material out, resulting in an exit wound that spanned the bullet’s entry and exit points, and most of the head in-between. The bullet also shattered somewhat on impact (find me a cite that says it couldn’t), some pieces were left in, most exited. One may have chipped concrete that hit James Teague. Yes, but if you take a dummy head and line up the shot (based on frame 312) it’s nowhere near the line of site Oswald had. It looks like a ground level shot and to the left of Oswald. ---
**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 13, 2006, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/46 "2006-04-13T16:49:00Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Yes, but if you take a dummy head and line up the shot (based on frame 312) it’s nowhere near the line of site Oswald had. It looks like a ground level shot and to the left of Oswald. Cite? I’ve seen computer models of both shots and they line up perfectly. What are you basing this on? -XT ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/47 "2006-04-13T16:54:47Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Yes, but if you take a dummy head and line up the shot (based on frame 312) it’s nowhere near the line of site Oswald had. It looks like a ground level shot and to the left of Oswald. So you’ve abandoned your assertion that the exit wound has to be centered around the place where the bullet exited? Now we’re just discussing a) whether Oswald’s lair could line up, and b) whether the bullets he was using could shatter? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/48 "2006-04-13T18:57:50Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Yes, but if you take a dummy head and line up the shot (based on frame 312) it’s nowhere near the line of site Oswald had. It looks like a ground level shot and to the left of Oswald. That one frame of low resolution film has nowhere near the data necessary to construct such a test with any accuracy at all. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2006, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/49 "2006-04-13T23:30:45Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Cite? I’ve seen computer models of both shots and they line up perfectly. What are you basing this on? > > -XT look at Kennedy’s position in frame 312. The exit wound is at a right angle to Oswald’s line of shot. ---
**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 14, 2006, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/50 "2006-04-14T01:08:05Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > look at Kennedy’s position in frame 312. The exit wound is at a right angle to Oswald’s line of shot. _sigh_ Not again. I’m kind of looking for more objective proof. How about show me a credible computer model detailing why the shot HAS to be from ground level…or why LHO’s firing position at the window is impossible to have caused the wound inflicted. Something like that. Don’t ask me to look at a purely subjective video frame…and a blury and distorted one at that. -XT ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/51 "2006-04-14T03:02:45Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > look at Kennedy’s position in frame 312. The exit wound is at a right angle to Oswald’s line of shot. Yes, that’s mostly correct, except calling it nothing but “exit wound” is an over-simplification. The chunk of skull that was blown out was at a right angle to the bullet path - how about that? ---
**Author:** ![Euthanasiast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Euthanasiast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euthanasiast)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/52 "2006-04-14T08:53:38Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > Is 2000 to 2400 fps normally considered low to medium velocity? Correct. > [@CurtC](#): > > You mentioned earlier that it is generally accepted, or not in dispute, that this round was not capable of doing said damage to Kennedy’s head. I’m pretty darn familiar with the JFK arguments, and I haven’t even come across this one before. Can you provide some backup cites from relevant experts? The president’s skull was obliterated in the right occipital parietal region and although the remainder of his head was somewhat intact, the skull itself was shattered throughout. Thus the Warren Commission’s findings in regards had to respect that the massive level of trauma was the result of a high-velocity missile. I’m at work so I cannot quote directly from the Warren Report, but I can provide cites later for those of you that don’t believe me. Also in the x-rays, there is a large cluster of metallic debris (bits of the exploded round) that were forced throughout the skull. This debris is absolutely not the by-product of a full metal jacketed round (thus the debris field) as this type of ammunition does not explode on impact. Even if you dispute this the axis of the debris still in JFK’s head at the time of the x-ray deeply suggests a shot from the front. You shouldn’t have to be a board certified radiation oncologist to pick up on that. ---
**Author:** ![Euthanasiast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Euthanasiast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euthanasiast)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/53 "2006-04-14T09:46:25Z")
Here is a bit for starters from firearms expert Robert Frazier explaining to the commission that the Carcano rifle was a LOW-VELOCITY weapon: > [@](#): > > Mr. EISENBERG. How does the recoil of this weapon [the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that Oswald supposedly used] compare with the recoil of the average military rifle? > > Mr. FRAZIER. Considerably less. The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because IT HAS A VERY LOW VELOCITY and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight. > > Mr. EISENBERG. Is the killing power of the bullets essentially similar to the killing power at these ranges—the killing power of the rifles you have named? > > Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. > > Mr. EISENBERG. How much difference is there? > > Mr. FRAZIER. The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight would have more killing power. THIS HAS A LOW VELOCITY. . . . (3 H 414, emphasis added) ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/54 "2006-04-14T12:16:40Z")
> [@Euthanasiast](#): > > Here is a bit for starters from firearms expert Robert Frazier explaining to the commission that the Carcano rifle was a LOW-VELOCITY weapon: Which does nothing to support your claim that a LOW-VELOCITY weapon could not cause the wounds inflicted on the President. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/55 "2006-04-14T14:15:36Z")
> [@Euthanasiast](#): > > The president’s skull was obliterated in the right occipital parietal region and although the remainder of his head was somewhat intact, the skull itself was shattered throughout. Yes, there is a good drawing done for the HSCA [here](http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dox2big.jpg). > [@](#): > > Thus the Warren Commission’s findings in regards had to respect that the massive level of trauma was the result of a high-velocity missile. I’m at work so I cannot quote directly from the Warren Report, but I can provide cites later for those of you that don’t believe me. I agree that the WC continually referred to a high velocity bullet or missile over and over again, and they continually used a number of 2,000 fps, and they seemed to interchange these, indicating that for their purposes, 2,000 fps is pretty high velocity. If you have any references where they say that 2,000 fps would be “medium velocity” and therefore couldn’t cause the damage, I’m listening. > [@](#): > > Also in the x-rays, there is a large cluster of metallic debris (bits of the exploded round) that were forced throughout the skull. This debris is absolutely not the by-product of a full metal jacketed round (thus the debris field) as this type of ammunition does not explode on impact. But Dr Olivier conducted tests on skulls, using the same ammunition, and the same type of rifle, and got very similar results, including blowing out skull to the right side of the bullet path, and the bullet fragmenting: > [@Warren Commission report](#): > > The whole skull, depicted in Commission Exhibit No. 860, was struck 2.9 centimeters to the right and almost horizontal to the occipital protuberance or slightly above it, which was virtually the precise point of entry on the President’s head as described by the autopsy surgeons. That bullet blew out the right side of the reconstructed skull in a manner very similar to the head wounds of the President. The consequences on that skull are depicted in Commission Exhibits Nos. 861 and 862, which illustrate the testimony of Dr. Alfred G. Olivier, who supervised the experiments. Based on his review of the autopsy report, Dr. Olivier concluded that the damage to the reconstructed skull was very similar to the wound inflicted on the President. > > Two fragments from the bullet which struck the test skull closely resembled the two fragments found in the front seat of the Presidential limousine. The fragment designated as Commission Exhibit No. 567 is a mutilated piece of lead and copper very similar to a mutilated piece of copper recovered from the bullet which struck the skull depicted in Commission Exhibit No. 860… > [@Euthanasiast](#): > > Even if you dispute this the axis of the debris still in JFK’s head at the time of the x-ray deeply suggests a shot from the front. You shouldn’t have to be a board certified radiation oncologist to pick up on that. Well, lots of forensic pathologists looked at the debris pattern and didn’t pick up on that. From the WC report, from the four pathologists who looked at the autopsy data for Gen Ramsey Clark: > [@](#): > > The foregoing observations indicate that the decedent’s head was struck from behind a single projectile. It entered the occipital region 25 mm to the right of the midline and 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance. The projectile fragmented on entering the skull, one major section leaving a trail of fine metallic debris as it passed forward and laterally to explosively fracture the right frontal and parietal bones as it emerged from the head. > > In addition to the foregoing, it is noteworthy that there is no evidence of projectile fragments in the left cerebral tissues or in the right cerebral hemisphere below a horizontal plane passing through the floor of the anterior fossa of the skull. Also, although the fractures of the calvarium extend to the left of the midline and into the anterior and middle fossa of the skull, no bony defect, such as one created by a projectile either entering or leaving the head, is seen in the calvarium to the left of the midline or in the base of the skull. Hence, it is not reasonable to postulate that a projectile passed through the head in a direction other than that described above. I’m trying to figure out where you think the shot must have come from, with your assumption that the skull blowout is a centered exit wound. It seems to me that the Zapruder film would positively rule out a frontal shot, no? And for that to be the exit wound, the shooter would have to be in the grass lawn on the left side of the car, in full view of everyone including Zapruder. I don’t recall seeing anyone with a gun there. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/56 "2006-04-14T14:58:38Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > Yes, that’s mostly correct, except calling it nothing but “exit wound” is an over-simplification. The chunk of skull that was blown out was at a right angle to the bullet path - how about that? I’ll agree to all of that. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/57 "2006-04-14T15:42:38Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I’m trying to figure out where you think the shot must have come from, with your assumption that the skull blowout is a centered exit wound. It seems to me that the Zapruder film would positively rule out a frontal shot, no? And for that to be the exit wound, the shooter would have to be in the grass lawn on the left side of the car, in full view of everyone including Zapruder. I don’t recall seeing anyone with a gun there. Actually there is someone in that general line of site and they are on film (AP Wide World Photos) holding an AR-15. This type of gun fires a high velocity, thin-wall jacketed bullet. It was tested in the House Select Committee gelatin block tests but was left out of the final report. They tested a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano bullet which shot smoothly through the gelatin. The AR-15 shot disintegrated in the test. ---
**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 14, 2006, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/58 "2006-04-14T16:30:37Z")
Let’s see. 2400_60_60/5280 = 1636 mph. 2000_60_60/5280 = 1363 mph. We’re still talking about a supersonic round, here. This isn’t a pistol by any means. Hm. a .22 LR bullet tends to go from 900 to 1800 FPS. A .22 is considered, generally, a high velocity rifle, because of the smaller bullet. A ‘high-velocity’ round for the .22 LR is 330 Meters/Second. About 1082 feet per second. > **[Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions](https://www.answers.com/redirectSearch?query=22-long-rifle)** > > Answers is the place to go to get the answers you need and to ask the questions you want [http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/highvel.htm](http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/highvel.htm) Really high velocity bullets are a special case, like a bullet weighing 48 grains going over 4,000 fps. That’s ‘grains of sand’. So, ‘low velocity’ and ‘high velocity’ are a bit relative. It’s still easily supersonic, nearly twice the speed of sound. That said, it wasn’t a ‘high velocity round’. I fail to see how a bullet that size, going at a respectable speed, would fail to do the damage. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/59 "2006-04-14T16:31:46Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Actually there is someone in that general line of site and they are on film (AP Wide World Photos) holding an AR-15. On the left side of the limousine? Can you post a link to the photo? > [@](#): > > They tested a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano bullet which shot smoothly through the gelatin. The AR-15 shot disintegrated in the test. Again, Dr Olivier did these tests for the Warren Commission, with animal skulls filled with gelatin, and got blown out skull chunks with bullet fragments using the exact same kind of ammunition Oswald was using. In the HSCA tests you refer to, did they test with a skull, or was it just a chunk of gelatin? I’m not sure why that matters, since the fragmentation had already been demonstrated. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009/60 "2006-04-14T18:36:27Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > On the left side of the limousine? Can you post a link to the photo? From the car following the President. If I can find a link to it I’ll post it but I don’t think it was part of the WC. Again, Dr Olivier did these tests for the Warren Commission, with animal skulls filled with gelatin, and got blown out skull chunks with bullet fragments using the exact same kind of ammunition Oswald was using. In the HSCA tests you refer to, did they test with a skull, or was it just a chunk of gelatin? I’m not sure why that matters, since the fragmentation had already been demonstrated. [/QUOTE] I would accept this except I’ve seen tests that show the opposite although skulls were not used. Mellons, water jugs and that type of item. The heavier the jacket, the more chance it has to remain intact (except for “toothpasting” out the back and the jacket still remains intact. An AR-15 bullet will shred just about anything it hits. It’s thinner jacket will come apart. That’s why you have the first bullet intact (but deformed). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jfk-autopsy-photos-consistent-with-x-rays/352009.md?page=2)