Claim by Paul Landis: he found JFK assassination bullet in limo and placed it on stretcher

[Nemon]

This issue is based on a NYT-Times interview with Paul Landis Jr, one of the USSS bodyguards in JFK's motorcade when the president was shot in Dallas.
Since the original article is behind a paywall at the New York Times ( https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/09/us/politics/jfk-assassination-witness-paul-landis.html ), I can only refer to the media response. I consider the Guardian a reliable source, so I quote this British newspaper. However, there are many other comparable reports and discussions.

This is about the Connally bullet (alleged "magic bullet" on the part of conspiracy theorists), which brings some implications...

Here is the facts as presented by the Guardian ( https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/11/jfk-assasination-multiple-shooters-paul-landis )

[...]
Landis was on the running board of a car trailing the open-top limousine that Kennedy was riding when – as he tells it – he heard a barrage of gunshots and a bullet struck the president from behind. The Warren commission, convened to examine the investigation, concluded that one bullet then continued forward, striking fellow passenger and Texas governor John Connally in his back, thigh, chest and wrist.

As the New York Times noted, the main reason for that conclusion was because the bullet was found on a stretcher used to move Connally around a hospital afterward.

[...] Landis told the New York Times that he was the person who discovered that bullet, which he remembers being stuck in the limousine seat behind Kennedy’s seat after the president had been brought to the hospital.

Landis also said he did not think the bullet went too deeply into Kennedy’s back before “popping back out” prior to the president’s removal from the car he was in. Worried someone would try to pocket it as a souvenir, Landis said he took the bullet and placed it next to a stretchered Kennedy.

“It was a piece of evidence that I realized right away [was] very important,” Landis said. “And I didn’t want it to disappear or get lost. So it was, ‘Paul, you’ve got to make a decision’ – and I grabbed it.”

Realizing in 2014 that the location of the bullet’s recovery cited by him was different than the one mentioned by the Warren commission, Landis checked with multiple officials, according to the New York Times’s story. He was generally met with skepticism, largely because of two written statements that he filed himself.

Neither statement mentioned his finding the bullet in question, and he reported hearing only a pair of gunshots at the time of the assassination, the Times wrote.[...]

It has been quite a while since I have been intensively occupied with details from the labyrinth of JFK's assassination and discussed them in a forum. At least I could find one (of two?) testimonies of Landis.
At the top of page 756, the scene begins where Paul Landis has access to the presidential limousine, but mentions nothing of what he now reveals: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0383a.htm

Now a nurse from that time also supports Landis' current statements. With all the hair-raisingly inaccurate and erroneous statements that came from the hospital staff, among other things, about the skull injuries, I do not attach any particular importance to this.
But basically this matter is very remarkable. What do you think about it? Have you found any further relevant facts and opinions from the current debate about this topic?

 

[Mendel]

From a copy of the NYT article:

Article:

What it comes down to is a copper-jacketed 6.5mm projectile. The Warren Commission decided that one of the bullets fired that day struck the president from behind, exited from the front of his throat and continued on to hit Connally, somehow managing to injure his back, chest, wrist and thigh. It seemed incredible that a single bullet could do all that, so sceptics called it the magic bullet theory.

Investigators came to that conclusion partly because the bullet was found on a stretcher believed to have held Connally at Parkland Memorial Hospital, so they assumed it had exited his body during efforts to save his life. But Landis, who was never interviewed by the Warren Commission, said that is not what happened.

In fact, he said, he was the one who found the bullet – and he found it not in the hospital near Connally but in the presidential limousine lodged in the back of the seat behind where Kennedy was sitting.

When he spotted the bullet after the motorcade arrived at the hospital, he said he grabbed it to thwart souvenir hunters. Then, for reasons that still seem fuzzy even to him, he said he entered the hospital and placed it next to Kennedy on the president’s stretcher, assuming it could somehow help doctors figure out what happened. At some point, he now guesses, the stretchers must have been pushed together, and the bullet was shaken from one to another.

“There was nobody there to secure the scene, and that was a big, big bother to me,” Landis said. “All the agents that were there were focused on the president.” A crowd was gathering. “This was all going on so quickly. And I was just afraid that – it was a piece of evidence, that I realised right away. Very important. And I didn’t want it to disappear or get lost. So it was, ‘Paul, you’ve got to make a decision,’ and I grabbed it.”

Landis theorises that the bullet struck Kennedy in the back but for some reason was undercharged and did not penetrate deeply, therefore popping back out before the president’s body was removed from the limousine.

[...]

“If what he says is true, which I tend to believe, it is likely to reopen the question of a second shooter, if not even more,” Robenalt said. “If the bullet we know as the magic or pristine bullet stopped in president Kennedy’s back, it means that the central thesis of the Warren Report, the single-bullet theory, is wrong.” And if Connally was hit by a separate bullet, he added, then it seemed possible it was not from Oswald, who he argued could not have reloaded that fast.

[...]

He did a few interviews in 2010 and thereafter but never mentioned finding the bullet. Then, in 2014, a local police chief he knew gave him a copy of Six Seconds in Dallas, a 1967 book by Josiah Thompson arguing that there were multiple shooters. Landis read it and believed the official account of the bullet was wrong.

Source: https://www.irishtimes.com/world/us/2023/09/10/jfk-assassination-witness-breaks-his-silence-and-raises-new-questions/

We've seen this before, that people start subscribing to a conspiracy theory in old age. So, without an existing record of what Landis did, it's certainly possible that his memory shaped itself around his new belief.

Without evidence, I'm not ready to trust that memory.

 

[Nemon]

From a copy of the NYT article:

Thanks for the link.
I wonder about this statement:

But Landis, who was never interviewed by the Warren Commission

What, if not a protocol from the Warren Commission hearings, have I linked above?

 

[Mendel]

At the top of page 756, the scene begins where Paul Landis has access to the presidential limousine, but mentions nothing of what he now reveals: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0383a.htm

Content from External Source

Article:

Source: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0385b.htm

Given this testimony, it's not clear to me at which point Landis had access to JFK's stretcher, to place the bullet "next to Kennedy".

It feels unlikely that Landis would relate that he picked up a cigarette lighter, but omit to mention the bullet.

 

[Mendel]

What, if not a protocol from the Warren Commission hearings, have I linked above?

You linked to an exhibit, not a hearing protocol.

Article:

Volume XVIII of the Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits is the third of the eleven exhibits volumes. The set of 26 volumes consists of 5 volumes of testimony taken by Commission members in Washington DC (volumes I to V), 10 volumes of testimony and affidavits taken by Commission staff members in various locations (volumes VI to XV), and the 11 volumes of exhibits (volumes XVI to XXVI).

Source: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wh18.htm

From the table of contents:

Article:

Source: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0006b.htm

From the cover letter:

Article:

Source: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0368b.htm

It looks like the Warren Commission did not interview Paul Landis. Given the extent of his affidavit, this does not surprise me.

 

[DavidB66]

I would like to assume that Secret Service agents are experienced, competent and well-trained people, so what in the name of sanity induced Landis to put a spent bullet - very obviously an important piece of evidence in a major crime - on the stretcher and not tell anyone (like his senior officers) about it, either immediately or at the earliest opportunity??

 

[Ann K]

I would like to assume that Secret Service agents are experienced, competent and well-trained people, so what in the name of sanity induced Landis to put a spent bullet - very obviously an important piece of evidence in a major crime - on the stretcher and not tell anyone (like his senior officers) about it, either immediately or at the earliest opportunity??

His job was "protect the president", not "scene of crime officer", and in the frantic and emotional crisis of the moment I can well believe that his actions might have been as he described. But I'm not naïve enough to assume that his recollections, this many years later, are completely accurate.

 

[DavidB66]

His job was "protect the president", not "scene of crime officer", and in the frantic and emotional crisis of the moment I can well believe that his actions might have been as he described. But I'm not naïve enough to assume that his recollections, this many years later, are completely accurate.

Well, yes, but the 'emotional crisis of the moment' might generously be taken as lasting a day or so. Failure to report his actions after that seems to go beyond incompetence to dishonesty. I suppose he may have been afraid he would get into trouble if he did report it, and the longer he delayed, the worse it would get! As for not being a scene of crime officer, his own recent interview (see #1 above) states that

It was a piece of evidence that I realized right away [was] very important

 

[SuppaCoup]

We have robust photographic evidence of the car at the time of the shooting and in the period immediately afterwards, is their any indication of this alleged stuck bullet in the time after it got stuck in the seat and before he picked it up? And I find his comment about souvenir hunters utterly baffling-wasn't the car under total lockdown, surrounded by cops and secret service?
This seems like a textbook example of the fact that human memory is reconstructive. His memories of picking up those other items mixed with inevitable fading from the passage of time and all the uncertainties and doubts that swirl around this awful assassination have made him confabulate a memory utterly at odds with all of his earlier statements and actions.

 

[Mendel]

all the uncertainties and doubts that swirl around this awful assassination have made him confabulate a memory utterly at odds with all of his earlier statements and actions.

Helped by the conspiracy theory book he read.

 

[tobigtofool]

If someone can misremember something so extreme such as this, then how can we take any witness testimony for anything seriously?

 

[SuppaCoup]

If someone can 'misremember' something so extreme such as this, then how can we take any witness testimony for anything seriously?

There's an infamous case of a woman who was brutally SA'd over something like an hour by an unmasked assailant and who went out of her way to memorize his face. Some months later, she became absolutely convinced she recognized him walking in the street. Her deeply compelling and utterly sincere testimony alone convicted him and put him away for decades. In a famous memoir she wrote discussing this case, she sees nothing from him during the trial but seething unrepentant evil, and is as certain of his guilt as she is of her own name.
He was later utterly exonerated. He simply bore a resemblance to the actual rapist, who was identified, and the reconstructive nature of her memory and an instant gut reaction solidified it into absolute certainty in an instant.
There's a good chance at least a few of your core childhood memories are largely post hoc forgeries, based on stories you heard from other people and confabulated into being about you.
Edit: I swear to all of you that this was not deliberate, but while I got the broad strokes of the account of the SA of author Alice Sebold and the miscarriage of justice Anthony Broadwater endured correct, I completely confabulated them identifying her actual rapist and him resembling Broadwater and inadvertently exaggerated how long he was in prison for. And I read this less than 2 years ago!

Convicted in 1982, Broadwater spent more than 16 years in prison. He was denied parole at least five times because he wouldn’t admit to a crime he didn’t commit, according to his attorneys. And he passed two lie detector tests.

and here from a separate article

While saying that she struggles “with the role that I unwittingly played within a system that sent an innocent man to jail,” she said she grapples “with the fact that my rapist will, in all likelihood, never be known, may have gone on to rape other women, and certainly will never serve the time in prison that Mr. Broadwater did.”

Yeesh! Note to self, pull up your sources always.

 

[tobigtofool]

How can you take any witness testimony seriously? Where do you draw the line?

 

[SuppaCoup]

How can you take any witness testimony seriously? Where do you draw the line?

You account for the potential for inaccuracy and study other lines of evidence carefully. There have been cases where people got things very right on long term memory. Hence why I didn't simply say "it's an old memory it must be wrong" but instead went straight to "how can we either substantiate or falsify his statement", such as by studying any photos taken during the time between the bullet allegedly being in the seat and being removed, or showing an area of damage on the seat consistent with a bullet being lodged in it.

 

[tobigtofool]

You account for the potential for inaccuracy and study other lines of evidence carefully. There have been cases where people got things very right on long term memory. Hence why I didn't simply say "it's an old memory it must be wrong" but instead went straight to "how can we either substantiate or falsify his statement", such as by studying any photos taken during the time between the bullet allegedly being in the seat and being removed, or showing an area of damage on the seat consistent with a bullet being lodged in it.

Hmm, ok in that case, afaik the current bullet is nicknamed "magic" to explain the way it was able to travel through two people, and his story would imply that the magic bullet was just 1 of 2 bullets, rather than 1. So that would make more sense, would it not?

And also he has a strong reason for placing it on the stretcher, so he says, because it'd be the best way for the autopsy doctors to get it.

I also think remembering picking up a bullet, and putting it on the gurney of a dead president =/= remembering someone's face or identity.

And lastly, he has given reasons why his original testimony was different: sleep deprivation, and after withdrawing from the secret service 6 months later, fear that he had done something extremely wrong.

All of this would lead me to believe he is telling the truth, not misremembering.

What reasons do we have to believe that he misremembered such an extreme series of events?

 

[SuppaCoup]

Hmm, ok in that case, afaik the current bullet is nicknamed "magic" to explain the way it was able to travel through two people, and his story would imply that the magic bullet was just 1 of 2 bullets, rather than 1. So that would make more sense, would it not?

The photographic evidence we have and modern reconstructions of the trajectory of the bullet, taking into account the positioning of the seats and how the two men are sitting explains the wounds they have very well off of one bullet.

And also he has a strong reason for placing it on the stretcher, so he says, because it'd be the best way for the autopsy doctors to get it.

Generally speaking if a person's goal is to hand a piece of evidence over to someone's doctors, setting it loosely on the stretcher they're currently being transported on without saying anything about it rather than physically handing it to a human being would be considered very unusual behavior. But of course he was greiving and very stressed so that's not a deal breaker. But you'd expect the team of doctors attending to Kennedy to have taken some notice of him doing this. As far as I can tell, no one mentions seeing one of his SS guards place any object next to him. That doesn't mean it definitely didn't happen, but it's worth noting.

And lastly, he has given reasons why his original testimony was different: sleep deprivation, and after withdrawing from the secret service 6 months later, fear that he had done something extremely wrong.

I find these explanations unsatisfying. They imply he was aware of having mucked things up roughly 60 years ago-does he have any evidence of this? Diaries? Any people in his life who will come forward to say he told them about moving the bullet many years ago? He has talked about the shooting for many years and never even hinted at any of this.

it's quite a coincidence that the bullet then wound up getting perfectly bumped over from Kennedy to John Connally's stretcher to later fall down and inadvertently screw up the entire shooting investigation by being assumed to have been lodged in him. And all of this, allegedly, to protect the bullet from being snatched out of the inside of a guarded car that was part of the most high profile murder in american history, swarming with cops and secret service agents, by souvenir hunters. I understand not thinking clearly in the moment, but this sounds an awful lot like the kind of weird detail someone could confabulate after the fact to rationalize an action, and confabulation fits the fact that he DID pick things up from the car that we know about.

All we have is an elderly man's word that directly contradicts what he's said previously. I am totally open to corroborating evidence, but at this time I am not persuaded.

 

[SuppaCoup]

(Content Warning, image is of limo seat during investigation with dried blood in situ) Where was it stuck? I see nothing on the seat to suggest a bullet was stuck on it. Wouldn't we expect some sign of this?

 

[Mendel]

If someone can misremember something so extreme such as this, then how can we take any witness testimony for anything seriously?

We can take something seriously without trusting it 100%.

It helps if the witness has notes. Landis's 7-page statement was wriiten shortly after the incident, so it should be more accurate than what he thinks he remembers 60 years later. The written statement is corroborated by other statements. It's claim is "ordinary" (a single shooter), while the new claim is extraordinary, requiring two shooters targetting JFK at the same time but not knowing about each other, implying a conspiracy that has remained 100% secret for 60 years. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The new testimony requires
• that Kennedy was shot from the front, when the entrance wound was at the back,
• that the bullet was removable without tools after travelling through the body at high speed,
• that Landis removed evidence from the crime scene on a flimsy pretext,
• that Landis, who initially stayed behind, had access to JFK's stretcher,
• that the bullet moved from one stretcher to another, without falling to the floor,
• that Landis's written statement was substantially incomplete, in that he left out the single item of knowledgd he had that could help solve the murder.

In pronouncing Landis's memory reliable, you have to pronounce his written statement unreliable; the autopsy unreliable; the other witnesses unreliable; the investigation unreliable. How can we not take any of these seriously? When Landis hasn't even spoken under oath?

And then there's belief. Some people will lie to support what they believe must be the truth, in the hopes that it will come out once it is "properly investigated", when it's dismissed due to lack of evidence. It's easy to lie when the chance that you're ever going to have to bear the consequences of that lie is very slim.

There are so many reasons to dismiss Landis's testimony that do not apply to any other witnesses.

 

[tobigtofool]

In pronouncing Landis's memory reliable, you have to pronounce his written statement unreliable; the investigation unreliable.

He's said his written statements were made under duress while he was distracted with the events, and later figured he'd be able to address that in the investigation during an interview that never happened. So there's reason to believe the investigation was not reliable, and a lucid argument why his statement was unreliable.

Update: TIL duress means threats of violence, I thought it meant stress.

 

[Mendel]

He's said his written statements were made under duress while he was distracted with the events, and later figured he'd be able to address that in the investigation during an interview that never happened. So there's reason to believe the investigation was not reliable, and a lucid argument why his statement was unreliable.

Duress?

Article:

duress

Pressure, especially actual or threatened physical force, put on a person to act in a particular way.

Source: https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095736412

That's not believable, this claim requires evidence.

How could Landis have been pressured regarding this bullet if he never told anyone about it?

Was the physician performing the autopsy under duress, too?

 

[tobigtofool]

Oh god, excuse me for not using phrasing as accurately as I could have. Stress? He was distracted?

I am sure the physician and everyone in involved were totally stressed out and distracted too.

 

[Mendel]

Oh god, excuse me for not using duress as accurately as you would have preferred. Stress? He was distracted?

I am sure the physician and everyone in involved were totally stressed out too.

Oh, I was under the impression that "He's said his written statements were made under duress" referred to something Landis actually said.

He can't have been so "distracted" that he remembered the cigarette lighter but forgot about the bullet, especially if "remembering picking up a bullet, and putting it on the gurney of a dead president =/= remembering someone's face or identity".

The physian doing the autopsy was so "stressed out" that he misdescribed the physical characteristics of an entrance wound???

 

[tobigtofool]

Oh, I was under the impression that "He's said his written statements were made under duress" referred to something Landis actually said.

No I was paraphrasing from the interviews that have been going around and my knowledge of vocabulary is not perfect. He said that he was under so much stress having witnessed the presidents head explode 15 feet from him, and distracted with Jackie and his roll of protecting and consoling her, I'd also assume he was probably suffering from severe PTSD. He said he was never the same person after and he shut down mentally as a result of the events.

He can't have been so "distracted" that he remembered the cigarette lighter but forgot about the bullet, especially if "remembering picking up a bullet, and putting it on the gurney of a dead president =/= remembering someone's face or identity".

The physian doing the autopsy was so "stressed out" that he misdescribed the physical characteristics of an entrance wound???

Sure he could, and yeah I bet the doctors involved were extremely stressed out and distracted too, the whole nation was in shock.

There have been numerous claims and controversies surrounding the autopsy.

Differences in how medical personnel in Dallas described the wounds and how they were later described in Bethesda have led to suspicions.

A mortician claimed that when Kennedy's body arrived in Bethesda, there were already surgical procedures done to his head.

Conflicting reports about when the body arrived at the naval hospital. Claims the body arrived earlier than officially recorded. Paul O'Connor, Roger Boyajian and testimonies from guards.

To name a few.

 

[Mendel]

There have been numerous claims and controversies surrounding the autopsy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-bullet_theory

impacted, then entered President Kennedy 2 inches (51 mm) to the right of his spine, creating a wound documented size of 4 millimeters by 7 millimeters in the rear of his upper back with a red-brown to black area of skin surrounding the wound, forming what is called an abrasion collar. This abrasion collar was caused by the bullet's scraping the margins of the skin on penetration and is characteristic of a gunshot wound of entrance. This abrasion collar was photographically documented to be larger at the lower margin half of the wound, which is strong evidence that the bullet's long-axis orientation at the instant of penetration was slightly upward in relation to the plane of the skin immediately surrounding the wound; however, the skin of Kennedy's upper back slopes inward, and the Croft photo (taken at Zapruder frame 162, shortly before Kennedy was hit) shows the President slumped forward. This would suggest that a shooting position above and to the rear of Kennedy was possible

Content from External Source

I'm not dismissing this on an old man's word, because I am not easily fooled.

Landis's account requires this wound to be an exit wound. It was not.

 

[tobigtofool]

Landis's account requires this wound to be an exit wound. It was not.

Landis's revelations or account don't change these physical and photographic observations. As for the bullet Landis reportedly picked up, its discovery and any oversight in its reporting should be seen as separate from the forensic analysis of the wound. One does not negate the other.

 

[Mendel]

Landis's revelations or account don't change these physical and photographic observations. As for the bullet Landis reportedly picked up, its discovery and any oversight in its reporting should be seen as separate from the forensic analysis of the wound. One does not negate the other.

From the NYT article:

he found it not in the hospital near Connally but in the presidential limousine lodged in the back of the seat behind where Kennedy was sitting.

Content from External Source

How did the bullet get lodged there if Kennedy was shot from the back?
You can only find a bullet there if there was a second shooter who shot from the front.

It's one against the other. These are not separate issues.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Landis's revelations or account don't change these physical and photographic observations. As for the bullet Landis reportedly picked up, its discovery and any oversight in its reporting should be seen as separate from the forensic analysis of the wound. One does not negate the other.

EDIT: Cross posted with Mendel above on the same topic.

How so? The claim is that Landis found the bullet BEHIND where Kennedy was sitting. Therefor it came from in front of Kennedy passed through him and ended up behind him. Therefore there could not be an entrance wound on his back side, at least not one associated with the supposed bullet in question, Right?

 

[SuppaCoup]

This account appears to be directly contradicted by photographic evidence of the seat taken during the investigation. There's no indication of a place where a bullet was lodged. You'd expect some degree of damage in a small area where the leather was deformed enough for the bullet to remain in place for several minutes.

Does anyone know of any high quality photos taken of the limo when it arrived at the hospital that show the interior, ideally at such a time as to allow us to explicitly verify or falsify this account?

 

[FatPhil]

No I was paraphrasing

Don't do that. If you are relying on something to support your argument, quote it exactly, and provide a source.

 

[tobigtofool]

EDIT: Cross posted with Mendel above on the same topic.

How so? The claim is that Landis found the bullet BEHIND where Kennedy was sitting. Therefor it came from in front of Kennedy passed through him and ended up behind him. Therefore there could not be an entrance wound on his back side, at least not one associated with the supposed bullet in question, Right?

If you're speaking theoretically or hypothetically about bullet trajectories and behaviors, it's important to remember that bullets can behave in unexpected ways based on numerous factors, including bullet type, speed, angle of impact.

Ricochet, Deflection, curved pathways, all of these could result in a bullet ending up not where you'd expect.

I imagine I'd believe the bullet ricocheted long before I'd believe this guy has accidentally made up a fake story in his head about picking up a bullet, putting it on a stretcher, and why he left it out and came forward about it.

Its worth noting i feel, that some people who disagree with the single bullet theory say that the bullet was in too pristine condition to have done what it did, however Landis also claims his bullet was in pretty pristine condition (again paraphrasing from recent interviews) with little to (no?) blood on it.

 

[JMartJr]

Instead of saying "some people say," could you source who they are and quote them? Instead of paraphrasing "recent interviews," could you quote them and link us to them? Thanks, that would be a tremendous help, and help avoid misunderstandings.

Think of it as showing us evidence instead of just telling us about it, if that is a helpful way to understand why it is important...

 

[Landru]

The Posting Guidelines still apply. Too much speculation and paraphrasing has occurred. If you post a video include timestamps and extracts in accordance with the No Click policy.

 

[tobigtofool]

The Posting Guidelines still apply. Too much speculation and paraphrasing has occurred. If you post a video include timestamps and extracts in accordance with the No Click policy.

Oh please, the whole conversation is based off some wild speculation that he's making up the whole thing because "we've seen it before" and implying he subscribes to conspiracy theory without any evidence of that.

We've seen this before, that people start subscribing to a conspiracy theory in old age. So, without an existing record of what Landis did, it's certainly possible that his memory shaped itself around his new belief.

 

[Landru]

Oh please, the whole conversation is based off some wild speculation that he's making up the whole thing because "we've seen it before" and implying he subscribes to conspiracy theory without any evidence of that.

Refer to places where he said it then and not your personal recollection of past readings.

 

[Mendel]

If you're speaking theoretically or hypothetically about bullet trajectories and behaviors, it's important to remember that bullets can behave in unexpected ways based on numerous factors, including bullet type, speed, angle of impact.

Ricochet, Deflection, curved pathways, all of these could result in a bullet ending up not where you'd expect.

A rifle bullet that can enter JFK's body at the back, and then get lodged in the back of his seat, without a corresponding exit wound, is a magical bullet indeed.

Oh please, the whole conversation is based off some wild speculation that he's making up the whole thing because "we've seen it before" and implying he subscribes to conspiracy theory without any evidence of that.

It has the advantage of fitting all of the facts, though.

 

[tobigtofool]

A rifle bullet that can enter JFK's body at the back, and then get lodged in the back of his seat, without a corresponding exit wound, is a magical bullet indeed.

Maybe it didnt even hit him, who is claiming the bullet hit him? Where is that? Please show evidence of that claim.

It has the advantage of fitting all of the facts, though.

The fact if you omit a first hand witness who came forward - with some made up theory about how he subscribes to a conspiracy theory and has brainwashed himself into mixing up his own impactful life experiences.

I do not think that claim has any water to it - nor do I think it's the same as remembering an attackers face.

It'd be more like, remembering you were attacked, then finding out you were not attacked at all.

 

[Mendel]

This account appears to be directly contradicted by photographic evidence of the seat taken during the investigation. There's no indication of a place where a bullet was lodged. You'd expect some degree of damage in a small area where the leather was deformed enough for the bullet to remain in place for several minutes.

Does anyone know of any high quality photos taken of the limo when it arrived at the hospital that show the interior, ideally at such a time as to allow us to explicitly verify or falsify this account?

More detail:

Article:

That’s when he said he noticed the intact bullet in the seam of the tufted dark leather cushioning.

Investigators determined that the bullet, designated Commission Exhibit 399, was fired by the same C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

Source: https://www.irishtimes.com/world/us/2023/09/10/jfk-assassination-witness-breaks-his-silence-and-raises-new-questions/

 

[SuppaCoup]

based off some wild speculation that he's making up the whole thing

I see a fair bit of engagement with the existing evidence and past testimony-I looked at a photo of the car seat he alleges a bullet was lodged in, and have made a few passes at finding any video or photographic evidence of the car seat in the crucial period immediately after Kennedy was removed and when Landis alleges he took out a bullet. I have found no corroboration of his account from any source.
Is not "wild speculation" to question the quality of someone's memory after 60 years have passed, especially when that memory appears to be contradicted by evidence.

 

[Mendel]

Maybe it didnt even hit him, who is claiming the bullet hit him? Where is that? Please show evidence of that claim.

• "Landis theorises that the bullet struck Kennedy in the back but for some reason was undercharged and did not penetrate deeply, therefore popping back out before the president’s body was removed from the limousine."

if the bullet did not hit JFK, we have this:
• bullet shot from rifle in school book depository
• bullet ricochets into back of seat
• "But the bullet was described as nearly pristine and had lost only one or two grains of its original 160 or 161 grains in weight"
That's impossible when it ricochets so hard it does a 180.

 

[tobigtofool]

• "Landis theorises that the bullet struck Kennedy in the back but for some reason was undercharged and did not penetrate deeply, therefore popping back out before the president’s body was removed from the limousine."

We'll there is your answer, he's not saying its a 2nd shooter, or even a different gun.

The truth is 2 out of 3 bullets are missing, this could be one of those 3. One of those bullets did strike the president and was never recovered. That's certainly more believable than him creating a false memory to me.

(What do you want me to do here, what I just stated is a fact, but it comes from my memory, should I go find in the warren commission where it says this?)

One of the missing bullets struck the presidents head, and only fragments were found, I am sure if we did ballistic tests we'd find that a cranium is a great place to reverse a bullets direction after impact.