Greg Burnham

"Dr. Burkley [the President's physician] told me it's a simple matter of a bullet right through the head." -- Malcolm Kilduff

Ramon, David doesn't often read forums or news groups at all. The only real exception is mine as he is a founding member there. However, if you would post this same topic on my forum, I can send him that link when he gets back from Ireland. It will stand a better chance of getting his attention and a response there than here. (No offense to this forum. However, there is a very limited amount of time that he can devote to forums as it is.)

Thanks, Douglas.

I should also mention in the interest of full disclosure that I personally know, Wayne Barnes, who was the FBI agent responsible for conducting the entire debriefing of defector, Ion Mihai Pacepa, named in the article. In 2011, Wayne signed a copy of the book, Programmed to Kill, for me, which was written by Pacepa. I did not find the book very helpful in spite of Pacepa's obvious broad knowledge of Soviet Bloc inner workings. As I said to Wayne on several occasions, Pacepa relies extremely heavily on Edward Epstein's books to make his case. I find this unusual since Pacepa's credibility should mainly reside in his access to TOP SECRET operational sources and methods of the former Soviet Bloc from which he is the highest ranking Intelligence Officer to ever defect. He was very involved with the KGB, GRU, PGU (First Chief Directorate of the KGB), as well as the Romanian Espionage Service aka: the DIE, among others. Perhaps the price of asylum was the authorship of misdirection...if not outright disinformation?

I agree, Ramón. That's something that should have been accomplished by the ARRB as duly noted by Doug Horne in his book, Inside the ARRB (Volume IV). Many of us have shot footage with the Bell & Howell from the Zapruder pedestal over the years. However, traffic conditions make it difficult to reproduce the crime scene. An official government inquiry would carry the authority, such as the ARRB possessed, to allow what you suggest to be done. However, since the ARRB dropped the ball, that opportunity may have been all but lost. As I've pointed out here before: At the end of 2010 Kodak discontinued processing Kodachrome film forever. That is the film stock Zapruder used. Ektachrome can still be obtained and used in that type of camera and it can still be processed by Kodak for now. However, the last opportunity to film, 1) from the Zapruder position; 2) using the same type of Bell and Howell camera; 3) using the same film (Kodachrome); 4) on the correct date and 5) at the right time (for sun position) -- was November 22, 2010 at 12:30pm. I shot more than 2 hours worth of Kodachrome film from there on that day (from about 11:30 until about 2:00 pm). It was the last opportunity anyone would ever get to film from there with Kodachrome and be able to have the film processed. Obviously, I was not able to control traffic conditions sufficiently to replicate the Zapruder film.

Thanks for the links, Douglas. However, beware of Jerome Corsi. This appears to be more of the same misdirection to which we've become accustomed over the years. Although a man's argument (in this case Corsi's) will stand or fall on its own merits independent of his prior work, I still have difficulty even allowing for the possibility that Corsi's JFK work would suddenly become worthwhile. After having read his opportunistically "timed for the 50th anniversary" release of Who Really Killed Kennedy (2013, WND Books), I became convinced that Harvard must be handing out PhD degrees in Poli-Sci like candy these days. The number of basic factual errors he commits is stunning. Did you know that the author of Best Evidence apparently not only is a writer, but also brews some pretty popular tea (Lipton's pg. 77), as well? Did you know that the assassination really took place--not on November 22, 1963--but rather on November 23, 1963 and that Nixon didn't want the American people to know he was still in Dallas on that day (pg. 261)? And there are at least a dozen more such errors. These are simple, easily verified or refuted, factoids that are completely inaccurate. His lack of attention to detail in the small stuff--in the stuff that requires little to no analytical abilities--tends to damage his credibility beyond repair. After all, if he can't get the small stuff right...? The book revealed nothing new, IMO. Its author displayed a shallow interpretation of the meaning of the events he reported and the book certainly did not live up to its title. I see nothing to suggest that his newest effort will be much better.

Yes, Ramón. You joined my forum on September 4th.

David Mantik is already a founding member of my forum. However, he doesn't participate too often in posted discussions due to his travel schedule, but he will respond to questions and occasionally write an article. Good luck with your efforts, Ramon.

Gene, Thanks for the kind words. Although there is so much more to analyze as to the underlying motives of the actual "Commanders-in-Chief" (not JFK) leading up to and during the Bay of Pigs, we have made significant progress in removing at least one part of JFK's post mortem character assassination. There was so much effort put into the "blame the Bay of Pigs Fiasco on Kennedy" campaign over the decades that it is very difficult to set the record straight even 50 years after the fact and more than several years after the declassification of the most revelatory documentation on the subject. The public has labored under the misapprehension that "JFK failed to provide promised US air support at the BOP" for more than 5 decades. Yet Americans can sense that something doesn't jibe with that story. When they weigh the "personality, character, moral fiber and principles" displayed by JFK, against those of a President supposedly capable of betraying Brigade 2506, there is a mismatch. Yet, in the absence of sufficient access to the evidence, It has become one of the most "presumed to be true falsehoods" ever promoted. But, for me personally, there is much that has only very recently changed and for which I am eternally grateful. It is a small, but important, victory for the truth. It is this: In this thread much was discussed / debated about many aspects of the failed / sabotaged Bay of Pigs Operation. Those who participated in the BOP portion of this discussion don't agree on everything. And, in some areas, we very much disagree. However, perhaps for the very first time, not a single Bay of Pigs expert (real or perceived) even suggested that Kennedy refused to provide the (fabricated) promised US air support. Not one person. So even though there is much to be discussed about all of it, at least that Big Lie has been completely vanquished from this learning center. It is a start.

I think it is worth remembering that one hallmark of the Eisenhower presidency was his absolute commitment to being a peacetime President. He saw that as a worthy legacy for history to record. Ike had seen war. Fought in wars. Commanded during wars. Ike knew war and he loathed it. He committed himself to keeping the US out of war for the entire 8 years of his presidency and he succeeded...although barely, at times. The methods he chose to accomplish this ranged from almost arrogant displays of military might, to the development of extremely sophisticated spying capabilities, to a very accomplished propaganda apparatus, including various rhetorical devices employed by administration spokespersons, among others. Eisenhower was no fool. He would never have risked American security to protect his preferred legacy, but he was convinced that by fulfilling that legacy he would also best serve not only American security, but the security of the planet's population. That was his ultimate goal and the yardstick by which all foreign policy decisions were measured. Eisenhower would never have allowed this operation to proceed. He was first an Army General who had overseen the largest successful amphibious assault (Normandy) that the world had ever seen or has ever seen to this very day! He would not have allowed this failure of a plan to be approved. Period. Moreover, he would never have allowed a plan that was so weak it would have depended on direct US military intervention for it to have had any chance of success. Again, this goes back to his commitment to his own "peacetime President" legacy. Ike would have known that direct US intervention against Cuba would have most certainly resulted in a response from the Soviet Union--very likely in Berlin. That would have been counter intuitive to his entire goal. When JFK won the election, Nixon, who was still the VP and in charge of the "Castro's just 90 miles off our coast problem," authorized the CIA to develop alternate plans for dealing with Castro's Cuba. During this lame duck period, then, Eisenhower was not particularly focused on what Nixon was up to. This was more or less while Eisenhower was preparing to leave office, play a lot of golf, write his memoirs, preserve his legacy, and pray that history would be kind to him in this life and his creator merciful to him in the next. As the plan began to grow in scope, it became necessary to delay its implementation on Nixon's orders, as the CIA was ill-prepared (to put it mildly) for such an ambitious operation. Nixon was a spiteful man by all accounts. We know of the ancient practice of salting the land of conquered adversaries in an attempt to make the land uninhabitable. Scipio Africanus salted the city of Carthage during the Third Punic War to that end. Richard Nixon poisoned the Caribbean after he lost the election by "salting" the original Eisenhower "guerrilla action only" approved plan--rendering it too dysfunctional to succeed--all the while knowing full well that by delaying its implantation until after the new president's inauguration, it wouldn't be his problem, but JFK's.

Nixon was the person tasked by Eisenhower with oversight of the planned operation against Castro. It became apparent to Nixon that Kennedy had bested him in the debate--partly due to JFK having criticized Ike's Cuba policy--knowing full well that Nixon could not reveal any Top Secret plans that were in the works (Trinidad) due to National Security constraints. This is more than likely what caused Nixon to delay the operation by ordering a build up of the invasion forces beyond anything that the CIA is capable of handling. It served the purpose of creating a "tar baby" for JFK. As for Eisenhower, the answer is absolutely no. He would not have approved Trinidad if it had grown to the scope of the Bay of Pigs while he was President. This is from my website: Subsequent to the Bay of Pigs President Kennedy arranged a briefing for former President Eisenhower by General Maxwell Taylor who was heading up the Cuban Study Group to find answers as to the cause of the failure. During that interview, Eisenhower unequivocally denied having ever set such an amphibious assault plan in motion. The notes from that meeting end at item six (6) and the last sentence reads: 6. “As the visitors left he [Eisenhower] reiterated his appreciation to President Kennedy for the briefing.” That is where the typed interview notes ended. However, there is a footnote: 1 “General Taylor added a final handwritten paragraph [number 7 below] to the typed text that reads: 7. General Eisenhower expressed the feeling that the US would have to get rid of Castro preferably using as a reason for intervention some Castro mistake. As the visitors left he [Eisenhower] reiterated his appreciation to President Kennedy for the briefing. An additional footnote from the State Department reads: 2 The final sentence had been typed as the closing sentence to paragraph 6 before Taylor crossed it out and revised the text [by adding the handwritten comments about having to get rid of Castro]. ======== So after this meeting, in which Ike denied he ever supported such a plan, Taylor "revised" his notes to reflect that Ike nevertheless supported action against Castro even though that is not what Ike said.

“I am one of those who feel it is very wrong to pick too much on Jack Kennedy because it was Nixon who, if we had kicked off [the Bay of Pigs] as we had hoped for, between November and January of 60-61, it might not have worked, but it would not have been a major disaster.” — Jake Esterline

Yes, the phone call did take place. However, it wasn't until 4:30 am EST. I have covered this in several presentations both live and on the radio. Here is an excerpt from an article that I wrote about it for my website simply titled, FIASCO: Yet another example of continued disinformation was only declassified very recently. In November of 1984 Dr. Jack B. Pfeiffer, former Chief of the CIA’s History Staff, unsuccessfully attempted to get his manuscript titled, “The Taylor Committee Investigation of the Bay of Pigs” declassified. The majority of it remained classified for more than 25 years and was only recently approved for release on July 25, 2011—less than 3 years ago from the time of this writing—and more than 50 years after the Bay of Pigs. I have relied on very little from the report itself, other than to show how it is self-impeaching. However, the fact that it even exists remains very relevant to the topic I wish to cover. It is somewhat reminiscent of the type of report that a former Warren Commission staffer might write today: packed full of details, many of which lack relevance, while presenting evidence in a manner intended to bias the reader to a foregone conclusion. In some instances he completely misrepresents the facts—and does so in one of the most important aspects of this sabotaged operation. He claims that Secretary Rusk had JFK on the phone when Cabell and Bissell told Rusk of the likelihood of disastrous consequences if the D-Day airstrikes were cancelled. That claim is demonstrably false. Pfeiffer is conflating JFK’s refusal to launch direct US Military intervention (US Navy jets off the aircraft carrier, USS Essex) with the already (by then) cancelled anti-Castro Cuban piloted B-26 D-DAY airstrikes from Puerto Cabezas, Nicaragua! That these were two completely distinct and separate “histories” of the operation—one being a part of the original plan and the other prohibited by law and never a part of the plan—is not in question. Why Pfeiffer chose to obfuscate the record, however, remains suspect. In actuality, by the time Rusk finally did call JFK on the phone to put CIA’s General Cabell on the line, it wasn’t until 4:30 on the morning of D-DAY, which was already several hours too late for the B-26’s to have eliminated Castro’s air force on the ground! Thus, it is evident that by then CIA was no longer requesting that the D-Day pre-dawn airstrikes be reinstated, as it was already too late for that. Rather, they were requesting DIRECT US MILITARY INTERVENTION as Cabell had fighter jets on stand-by from the USS Essex. In other words, they were now requesting exactly what the President had made clear would not be allowed under any circumstances, namely: Direct US Military Intervention, which was never in the plan and which was not expected by the anti-Castro Cubans, as reported by Colonel Jack Hawkins less than a week prior to D-Day in an Emergency Dispatch Cable to Washington." [American pilots and fighter planes from any US ship, including the USS Boxer or USS Essex, as well as any military personnel from any branch of the US Armed Forces were specifically prohibited from participating in any clandestine operations as per National Security Council Directives.]

Precisely. By way of analogy: That Susan Atlkins, Patricia Krenwinkle and Leslie Van Houten took and executed the orders received from Charlie Manson, does not absolve them of the crimes they committed nor does it minimize the severity of those crimes. However, confusing the roles played by Van Houten, et al with the operational command alone possessed by Charlie Manson, fails to penetrate the surface appearance. Dulles, Harriman, McCloy, Bundy and many others are similarly members of the "Invisible Power" (Sponsor Level, High Cabal) structure, just as Charlie's deadly minions were members of his Spawn Ranch Family. No doubt there existed a hierarchy in both groups. But at no time was anyone "on that level" in command.

Dulles didn't give orders. He took them.

How many members besides myself have actually fired a Carcano? This question is only for those who have: Would you place your eye anywhere near the end of a scope mounted on this "kicks like a shotgun" weapon? I have never held a Carcano that had a scope mounted on it. But, after firing it, I knew a scope would be useless--even dangerous--for the operator.

Brian, I would be guilty of committing the fallacy, Appeal to Authority, if I was arguing that: "The claim made by Person A is true because Person A is an authority (expert, famous, etc.) on the subject." That is not my argument. An argument stands or falls based on its own merits. However, it is not fallacious to suggest that, "All other things being equal, the arguments advanced by Person A carry more weight than the arguments advanced by Person B due to the greater level of expertise, experience and training possessed by Person A." That does not mean that Person A is infallible or necessarily correct. It means, assuming the arguments advanced by both men are equally logical, Person A's conclusion is more likely to be valid. So I do not dismiss Pat's claim because he has no experience. I dismiss it because my first hand experience contradicts his claim. "Covert assassination tactics" is not the crux of what I was talking about. And, as you already should know, I do not think that any number of hours spent shooting a firearm qualifies the shooter as an "expert in assassination tactics," covert or otherwise. However, having worked on Diplomatic Protection Details, as a function of my former career, I might know just a little something about that subject. But, as I said, that is not the point. We are talking about "scenario-specific" weapons of choice as well as the ammunition to which they are associated. When I say "scenario-specific," I am not referring to the "nature" of the act, such as, murder vs target practice. I am talking about actual physical characteristics: sniper position (distance and elevation) relative to target, velocity of target (speed and direction), physical characteristics of the designated kill zone, weather conditions, concealment, et cetera. The scenario-specifics of "the event in Dealey Plaza" dictate the acceptable "weapons of choice" and ammunition insomuch as they ruled out employing certain "inferior to the task" weapons in favor of employing those more likely to succeed. There are "more than a few" members of this forum who have BOTH "been there and READ that" and "been there and DONE that" -- including me. I am, of course, referring to those members who have firearms training in both the classroom, as well as, practical experience on the range or in the field. I did not say, nor did I imply, that knowledge acquired from experience alone is preferable to knowledge acquired from BOTH experience and education. Certainly you must agree that knowledge acquired from BOTH education AND experience is preferable to knowledge acquired only from education or only from experience? In my opinion, Pat would be better equipped to address this specific issue (regarding the practicality of utilizing .22 subsonic ammo for the purpose suggested) after his having acquired more "practical" information. To be clear: My objection to Pat's approach is his making rather definitive statements about a subject with which he has no practical experience. He need not accumulate years of experience to be better informed, but enough to test his hypothesis on "paper targets" instead of just on paper. A few hours (max) at a gun range with a qualified professional would give him a lot more data. Perhaps his mind would not be changed, but it would at least be better informed. My apologies to Bob if I have wandered too far off topic.

Pat, In my opinion, irrespective of whether I agree with your "conclusion" or not, your argument suffers from your having relied on inferior ammunition to make your point.

Yikes! I am making no such criticism of Pat as stated by you. I am not talking about how well versed Pat or anyone else is on the topic of "covert assassination tactics." That is not the subject of this thread. Hell, it is not even the subject of this blatant detour (which Pat introduced) from the topic of this thread!!! Rather, I am specifically speaking about the characteristic behavior associated with the type of ammunition that Pat injected into the discussion. That Pat is arguing from a position of "never having applied the knowledge" he espouses -- is less persuasive than arguments advanced by those persons on this forum who have both: "been there and READ that" --as well as -- "been there and DONE that." Brian, your suggesting that I am being silly for: "...pretending that someone who knows a lot about guns is an expert in covert assassinations..." is fallacious. It is a straw man argument that does not accurately describe my position. Not even close. I am no expert on ballistics, per se. Many here are better versed than I on that subject. However, Pat is not one of them.

Your analogy is greatly lacking. Pat Speer is not, nor has he ever claimed to be, an "expert" on firearms or ballistics. That a NASA Flight Director can direct an astronaut as to the correct course of action from the ground without himself ever having been an astronaut is an ability for which he has been highly trained and he has become an expert in that field. However, that does not mean that the Flight Director should argue with actual crew members who have the experience to know the difference between that which is "real world practical" versus that which is merely possible in theory. You also said: "That is a knowledge that can be learn[ed] by education whereas playing a musical instrument is mostly all practice and talent." Becoming a competent sniper is a combination of both with more emphasis on actual experience than on intellectual knowledge. However, if given the choice between employing the services of a "book learned only" sniper with no practical experience with a gun versus employing the services of a "hands-on weapon" sniper with tons of practical experience firing guns, but no "book knowledge" -- I would choose the latter without even thinking about it twice. Just like the saxophone, it's mostly talent and practice. As to your last point, I do not think it would be wise for any of us to argue (debate) with a professional assassin. Not because he or she may murder us for disagreeing (after all, they are assassins), but because they know what they are talking about from actual hands-on experience. But we don't have actual professional assassins participating on the forum (to my knowledge). So too, I think it less than prudent for Pat to debate with actual firearms experts that do participate on this forum as he is speaking from a position of ignorance to those in a position of knowledge. Don't interpret this to mean that I think Pat should do more relevant homework...unless, of course, he cares about his credibility. So what are you saying? That I don't know what I'm talking about because I've read the relevant material, but have never shot a moose? I did not say that, "You don't know what you're talking about." And, I never mentioned a moose. Why are you being so stubborn about this, Pat? We can't all be experts on everything. I am merely suggesting that you verify your hypothesis with experimentation. Or, alternately, that you rely on a third (or even several) neutral party who has sufficient expertise to speak intelligently about it. I was an Instructor for the California Highway Patrol's Motorcycle Safety Program 20 years ago. In order to be certified and receive a motorcycle endorsement, a novice rider was required to spend 6.5 hours in the classroom and 9 hours on the range--minimum--and even more range time for an advanced endorsement. Would you agree that there is a great deal of difference between being able to pass a written driver's test (for a passenger car) and being able to pass an actual driving test in a car? Do you think that the written description in the Driver's Manual on "How to Check Your Blind Spot Before Making a Lane Change" would be sufficient for a student to truly grasp all the nuances of this maneuver (and how they apply to actually driving in traffic) without the student ever getting behind the wheel of a car? Or do you think that someone who has over 500,000 miles of actual "behind-the-wheel" driving experience would, in effect, "know more" about "Blind Spot Checking" than would the mere reader?

Your analogy is greatly lacking. Pat Speer is not, nor has he ever claimed to be, an "expert" on firearms or ballistics. That a NASA Flight Director can direct an astronaut as to the correct course of action from the ground without himself ever having been an astronaut is an ability for which he has been highly trained and he has become an expert in that field. However, that does not mean that the Flight Director should argue with actual crew members who have the experience to know the difference between that which is "real world practical" versus that which is merely possible in theory. You also said: "That is a knowledge that can be learn[ed] by education whereas playing a musical instrument is mostly all practice and talent." Becoming a competent sniper is a combination of both with more emphasis on actual experience than on intellectual knowledge. However, if given the choice between employing the services of a "book learned only" sniper with no practical experience with a gun versus employing the services of a "hands-on weapon" sniper with tons of practical experience firing guns, but no "book knowledge" -- I would choose the latter without even thinking about it twice. Just like the saxophone, it's mostly talent and practice. As to your last point, I do not think it would be wise for any of us to argue (debate) with a professional assassin. Not because he or she may murder us for disagreeing (after all, they are assassins), but because they know what they are talking about from actual hands-on experience. But we don't have actual professional assassins participating on the forum (to my knowledge). So too, I think it less than prudent for Pat to debate with actual firearms experts that do participate on this forum as he is speaking from a position of ignorance to those in a position of knowledge. Don't interpret this to mean that I think Pat should do more relevant homework...unless, of course, he cares about his credibility.

So you can make any number of arguments in your "theoretical firearms/ballistics world" without ever having any practical experience. They may look good on paper. Hmmm, just gotta ask, does this apply to assassinations also? Seems as if a whole lot of people have been discussing all kinds of possibilities without ever actually having participated in an assassination. While it might all look good on paper................ If I drop a bowling ball from the 20th floor of a high-rise office building hoping to "assassinate" a person standing below, the bowling ball will behave exactly the same as if my intent was to merely see it hit the pavement. IOW: Intent does not change the laws of physics. If intent affected physics, I would intend my body to fly without a plane or helicopter each morning just for fun. As for your comments about "people discussing all kinds of possibilities without ever actually having participated in an assassination" is concerned... -- I did not suggest that Pat or anyone else refrain from discussing ballistics merely because they have no experience with firearms. What I did suggest is that a person may do well to become as educated about the subject as possible prior to engaging accomplished shooters in a debate. That's why I suggested to Pat (in a different post than the one you quoted) that he go to a shooting range and speak with a professional about it. He could also ask the professional to attempt the shot himself or Pat could attempt it if he was comfortable with that. The ballistics of a .22 subsonic round (or any other round) do not change as a function of the purpose for which it is being used. Whether you are shooting at a duck, a deer, a man, a can, or a barn door--for the purpose of committing an assassination or for mere target practice--makes no difference to the bullet's behavior. In my fictitious scenario above, I highly doubt that Pat or anyone else--with very few exceptions beyond autistic savants--would be capable of playing the sax part of Born to Run if he had never played the saxophone before. Even if he read the best books and passed tough written exams on the instrument, he would probably have difficulty just keeping the reed properly moist! Such person's "book knowledge" would have little relevance to the real world of sax playing unless and until they experienced it first hand.

How tedious. Pat, Would you agree that there is a great deal of difference between reading about physical skills and performing them? For instance, you can purchase a book on "How to Play the Saxophone" from a neighborhood music store. You can also buy a book that teaches you how to read music. You can also buy the sheet music for popular songs. So if you bought all of those books and gained a very good understanding of them you may even be able to pass a written test about the subject matter. If you were fairly bright and a good "test taker" you may even get an "A" on this hypothetical written exam without ever even having held a saxophone in your hands! Let's go one more step: Now you buy a book that explains everything there is to "know" about playing the saxophone part for the song "Born to Run" by Bruce Springsteen. And, once again, you study it very hard and are given a written exam that you easily ace. The next night you are at a party being held at a popular club. The band has been playing great cover tunes all evening. They are very popular. Someone in the crowd shouts out "Born to Run--play Born to Run!!!" -- as it is one of this band's best performances. Sadly, the lead singer comes to the microphone and announces that their sax player was in an accident and couldn't be there that night (although his instrument was packed with rest of the band's equipment). He adds that if anyone in the audience "knows the sax part for Born to Run" they are invited to play. Question: Do you really believe that you could play Born to Run on the sax if you have never played the sax before? Would it be fair to say that there is a completely different set of skills required to intellectually comprehend a subject versus acquiring hands-on knowledge? Would you enter into a debate with experienced, if not accomplished, saxophone players about the difficulty of playing "XYZ Song" if you had only read about saxophones, but never played one yourself? So you can make any number of arguments in your "theoretical firearms/ballistics world" without ever having any practical experience. They may look good on paper (at least those that don't have glaring errors in them) but until you apply them to REAL WORLD scenarios they are rather irrelevant unless proven otherwise. Many on this forum have a lot of firearm's experience.

Pat, I highly recommend that you go to a shooting range and consult with a professional on this issue. I suggest resisting the urge to tell him your inquiry is about the Kennedy case. Keep it generic so that you get unbiased answers. If it is an outdoor range with plenty of room, you may even be able to rent a .22 and ask the professional to attempt the shot--or, if you're comfortable with shooting, attempt to do it yourself. Unlike Dealey Plaza, more than likely you will be on a flat surface from shooter to target and the target will not be moving. So it will be easier--much easier. Yet, even then, I am certain you will find the level of difficulty exceeds what the "paper model" looks like. As far as the mind-set of Kennedy's killers, we aren't dealing with people who settle for the mere possibility of success. We are talking about certainty. A professional's weapon of choice here would be critical. I believe that those on the "mechanic" level who actually executed this murder (pulled the triggers) knew how to get the job done and left nothing to chance in terms of the absolute certainty of its being successful. Would their first choice, assuming they had options, include a weapon that fired a .22 subsonic round? -- No! -- Not because a hit is impossible, but because a hit is much less likely than it would be with a superior weapon. The chart you referenced [above] is based on a 0 degree incline (or decline) from shooter to target. Those were not the conditions in Dealey Plaza. Precise calculations are required to insure a hit and those "equations" are dependent on which floor of which building the shooter was placed, as well as the precise location of the target on Elm St (which was on a decline) at the time of that shot, how fast the target is moving, the direction of travel relative to the shooter's position--including lateral motion--and, of course, the wind. These "factors" can dramatically impact the accuracy of a subsonic round by comparison to a high powered round in that a lot more can go wrong. We can go round and round on this topic "in theory" but nothing will demonstrate it better than empirical data, at least some of which you can obtain for yourself.

Cliff, You asked me a question in a different thread that I didn't answer yet (because I couldn't find the thread). However, it is on topic for this thread, too. So I'll post the answer here. You asked where David Mantik believes the back entrance wound is located. Based on his taped telephone conversation with Ebersole, I think the answer is T-4. David asked Ebersole straight out if that wound was located at T-4 and Ebersole confirmed that location. (I am replying from memory, but I think that is the case).