Robert Prudhomme

I myself have had some experience with what is being referred to as a "short shot". About twenty years ago, I joined an organization in our small town, sponsored by the Canadian government, known as the Canadian Rangers. It is a militia organization, and its members are part time soldiers and receive pay while on exercises. The idea behind forming this group was to help establish sovereignty in Canada's vast and underpopulated north, and to take advantage of local skills and knowledge to help our regular armed forces when they are out in these areas. Plus, it was a good excuse to get out of the house and hoist a few beers with the boys every couple of weeks, and get paid to boot.

The one attractive feature of this group was that every Ranger was to be issued a rifle, plus a few boxes of ammunition, he could take home and use as he saw fit. Of course, no one told us what type of rifle we were getting. It turned out the Canadian government had warehouses full of .303 calibre Lee Enfield No. 4 Mk I rifles, carefully stashed away in the late 1950's when Canada and the rest of the British Commonwealth gave up these bolt action rifles and adopted the Fabrique Nationale C1 semi-auto rifle, chambered for the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge. With the formation of the Canadian Rangers, they had finally found a use for these museum pieces!

When the rifles arrived in town, along with several personnel from the Canadian Armed Forces to oversee their distribution, I was quick to get in line to try to get my pick of these rifles, as I knew a little known secret about the Enfield. Britain's first foray into Hitler's occupied Europe in 1940 ended in disaster, culminating at the Battle of Dunkirk in France. This ill conceived expedition almost cost Britain the war, and it became necessary to evacuate tens of thousands of British troops from the beaches in France. In their haste to get away, many troops dropped their Enfield rifles, causing a subsequent shortage in small arms.

In order to speed up production of rifles, it was decided to look at the manufacturing process and see if there were shortcuts to be had. As the barrel was the most complicated thing on the rifle, it was decided, to save time and cost, to machine only two riflings into the inside of the barrel instead of the standard five riflings. They knew that some accuracy would be sacrificed but, considering a man presented a 5 foot by 2 foot target, and most combat in Europe during WWII was at ranges under 100 yards, this was a chance they were willing to take.

As it turned out, the majority of the rifles brought to us had only two riflings, and I had to search through several cases before I found an Enfield with five riflings made in 1951 for the Korean War.

The next day, we took our "new" rifles to the range to test them out. We were given .303 full metal jacket cartridges to shoot, although they were commercially made and not military issue, and looked to be fairly new. We attached large targets to 4'x4' plywood stands set up at 100 yards and commenced to shooting.

As there were not enough personnel for every shooter to have a spotter, I had elected to bring a small spotting scope with me that I wore on a lanyard around my neck. After five shots, I decided to see how I was doing, and was quite surprised to see there were no holes on my target, nor were there any holes in the 4'x4' plywood it was attached to. I aimed six inches higher and tried again with the same result. Confused, I asked one of the regular force warrant officers to stand behind me and observe. After I fired one more shot, he laughed and told me what was going on. My bullets were dropping so badly, they were hitting the dirt about 2/3 of the way out to the target. As I was shooting from a prone position, and the centre of the target was about four feet from the ground, this was a substantial drop.

The Enfield is equipped with a stand up peep sight that can be adjusted from 200 yards out to 1300 yards for volley firing. When laid down, one looks through the larger 100 yard peep sight known as the "battle" sight, which I had been using. I was instructed to use the stand up sight, beginning at 200 yards. I eventually had to crank the peep sight up to just over 400 yards before my bullets would hit a bullseye at 100 yards.

It was assumed the barrel on my rifle was badly worn, either from many thousands of bullets or from poor storage. The normal remedy for such a problem is to take the rifle to the armourer, who will either install a new barrel or remove the front blade sight and replace it with a shorter blade sight. The latter has the effect, when aiming, of tilting the end of the barrel higher, and giving the bullet a higher trajectory. But, as barrels and front sights had not likely been made for the Enfield since the 1950's, this was not an option. No worry, though. The warrant officer, a resourceful farm boy from Manitoba, produced a small flat file from his pocket and set about to fine tune my front sight; filing it down in small increments until a shot aimed through the 100 yard battle sight would hit a bullseye at 100 yards.

The interesting thing was, though, (and the point of telling you this long story) was that this rifle, despite the fact the worn out barrel had robbed the bullets of enough velocity to make them hit the dirt 2/3 of the way out to a 100 yard target, was still a lethal deer rifle at 100 yards, once the sights were zeroed in. I often wish we had access to a chronograph to determine what its actual muzzle velocity was.

If my bullets were dropping that quickly, and this rifle was still able to cause serious wounds in deer, how quickly would the bullets drop from a rifle whose muzzle velocity had been reduced to the point the bullets would barely penetrate flesh?

In fairness to Pat, there is a .22 cartridge that is subsonic, and is not a .22 short cartridge. It is referred to as a .22 subsonic cartridge, and is a rather odd looking cartridge meant to be fired from a .22 rifle chambered for the .22 long rifle cartridge.

At left, standard .22 long rifle cartridge. At right, .22 subsonic cartridge.

By using a longer and heavier bullet, and less gunpowder in a .22 short casing, this cartridge brings the .22 subsonic muzzle velocity to just below the speed of sound. There are several reasons for doing this. By combining this longer and heavier bullet with a .22 short brass casing, the overall length of the subsonic cartridge can be fired from a rifle chambered for the .22 LR cartridge.

The first reason is that many feel the performance, and thus the accuracy, of a bullet is affected as it passes through the sound barrier as its velocity decreases, although there are snipers shooting at targets at ultra long ranges with high powered rifles that might argue this point. As many .22 LR bullets leave the muzzle at not much more than the speed of sound, this is a very real possibility although, in my experience, shooters seldom employ a .22 at ranges greater than 50 yards, and a .22 LR bullet simply does not lose that much velocity in that short distance.

Another reason is not to disturb animals when shooting for pest control, such as rats and gophers. While the muzzle blast of a .22 might not alarm these animals as it is removed from them, the "crack" of a bullet breaking the sound barrier within a foot or two of them may be enough to send them all for cover.

It must be remembered that these are not much more than a primer and a bullet, and although the heavier bullet (40-60 grains) does add to the muzzle energy, this is not something I would consider for shooting deer, unless I was standing right beside the deer and could stick the barrel in his ear.

P.S.

I might add that the .22 subsonic cartridge is likely the least known and marketed of .22 cartridges.

I thought this video might be relevant to the discussion.

It shows .22 ammo penetrating 5 inches of meat wrapped in denim at 300 yards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAkOzr6cDx0

Hi Martin

Maybe you should look a little closer at these things before posting them. Your video shows .22 LONG rifle ammo, not .22 SHORT ammo.

Pat Speer distinctly said a SUBSONIC .22 bullet, and the only .22 ammo that is slower than the speed of sound, at 1035 fps, is .22 short ammo.

.22 short ammo. 830 fps muzzle velocity. Muzzle energy = 60 Joules

.22 long rifle ammo. Note the velocity advertised, 1650 fps, well above the speed of sound. Muzzle energy = roughly 300 Joules

Not exactly. The CIA Manual on Assassination and other books on sniping specify that long-rifle ammo hand-loaded to be just below the speed of sound is the preferred technique for assassins. And besides, the video posted by Martin showed the specs for the round being fired (If I recall it was around 1400 fps muzzle). And it was hitting a target at 300 yards, by which time the round would have been either subsonic or very close to it. So it wasn't apples to oranges. As the velocity of the impact in the video was about 20% faster than a subsonic round at 100 yards, it was more like apples to pears.

Pat

Why do you think we go to all the expense of buying deer rifles such as .308's or 30-06's when, according to your thinking, all we need is an inexpensive .22 calibre rifle and .22 subsonic cartridges?

As I said earlier, if you look closely at this photo two things can be observed.

The angle this photo is taken from tends to fore shorten JFK's back, making it appear the back wound is higher than it actually is. JFK's head being tilted back also contributes to this effect.

The outline of the inside margin of JFK's right scapula (shoulder blade) is visible beneath the skin of his back. As your anatomical diagram clearly shows that thoracic vertebrae T2 and T1, plus the cervical vertebrae, are ABOVE the upper margin of the scapula, and this photo shows the entrance wound to be beside the scapula, the only logical conclusion to be drawn from this is that the entrance wound was at the level of T3, or possibly slightly lower.

Hey Bob,

How are we so sure that the wound only penetrated an inch?

I think there's a distinct possibility that it went deeper - during the autopsy, after the removal of the lungs, there was some discussion of bruising to the upper right lung cavity. Isn't it likely that this was caused by the projectile that entered the back (subsequently removed in the surreptitious pre-autopsy surgery)? Bruising could not have occurred because of post-mortem probing.

Chris

Absolutely, Chris. And as there is no photo of the right lung, and as most of the staff were not present when the lungs were removed (including x-ray tech Jerrol Custer) there is a good chance there was more than just a little "bruising" to the top of the right lung. Any discussion of bruising was likely haemorrhaging in the right lung that was quickly downplayed.

I maintain, due to Parkland's Dr. Marion Jenkins remarks about "obvious signs of pneumothorax", when he observed JFK, that the bullet entered the top of JFK's right lung and broke apart there, effectively halting it and preventing it from exiting the front of JFK's chest, and that it caused a pneumothorax and a haemothorax in that part of the right lung.

As I stated earlier, the most likely candidate for this would be a hollow point frangible bullet; made from compressed or glued metal powder and designed to disintegrate back to powder when travelling through soft, semi-liquid tissue (ie. lung, brain or other organs). The same bullet(s) were likely used for the head shot. It is interesting to note that the fellow who discovered the Harper fragment described, in an interview, how he observed the inside of the Harper fragment to be covered in a metal "powder". In all my experience hunting, I have never seen a bullet, even a hollow point, turn to powder. Lead is malleable, not brittle.

I agree with you, Mark. The rule only stated that a card with a vowel showing would have an even number on the opposite side; it did not state that cards with even numbers had to have a vowel on the other side. While a certain number of even numbered cards are obligated to have a vowel on the reverse, the other even numbered cards could have anything on the reverse.

Even if there were only the four cards in the test.

Turning over the four can neither prove nor disprove our rule.

To get back to the topic of the thread, it does not matter if JFK was shot in the back with a 6.5mm Carcano, a .22, a 30-06 or a .460 "Nitro Express" Magnum, the truth of the matter is, the bullet was only travelling slowly enough to penetrate the back less than an inch. A bullet from any of these weapons, at this low velocity, would have severe performance problems and would likely begin tumbling long before it reached JFK. With such a severe reduction in velocity, the bullet drop, caused by gravity and experienced by all projectiles from the moment they leave the barrel, would have this bullet impacting well back from JFK.

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.

Well said, Greg. I might also add that, while it may be possible to hit a target at 100 yards with a subsonic .22 bullet, it may not be possible to kill that target, or even cause more than a minor wound.

I cannot state strongly enough the importance of muzzle energy. The .22 short, as I stated, has a muzzle energy of 60 Joules, while the 22-250 bullet, at a velocity of 4400 fps (Mach 4.25), has 2149 Joules of energy; 35 times the energy of a .22 short.

It may seem like overkill for hunting deer (or people) but, if you think about it, it is actually more humane to hunt with a rifle with a large amount of hitting power. I have lost track of how many wounded deer I have had to track, and I haven't always found them, either. It is better to shoot an animal with something you know they won't get up from.

Every year, where I live, a hunter will be skinning out a deer, and discover a .22 bullet lodged somewhere in that poor deer's body; shot by someone who believed a .22 was "more than adequate" for deer hunting. I won't repeat the names we have for these people.

There's also this chart which I found on gunsmoke.com. This demonstrates that a subsonic .22 LR bullet starts out below the line of sight and then briefly rises above the line of sight, whereby it passes back across the line of sight around 50 yards. In other words, it demonstrates that there is no bullet drop at 50 yards, and only 7 inches of drop at 100 yards.

Wrong. Bullets drop from the moment they leave the barrel. The parabolic trajectory described by the path of a rifle bullet is the shooter's way of overcoming that bullet drop. To hit a target at 100 yards, the barrel must be pointed higher than the target, in order to "lob" the bullet at the target.

A centre fielder does not make a direct throw to home plate, he must throw the ball in a high trajectory in order to have it come down at the catcher. If the centre fielder was Superman, and he could throw the ball ten times faster, the trajectory of the ball would appear to be almost flat.

If you're shooting targets at 100 yards, and your rifle is sighted in at 50 yards (as you show) and you have 7 inches of drop at 100 yards, I wish you luck.

P.S.

Does it not make you curious why they show a .22 bullet at a maximum range of 50 yards?

P.P.S.

The sight height (distance above the barrel the sights are situated) of 1.5" is quite unrealistic, especially if the .22 is equipped with open sights. A sight height of .5" is more realistic. At this sight height, the bullet will be 8.47 inches below the line of sight at 100 yards. Real flat shooting rifle, Pat.

I thought this video might be relevant to the discussion.

It shows .22 ammo penetrating 5 inches of meat wrapped in denim at 300 yards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAkOzr6cDx0

Hi Martin

Maybe you should look a little closer at these things before posting them. Your video shows .22 LONG rifle ammo, not .22 SHORT ammo.

Pat Speer distinctly said a SUBSONIC .22 bullet, and the only .22 ammo that is slower than the speed of sound, at 1035 fps, is .22 short ammo.

.22 short ammo. 830 fps muzzle velocity. Muzzle energy = 60 Joules

.22 long rifle ammo. Note the velocity advertised, 1650 fps, well above the speed of sound. Muzzle energy = roughly 300 Joules

I have nowhere near the shooting experience Robert has but I routinely shot both handgun and rifle 22's when I was growing up and I can't think of even a good shooter seriously thinking of making a lethal hit beyond about 50 yards and at 100 years, the distance of a football field, you best be practicing every day and be shooting at a deer or something larger. And at that range thinking a 22 would be lethal is ....strange. The CIA and other organizations did consider a 22 as a good assassination weapon but that was at extremely close range, with a stealthy shot holding the gun virtually at the back or side of the targets head. I'm also having trouble with the manual being cited that seems to imply 22 rounds have more carrying range than other handguns (which would usually think of as higher caliber).

The ballistics book I cited says the remaining velocity for .22 rifle cartridges at 100 yards is between 920 and 1040 fps. That is still faster than a .22 pistol bullet fired at point blank range, is it not?

(Perhaps we should recall hear that the bullet that killed Lincoln was about 50% larger than a .22 bullet, but traveling only 400 fps. Well, this means it delivered far less energy to the brain than a .22 bullet would at 100 yards. And it sure did the trick.)

One hundred yards? Are you seriously trying to tell this forum that someone was able to hit JFK from 100 yards with a .22 calibre rifle???????

P.S.

John Wilkes Booth was only two feet from Lincoln when he shot him.

You're mixing up the issues. My reference to the Lincoln assassination was to show that a subsonic .22 bullet at 100 yards would still have enough punch to kill someone. I wrote this to show that the CIA's manual on assassination was not out to lunch in saying subsonic .22 rounds could be effective out to 100 yards.

You're way out of your league here, Pat.

The only subsonic .22 cartridge available is the .22 short. These barely have enough hitting power to kill varmints at 25 yards. Your chances of killing something large at 100 yards with a .22 short are about 1:1,000,000.

Did you not see that even the 22-250, with a muzzle velocity of 4000+ fps, is not recommended for even deer hunting?

Even if you could kill someone at 100 yards with a .22 short at subsonic velocities (less than the speed of sound at roughly 1035 fps), the problem is still in getting the bullet to the target. It is the same reason I do not believe JFK was shot with a pistol; at these low velocities, these weapons are just not that accurate, despite what your "CIA manual" tells you.

Not only that, low velocity weapons are not flat shooting at 100 yards. While the 22-250, if sighted in at 100 yards, likely is only one inch high at 50 yards, the .22 short will be as much as 8 inches high at 50 yards if sighted in at 100 yards.

It is all about energy. As I pointed out earlier, your subsonic .22 short bullet has about 60 Joules of energy leaving the muzzle, while the 22-250 bullet has 2149 Joules of energy at the muzzle, yet both are .22 calibre bullets. See why no one (unless he is a frickin' idiot) goes deer hunting with a .22 short?

The biggest problem with the ballistic evidence in the JFK assassination is the failure of researchers to comprehend and understand it, and to be able to relate it to the medical evidence.

Hi Chris

Yes he did. The ammo for the 6.5 Carcano being sold by Klein's was Italian milsurp manufactured by SMI in Italy. It was notorious for hangfires, misfires and primers being punctured by firing pins.

The problem lay in the primers, which employed a very corrosive compound as the detonating agent. The bullets were also held in the neck of the cartridge by a three point crimp that many historians believe did not provide an adequate seal nor did it hold the bullet firmly enough in place.

So many things contributed to the reputation of Carcanos as being poor rifles.

I see the Lone Nutters have been busy spreading their propaganda on Wikipedia. I discovered these gems while studying the Wiki article on 6.5mm Carcano ammunition.

"With properly bulleted^{[clarification needed]} ammunition, the 6.5×52mm Carcano is an effective deer cartridge up to about 200m (220 yards).^{[citation needed]} However, the standard Italian service round used an unstable round-nosed bullet with a propensity to tumble, whether hitting soft tissue/ballistic gel or harder material such as bone. See PBS Nova, "Cold Case: JFK",^[1] aired 11/12/2013 for range tests."

"The cartridge and its unstable, tumble-prone projectile^[1] were identified by the Warren Commission as the round used in a World War II-surplus Italian 1891 Carcano (Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38) rifle purchased by Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy."

Unstable? Tumble prone in flesh? This bullet was so stable in a wound, they attempted to abandon it in 1938 in favour of a 7.35x51mm bullet purposely designed to tumble and inflict greater damage.

Although I'm skeptical of all the so-called medical evidence, I accept JFK was shot in the back because of his suit jacket and shirt.

I do not believe anyone intended to shoot JFK in the back unless such a shot was made to establish without doubt shooting came from behind. I consider that a non-negligible possibility.

I believe there was a careful plan to kill JFK and to create confusion as to his wounds, with the help of certain high-ranking military officers and other government officials.

I don't make much of the back wound. It cinches firing from behind but is otherwise insignificant, IMO; even a distraction.

Martin Schotz, M.D. (sp?) has the best take on the back wound, IMO. His take is consistent with the idea the wound was created merely to establish there was firing from behind.

OTOH, Jon, if it can be proven that the so-called "short shot" was an impossibility, thus also making the "shallow" back wound impossible, the significance of the back wound then takes on a whole new dimension; for the simple fact that a FMJ travelling at normal rifle velocities (2000+ fps) should not have barely penetrated the skin of JFK's back. Under normal conditions, that FMJ bullet travelling at 2000+ fps (1363 mph) should have gone straight through JFK's chest and out the front.

Since it did not exit the front of his chest, we do indeed have a mystery on our hands. As I am a little old to believe in magic, I find it necessary to deduce what kind of bullet can enter the chest at 2000+ fps and not exit. While there are several types of bullets that MIGHT do this, there are only a couple that actually COULD do this; the mercury tipped bullet and the hollow point frangible bullet. I seriously doubt either would have been available to Oswald. If it were proven such bullets were used on the back shot AND the head shot, Oswald would be ruled out as a suspect. Well, at least as a lone suspect, anyways. I have never completely abandoned the possibility of Oswald having some minor role in the assassination.

P.S.

There is a great deal of evidence of frangible bullets being used in the assassination, as well as JFK having a serious injury to the top of his right lung. Would you care to see it?

I have nowhere near the shooting experience Robert has but I routinely shot both handgun and rifle 22's when I was growing up and I can't think of even a good shooter seriously thinking of making a lethal hit beyond about 50 yards and at 100 years, the distance of a football field, you best be practicing every day and be shooting at a deer or something larger. And at that range thinking a 22 would be lethal is ....strange. The CIA and other organizations did consider a 22 as a good assassination weapon but that was at extremely close range, with a stealthy shot holding the gun virtually at the back or side of the targets head. I'm also having trouble with the manual being cited that seems to imply 22 rounds have more carrying range than other handguns (which would usually think of as higher caliber).

The ballistics book I cited says the remaining velocity for .22 rifle cartridges at 100 yards is between 920 and 1040 fps. That is still faster than a .22 pistol bullet fired at point blank range, is it not?

(Perhaps we should recall hear that the bullet that killed Lincoln was about 50% larger than a .22 bullet, but traveling only 400 fps. Well, this means it delivered far less energy to the brain than a .22 bullet would at 100 yards. And it sure did the trick.)

One hundred yards? Are you seriously trying to tell this forum that someone was able to hit JFK from 100 yards with a .22 calibre rifle???????

P.S.

John Wilkes Booth was only two feet from Lincoln when he shot him.

.22 short rifle cartridge, subsonic with a 29 grain bullet at 830 fps. Energy = 60 Joules

.22-250 cartridge, supersonic with a 40 grain bullet at 4224 fps. Energy = 2149 Joules

While both cartridges are loaded with a .22 calibre bullet, can anyone see a slight difference here? Despite the 22-250 bullet having almost 36 times more muzzle energy (hitting power) than the .22 short rifle bullet, the 22-250 is still only recommended for varmints and small game, and, occasionally, smaller species of deer such as our Sitka deer.

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).

Great news.

I owe Dr. Mantik an apology.

I've read all of Mantik's articles. He says the back wound is at T-1, and that this location is at odds with the single-bullet theory and single-assassin conclusion. I remember this because it's one of the key points upon which we agree.

Why would an entrance wound at T1 be at odds with the SBT? Just two posts back, you basically line up the entrance wound at T1 and the throat wound on a 21° downward angle. What is your game, anyways?

The "wound" has a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below.

PAT: This is consistent with a shot from above's hitting the back at shallower angle than the forward slope of the shoulder plus the forward lean of the body.

How far over, Pat, are you claiming that JFK was leaning when he was shot in the back?

bump for Pat. Well?

Glenn

Are you saying the correct answer is E and 7?

The CIA Manual on Assassination, Robert, says that .22 caliber subsonic bullets fired from a rifle with a sound suppressor are nearly undetectable and are accurate up to 100 yards. It follows then, that should one of these bullets be undercharged, the person firing the weapon would insufficiently lead the target, and the bullet would fall a bit short of its target. If a skilled shooter was aiming at the head in such circumstance, his shot might very well hit his target on the back.

Where is your proof otherwise? If I didn't know better, I might read your comments as a claim bullets traveling 400 fps fall to the ground before traveling a hundred yards. That's not what you're claiming, is it?

Seriously, Pat, have you ever tried shooting anything over 50 yards away with a .22 rifle?

That's what I figured. I suspected you'd try and twist this into being your personal dissertation on what you think is possible, or probable, rather than what is documented or in the historical record. I have a book on ballistics which I picked up at a swap meet, that used to belong to a Naval Hospital. Table 8 is a chart of remaining velocities for various 22 caliber rifle cartridges. It says that at 150 feet the bullet will have lost but 100 to 210 fps off its initial velocity, and will still be traveling faster than 1,000 fps, well above the speed of most handgun bullets. Such a bullet would still pack quite a punch. Table 10 is also relevant. It says the bullet drop for such a shot would be 2.6 to 3.7 inches. That's it. So, yes, Robert, the literature supports that a .22 caliber bullet traveling just under 1,000 fps would be accurate and deadly out to a hundred yards, as claimed by the CIA in its manual on assassination.

Now, the question remains whether this bullet's traveling at 400 fps would substantially increase the bullet drop to the extent someone aiming at a head would not even hit a back. On this chart there appears to be a ratio whereby a bullet with 20% less velocity will have approximately 20% more bullet drop. This leads me to believe that a bullet fired at 400 fps would drop about 15 inches before impacting a target at 60 yards. While that might seem too big a drop to believe someone aiming for Kennedy's head could hit him in the back, there are a couple of other factors to consider. One is that the bullet striking Kennedy in the back was probably a larger bullet than a .22, and would thereby have more momentum and less bullet drop than a .22 bullet traveling at the same velocity. Two is that bullets fired from 6 floors above the ground have far less bullet drop than bullets fired parallel to the ground. Three is that the scope of the rifle found in the building, if used, would lead someone to fire high. Well, these three factors combined lead me to suspect someone firing a short-charged bullet from that particular rifle from that particular location might very well hit someone in the back while firing at their head.

If you have any reasons to doubt this, beyond that you don't think so, fire away.

Translation = Pat Speer has never fired a rifle before and is making all this up as he goes.

Your post is so full of mistakes, misconceptions and outright BS, I don't quite know where to start. Give me a bit to sort through all the garbage.

The CIA Manual on Assassination, Robert, says that .22 caliber subsonic bullets fired from a rifle with a sound suppressor are nearly undetectable and are accurate up to 100 yards. It follows then, that should one of these bullets be undercharged, the person firing the weapon would insufficiently lead the target, and the bullet would fall a bit short of its target. If a skilled shooter was aiming at the head in such circumstance, his shot might very well hit his target on the back.

Where is your proof otherwise? If I didn't know better, I might read your comments as a claim bullets traveling 400 fps fall to the ground before traveling a hundred yards. That's not what you're claiming, is it?

Seriously, Pat, have you ever tried shooting anything over 50 yards away with a .22 rifle?

Yes I do. Look closely at the Altgens 6 photo, supposedly taken at the same time as z255 of the Zapruder film.

As the shot in JFK's back occurred around frame z210 of the Zapruder film, and Zapruder's camera exposed 18.3 frames per second, the above photo was supposedly taken 45 frames or 2.45 seconds after the shot was fired that struck JFK in the back.

Look at the faces of the onlookers. The muzzle of the rifle, if it was on the 6th floor or in the Dal-Tex Building, would have been pointed in the direction of these people and would have been loud enough to produce instantaneous and involuntary startle reactions (instantaneous = within a fraction of a second). And yet, everyone is smiling and waving as their President is dying, EXCEPT the two Secret Service agents on the outside right of the follow up car, who are craning their necks to see behind them and are obviously startled.

What happened, you ask, and why did this shot sound different from the others? The type of bullet would make no difference to the sound. What would make it different is if the rifle was equipped with a silencer (suppressor) that completely eliminated the sound of the muzzle blast, thereby also eliminating the witnesses' ability to locate the origin of the sound.

What would still be audible is the sound of the rifle bullet breaking the sound barrier (kind of a mini-sonic boom) on its way to the target. This sharp "crack" might be heard by the onlookers, but it would not be loud enough on the sidewalk to produce a startle reaction in the onlookers. However, if the bullet just missed the heads of the two SS agents, on its way to JFK, they most certainly would be startled and confused by this sound.

This would also explain why people further down the street, such as Mary Moorman, did not hear this shot. The sound of the mini-sonic boom would have ended at JFK at z210, and she might have been too far down the street to hear it.

Frankly, I don't really believe anyone intended to shoot JFK in the back in the first place. I believe all shots were aimed at his head, and the one that entered his back missed.

That certainly makes sense. Also it's pretty cowardly to shoot a man in the back. Real men aim for the head.

I suspect every shot was precise.

This is the First-Shot-Paralytic Scenario, as opposed to the First-Shot/Kill-Shot Scenario.

The first shot was perfectly placed in the throat, the second shot was a square hit, and then the multiple head shots.

First shot paralytic, second shot toxin, third volley for good measure.

The second shot had to be a kill shot, and it didn't miss at all.

Or so I suspect.

Otherwise, you have nothing but missed shots and short loads 'til the head shot/s....

I maintain that the "short shot" was a fabrication, and that it could not have occurred. If you can prove me wrong, show me your math.

The trouble with using a pistol, at any range over 10 yards, is that they have relatively low muzzle velocities and are notoriously inaccurate, despite the incredible shots we see made in the movies. With such low muzzle velocities, the trajectory required to hit a target at any distance is a parabola with an extremely high peak that would require the shooter to be aiming way above JFK's head just to hit him in the back.

Also, even a bullet from a pistol, with a typical muzzle velocity of 800-1100 fps, has far more penetrating ability than the mythical bullet that only entered JFK's back an inch, even if the range was 50+ yards.