Kenneth Drew

While I agree that by 69 Nixon knew what you said, he was not the president up to that point. Yes he was Ken. Sorry but I'm a southerner and in the south when you say 'by 69, that means by the time 69 gets here, not after it has come and gone. LBJ knew before it started that it could not and would not be won. According to everything I have read, this is not the case. Semantics. whether he thought it could be won or not, he didn't intend to win it for a long long time, certainly long enough for Bell Helicopter to make thousands of choppers, Brown and Root to make billions. etc..... I don't know what this means. The war wrecked LBJ's presidency. well, actually I would say that LBJ's handling of the war wrecked his presidency. LBJ could easily have elected to not get into the war, but he did all he could, including staging the Gulf of Tonkin incident to ensure that US got in, then he mis-managed it from the beginning. Had he not gotten in, he likely would have been reelected in 68 and we would never have gotten Nixon. I do not see how this was "running on the war." It was losing on the war. As I said he only ran for re'election once and he certainly wanted to use the fact that the US was in a war to keep the country from wanting to change CinC. He had such a fiasco on his hands (after that election) that there was no way he could run again. Nixon actually did run on the war. All politicians run on what they think will win for them. Most of which is an illusion. I certainly concede that what Nixon did during the war was a fiasco. However the point I'm making is that he was left with a fiasco in the making when he took office and that was by design by LBJ to enrich his friends. It just didn't work out as he had planned it. (same can be said for Nixon) Both LBJ and Nixon are, or should be, considered as complete failures as President. And we have LBJ to blame for the coverup of the JFK assassination.

well, since it would take 1 sec for that bullet to travel that 300 feet, the vehicle would have moved 29 feet further down the street at 20 mph during the bullet travel. so I think lthere is a good chance the bullet would have hit behind the limo.

Jim, I can't find any numbers on how many bombs were dropped on Japan during ww2, but did find where 853 B29's hit Tokyo in one night with thousands of fire bombs. My comment about presidents not recording, of course have been since Nixon left office. I do not and have not defended Nixon in any thing he did. He is not a hero of mine. But neither is LBJ. I have not read a book about him that did not make him to be a truly despicable human being. That seems to be more from a personal standpoint than as a politician, but seems to me as if it would be a close call. ​I think that what Nixon did in Vietnam was worse than what LBJ did. Because Nixon knew by 1969 the war could not be won. I think that would be a close call. While I agree that by 69 Nixon knew what you said, he was not the president up to that point. LBJ knew before it started that it could not and would not be won. It was not even his objective. His sole objective seemed to be to get the US into it so that his friends could make a fortune. LBJ was successful at accomplishing that. LBJ spent his entire time escalating troop level, Nixon spent his entire time reducing troop level. (troop level never increased under Nixon) LBJ is the opposite: He fought it for four years to the point he could not run again. LBJ did run for re-election during the war and certainly did what he thought necessary to win re-election without regard for how many troops he was committing and getting killed. As for the book, No More Vietnams, I suspect would be a typical History book, being written to make the writer look good. I don't have it on my reading list.

My only question is: and make you think that the shot is so hard that it's impossible. In reality, the shot is hard What shot? is hard?

other than LNers no one thinks Os did.

Your analogy is greatly lacking. 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. Pat Speer is not, nor has he ever claimed to be, an "expert" on firearms or ballistics. 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. Or. to paraphrase, "Aint nothin' like bein' there!" Robert, I don't care to be considered as an expert on autopsies. (not if I have to have had an autopsy performed on me)

I don't think I saw anything in the article that stated or implied that anyone altered the tapes. I don't doubt that someone would have if they had the opportunity, but I've seen nor heard no evidence that anyone did. I think my comments were only to generalize that we don't seem to get any really good leaders, and especially the last 3 or so have been terrible. Certainly the order of the presidents, JFK getting elected in 60, instead of Nixon, altered the events every since, including the assassination of a president likely would not have occurred.

Just an observation? When and where did you observe that experiment? I'd like to see the numbers.

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. I understood your point and basically agree. The only point I was making, and you recognized it, is that gaining expertise in a subject is not limited to actually having learned an ability to do something, such as playing a sax. Maybe a good example would be, there are plenty of 'experts' on space travel, most have not actually been in space. That is a knowledge that can be learn by education whereas playing a musical instrument is mostly all practice and talent. And as I said, if we have to have experienced it, few of us could discuss the assassination.

If you would like to discuss .22 rifles, why don't you and Pat go start another thread. If you had read the comments on the thread, you would know that I'm the one that is asking why anyone is talking about 22 rifles or any other particular caliber. The caliber of the weapon used in the assassination has not been established.

I have read every single word on the thread.

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? If,,if,,,,if...... Lot of if's there. OTOH, Jon, if it can be proven that the so-called "short shot" was an impossibility, thus also making the "shallow" back wound impossible, Robert, would it matter if the shot can be proven to be 'impossible' but it happened anyhow? It certainly is possible that there was a shallow back wound so even though it might have been 'impossible' it still seems to have happened. If it did, then the 'semantics' of proving it couldn't have happened is a little useless. Kenneth What evidence is there that the shallow back wound actually was a reality? What makes you certain that "it still seems to have happened"? I'm all ears. What evidence is there that the shallow back wound actually was a reality? What makes you certain that "it still seems to have happened"? You misunderstood my statement: It certainly is possible that there was a shallow back wound so even though it might have been 'impossible' it still seems to have happened. If it did, I said 'it certainly is possible' and If it did. If there was no evidence that was a shallow wound, what are we talking about?

Good point Robert. But first, it still hasn't really been determined if there was a shallow back wound or not. If there was one, then it would not be 'impossibly' would it? Then we have to determine if there was one, why would it have to be a 'short shot' that caused it? If there was a 'short shot' then it would not have been impossible, would it? I have never heard of a single piece of a bullet having been recovered from JFK's body. Does that mean no bullet went into his body? How can it be determined that a bullet of a particuar caliber hit him? Then we hear/see references to 'Oswald's rifle". I've never seen any proof that LHO ever had a rifle. If we only discuss the wounds 'known' to have been caused by rifle fire, it would be a one word discussion. None. If the discussion were about the caliber of a weapon known to have been fired at JFK, it would be a one word discussion: none. All of this discussion is hypothetical, so why be concerned about limiting the calibers or wounds?

I'm a little surprised at all the discussion about the accuracy/inaccuracy of a 22 rifle. Why is there a discussion? The facts are known. I'm not going to quote any because it's been very documented by very many people. But, it IS possible to repeatedly hit a target with a 22 at 50 yards. Anyone that does not think so has not fired one very much. BUT...... what difference does it make? If someone fires a 22 at a person in an automobile and hits that person, then it's kinda useless to talk about whether a 22 is accurate or not, isn't it? It might have changed the odds of hitting the person, but obviously not enough that it couldn't be done. But then, no bullet was recovered from JFK back so we don't know if it was a 22 or a 50 cal. so from that context, why not talk about the accuracy of a 50 cal? Not only is a .22 nowhere near as accurate as a high powered rifle, the point I was trying to make about shooting something at 50 yards with a .22 is whether or not it is going to fall down dead or go scampering off into the woods with a .22 slug lodged in his body somewhere. the point I was trying to make about shooting something at 50 yards with a .22 is whether or not it is going to fall down dead or go scampering off into the woods Ok, I thought you were talking about accuracy, not 'stopping power'.

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................

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. Wrong. Bullets drop from the moment they leave the barrel. Robert, you didn't read what Pat said correctly. His statement was:"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" So he didn't say the bullet didn't drop as soon as it leaves the barrel, he only said it rises above the line of site briefly. You don't really argue that point do you? I still fail to understand the discussion of 22 bullets, which have never been associated with the JFK assassination, to my knowledge.

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? Robert, when, how and by whom has it been established that a 22 was used? Isn't any discussion about a 22 a waste of time until a 22 cal bullet is found?

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? If,,if,,,,if...... Lot of if's there. OTOH, Jon, if it can be proven that the so-called "short shot" was an impossibility, thus also making the "shallow" back wound impossible, Robert, would it matter if the shot can be proven to be 'impossible' but it happened anyhow? It certainly is possible that there was a shallow back wound so even though it might have been 'impossible' it still seems to have happened. If it did, then the 'semantics' of proving it couldn't have happened is a little useless. Oh, and I almost missed this: I seriously doubt either would have been available to Oswald. Is that another 'assumption'? What difference would it make if it were available to Oswald? He wasn't one of the shooters. And he wasn't in the sniper's nest.

I'm a little surprised at all the discussion about the accuracy/inaccuracy of a 22 rifle. Why is there a discussion? The facts are known. I'm not going to quote any because it's been very documented by very many people. But, it IS possible to repeatedly hit a target with a 22 at 50 yards. Anyone that does not think so has not fired one very much. BUT...... what difference does it make? If someone fires a 22 at a person in an automobile and hits that person, then it's kinda useless to talk about whether a 22 is accurate or not, isn't it? It might have changed the odds of hitting the person, but obviously not enough that it couldn't be done. But then, no bullet was recovered from JFK back so we don't know if it was a 22 or a 50 cal. so from that context, why not talk about the accuracy of a 50 cal?

Seriously, Pat, have you ever tried shooting anything over 50 yards away with a .22 rifle? Seriously, Pat, have you ever tried shooting anything over 50 yards away with a .22 rifle? Don't know what Pat's answer is/was but I have many times. No problem with a rifle. 22 pistol, hard to hit anything that far.

I think the first sentence in your "Reason to Believe" block, concerning where "eyewitnesses, taken as a whole," locate the large head wound is the exact opposite of the truth. Which gives me "No Reason to Read Any Further." Take a closer look, Ron. Here are the witnesses people like Groden claim point out a wound low on the back of the head, consistent with the McClelland drawing's being accurate and the Harper fragment's being occipital bone. Most of them point to a location above the ear, and thus above the cerebellum. Virtually all of them point to a location on the right side of the head, which is at odds with both the McClelland drawing and the Harper fragment's being occipital bone. There is very little overlap, moreover, between what most of these people remember and the wound depicted on the McClelland drawing. And these are the guys supposedly supporting the accuracy of the McClelland drawing! When one takes into account witnesses like the Newmans, Zapruder, Burkley, etc, who pointed out wounds on the top right side of the head in front of the ear, then, the average placement for the wound is as I've claimed, and your claim my claim is the "opposite of the truth" is exposed as wishful thinking. P.S. The videos in which O'Connor and Custer pointed out the wound location showed them pointing out the entire right side of the head from front to back, the condition of the skull after the scalp was peeled back. As a result, one can not rely on Groden's cherry-pick of one frame as an accurate reflection of their recollections. There are 18 persons shown here, 17 of them are pointing to the right rear of he head, one is pointing to the right side behind he ear. Are these the ones that are supposed to be pointing to the right side above the ear? I don't see it. There's two different issues. The first issue is whether the witnesses in Groden's photos are pointing out the location of the wound in the autopsy photos. No, they do not. No one disputes that. The problem is that neither do most of these witnesses point out the location pushed by Groden and most CTs, a location behind the right ear on the far back of the head. Now, since I first started pointing this out to people 8 or 9 years ago, I have come under attack, both on this forum, and in private emails. Some people insist that the only thing that's important is that these people's impression was that the wound was not where the autopsy photos showed it to be, and that once that's established, it's okay to say the wound was behind the ear, or wherever one wants to say the wound was located. Well, that's cherry-picking. You can't say someone's credible when they say they saw a wound further back than as shown in the autopsy photos, but then say they are not credible when they specify that this wound was at the top of the back of the head, inches away from the cerebellum, and that, besides, they only saw the wound for a second and could be mistaken. And yet that's what many if not most CTs believe. The second issue is the Dealey Plaza witnesses. Those pushing that the Parkland witnesses saw a wound on the far back of the head routinely act as though the Dealey Plaza witnesses do not matter, because they were not doctors, or because they only saw the wound for a second, etc. Those accusing me of witness-bashing bash these witnesses with impunity. Well, this ignores that studies have shown that experts in a field are MORE likely, not less likely, to make mistakes regarding the precise location of wounds etc, because the incorrect location will feel more familiar to them than it would to a non-expert. And this also ignores that only a handful of the Parkland witnesses wrote anything down on the day of the assassination, and many if not most of them were clearly following the lead of Dr. WIlliam Kemp Clark, who discussed the head wound as being on the back of the head within two hours of Kennedy's death. And this also avoids that not one but three witnesses to the head shot spoke on TV before Dr. Clark ever spoke on the location of Kennedy's head wound, and that all three of these witnesses pointed to the location shown in the Zapruder film and autopsy photos. These witnesses are shown on the slide below. I have no reason to not accept what you say as being your opinion based on what you've seen and heard. Saying that, I have not seen the wound other than in movies and photos. I can believe, from those movies and photos that there were severe injuries to his head. Some photos appear to show a hit from the front blowing out a large amount of skull and brain and creating a huge flap of scalp which could flop over the back of head, appearing as a huge wound. It is my belief that at least two bullets hit JFK in the head, one from the rear and one from the front/side. There is nothing published that would confirm or absolutely deny that because if someone claims it does, it seems as if it's only another opinion. One thing for sure, had the Warren Report members wanted the truth to be known, there would be a lot less confusion existing. But their specific goal was to hide the truth and they did an excellent job of that, but they also screwed up because they know that everyone knows that it was a coverup. Most photos and movies seem to show that the bullet that did the huge damage hit him in the right temple and blew out a huge area over his ear, driving that huge flap backward.

I think the first sentence in your "Reason to Believe" block, concerning where "eyewitnesses, taken as a whole," locate the large head wound is the exact opposite of the truth. Which gives me "No Reason to Read Any Further." Take a closer look, Ron. Here are the witnesses people like Groden claim point out a wound low on the back of the head, consistent with the McClelland drawing's being accurate and the Harper fragment's being occipital bone. Most of them point to a location above the ear, and thus above the cerebellum. Virtually all of them point to a location on the right side of the head, which is at odds with both the McClelland drawing and the Harper fragment's being occipital bone. There is very little overlap, moreover, between what most of these people remember and the wound depicted on the McClelland drawing. And these are the guys supposedly supporting the accuracy of the McClelland drawing! When one takes into account witnesses like the Newmans, Zapruder, Burkley, etc, who pointed out wounds on the top right side of the head in front of the ear, then, the average placement for the wound is as I've claimed, and your claim my claim is the "opposite of the truth" is exposed as wishful thinking. P.S. The videos in which O'Connor and Custer pointed out the wound location showed them pointing out the entire right side of the head from front to back, the condition of the skull after the scalp was peeled back. As a result, one can not rely on Groden's cherry-pick of one frame as an accurate reflection of their recollections. There are 18 persons shown here, 17 of them are pointing to the right rear of he head, one is pointing to the right side behind he ear. Are these the ones that are supposed to be pointing to the right side above the ear? I don't see it.

Robert, Yes, that's what he's saying. The "E" must be checked to make sure that the rule is being followed -- if it has an odd number on the other side, then the rule isn't being followed. The "7" must be checked to make sure it doesn't have a vowel on the other side -- if it has a vowel on the other side, then the rule isn't being followed. The "K" doesn't need to be checked because it doesn't matter whether it has an even or an odd number on the other side -- the rule doesn't say that only a vowel can have an even number on the other side. The "4" doesn't need to be checked because the rule doesn't say that if a card has an even number on one side, it must have a vowel on the other side. --Tommy The "E" must be checked to make sure that the rule is being followed -- if it has an odd number on the other side, then the rule isn't being followed. I still disagree. It was stated originally that IF there is a vowel there will be an even number. Since there is a vowel, then you already know there is an even number. the 7 does not to be checked because there can't be a vowel there because the rule said if there is a vowel, then there will be an even number. So if the other side had a vowel, then you couldn't have an odd number. This is like saying that it is a fact that if a traffic light is red one direction then it is green for the other direction. then asking if the light is red for your direction can we assume it is green for the other direction, or do we actually have to go look and see? I have never gotten out of my car at a red light to go and see if it was green for the other direction.

That's what he's saying, but that is conditional, in my opinion on whether the answer is based on the first version or the 2nd version.