Jump to content
The Education Forum

The "Shallow" Back Wound and the "Short" Shot


Recommended Posts

The .22 round--assuming we're talking about .22 rimfire and not .22 Hornet or another such bottlenecked cartridges--would, IMHO, be highly susceptible to wind drift at much over 50 yards...based upon personal experience. Trying to attain repeatable accuracy with a subsonic .22 at distances over 50 yards is akin to buying a lottery ticket: somebody might eventually have a winner, but MOST WILL NOT.

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'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I cannot believe how Pat Speer, as usual, has managed to direct discussion completely away from the actual topic of the thread. Do none of you see a pattern here, and think it remotely possible this man is doing this on purpose?

I don't give a rat's back end about a @#$%^&* .22 calibre rifle, simply because I don't think anyone in his right mind would try to assassinate the President at any kind of range with such an underpowered cartridge.

Now, that being said, the topic is the impossibly shallow back wound, and the equally impossible "short shot" that supposedly caused it.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read this entire thread, Kenneth, as I suggested, you will see that .22 calibre rifles were never mentioned until Pat Speer deliberately set out to derail this thread, as is his agenda on this forum.

If you would like to discuss .22 rifles, why don't you and Pat go start another thread.

I have read every single word on the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read this entire thread, Kenneth, as I suggested, you will see that .22 calibre rifles were never mentioned until Pat Speer deliberately set out to derail this thread, as is his agenda on this forum.

If you would like to discuss .22 rifles, why don't you and Pat go start another thread.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bowling ball dropped from the 25th floor of a building will hit the ground at the same time as a bowling ball fired horizontally from a cannon on the 25th floor of the same building. Just an observation.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Mr. Tidd is relating to are the immutable laws of physics, and the fact that the acceleration of gravity is 32 feet per second, per second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Mr. Tidd is relating to are the immutable laws of physics, and the fact that the acceleration of gravity is 32 feet per second, per second.

Of course, you have to understand, he never studied Law. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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!" :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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?

P.S. If it makes anyone feel better, I have discussed sniping and the wound ballistics of subsonic ammunition with people who loves their guns as much as anyone currently on this forum, including my brother-in-law, a collector and user of a number of weapons ranging from a cross-bow to a cannon, and my childhood best friend, a Lt. Col in U.S. Special Forces. I also had a number of email exchanges on the subject with the late Gerry Hemming. Hemming, to my recollection, claimed he knew what kind of rifle was used in the plaza. As I recall, he claimed it was something put together by Mitch Werbell. I can't recall the caliber or the velocity of the round, however.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...