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

[Greg Burnham]

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?

I did not say that, "You don't know what you're talking about." And, I never mentioned a moose.

Why are you being so stubborn about this, Pat? We can't all be experts on everything. I am merely suggesting that you verify your hypothesis with experimentation. Or, alternately, that you rely on a third (or even several) neutral party who has sufficient expertise to speak intelligently about it.

I was an Instructor for the California Highway Patrol's Motorcycle Safety Program 20 years ago. In order to be certified and receive a motorcycle endorsement, a novice rider was required to spend 6.5 hours in the classroom and 9 hours on the range--minimum--and even more range time for an advanced endorsement.

Would you agree that there is a great deal of difference between being able to pass a written driver's test (for a passenger car) and being able to pass an actual driving test in a car?

Do you think that the written description in the Driver's Manual on "How to Check Your Blind Spot Before Making a Lane Change" would be sufficient for a student to truly grasp all the nuances of this maneuver (and how they apply to actually driving in traffic) without the student ever getting behind the wheel of a car? Or do you think that someone who has over 500,000 miles of actual "behind-the-wheel" driving experience would, in effect, "know more" about "Blind Spot Checking" than would the mere reader?

[Brian Schmidt]

As much as I hate to take sides on this, as an outside observer, I have to say criticizing Pat's position because he doesn't have "real world" experience with a gun doesn't hold up.

I agree we can't all be experts on everything, but do you think someone who's spent, say, 100 hours shooting different guns and doing target practice is more well versed in covert assassination tactics than Pat, who has spent countless hours reading primary documents on the subject?

The spread between having no gun experience and being an expert is vast. In fact, gaining a novice's training on firing a gun may, as Pat has suggested, in fact skew your judgment and make you think that the shot is so hard that it's impossible. In reality, the shot is hard (no one disputes this), but we're talking top notch people being assigned to pull the shooting off (as in a fraction of a percent of the population).

So, pretending that someone who knows a lot about guns is an expert in covert assassination, while rejecting the CIA Manual on Assassination and ballistics literature, whose authors actually ARE experts on the subject and say it's possible, seems silly to me.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Brian Schmidt

[Pat Speer]

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?

I did not say that, "You don't know what you're talking about." And, I never mentioned a moose.

Why are you being so stubborn about this, Pat? We can't all be experts on everything. I am merely suggesting that you verify your hypothesis with experimentation. Or, alternately, that you rely on a third (or even several) neutral party who has sufficient expertise to speak intelligently about it.

I was an Instructor for the California Highway Patrol's Motorcycle Safety Program 20 years ago. In order to be certified and receive a motorcycle endorsement, a novice rider was required to spend 6.5 hours in the classroom and 9 hours on the range--minimum--and even more range time for an advanced endorsement.

Would you agree that there is a great deal of difference between being able to pass a written driver's test (for a passenger car) and being able to pass an actual driving test in a car?

Do you think that the written description in the Driver's Manual on "How to Check Your Blind Spot Before Making a Lane Change" would be sufficient for a student to truly grasp all the nuances of this maneuver (and how they apply to actually driving in traffic) without the student ever getting behind the wheel of a car? Or do you think that someone who has over 500,000 miles of actual "behind-the-wheel" driving experience would, in effect, "know more" about "Blind Spot Checking" than would the mere reader?

I'm sorry if I gave the indication it is I who is trying to shove stuff down people's throats, Greg. In my impression, Robert is trying to push a silly theory holding that JFK's back wound was created by a frangible bullet, which completely shredded his lung upon entrance but did not exit, and that those involved in the autopsy, presumably including Paul O'Connor and James Jenkins, were involved in a conspiracy to hide the condition of the lung.

Now I admit that this avenue might be worth exploring should Robert actually present evidence for his theory. But he's not doing that. He's trying to get us to trust him that all other explanations are untenable. And he keeps trying to sell that no x-rays exist of the lung... But this isn't true. The lungs are apparent in Figure 11 in the HSCA Pathology Panel's report. No frangible bullet lead is visible in the lung.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0054b.htm

But it's even worse than that. Here's a comparison of the x-rays of JFK and Dr. King from my website. (One needn't read the caption as it's unrelated to the discussion at hand.) If a bullet had exploded in Kennedy's upper lung, as pushed by Robert, it would have almost certainly been as readily identifiable as the fragments in King's neck and upper chest. But nope, there's nothing like it. Nada.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Greg Burnham]

As much as I hate to take sides on this, as an outside observer, I have to say criticizing Pat's position because he doesn't have "real world" experience with a gun doesn't hold up.

I agree we can't all be experts on everything, but do you think someone who's spent, say, 100 hours shooting different guns and doing target practice is more well versed in covert assassination tactics than Pat, who has spent countless hours reading primary documents on the subject?

The spread between having no gun experience and being an expert is vast. In fact, gaining a novice's training on firing a gun may, as Pat has suggested, in fact skew your judgment and make you think that the shot is so hard that it's impossible. In reality, the shot is hard (no one disputes this), but we're talking top notch people being assigned to pull the shooting off (as in a fraction of a percent of the population).

So, pretending that someone who knows a lot about guns is an expert in covert assassination, while rejecting the CIA Manual on Assassination and ballistics literature, whose authors actually ARE experts on the subject and say it's possible, seems silly to me.

Yikes!

I am making no such criticism of Pat as stated by you. I am not talking about how well versed Pat or anyone else is on the topic of "covert assassination tactics." That is not the subject of this thread. Hell, it is not even the subject of this blatant detour (which Pat introduced) from the topic of this thread!!!

Rather, I am specifically speaking about the characteristic behavior associated with the type of ammunition that Pat injected into the discussion. That Pat is arguing from a position of "never having applied the knowledge" he espouses -- is less persuasive than arguments advanced by those persons on this forum who have both: "been there and READ that" --as well as -- "been there and DONE that."

Brian, your suggesting that I am being silly for: "...pretending that someone who knows a lot about guns is an expert in covert assassinations..." is fallacious. It is a straw man argument that does not accurately describe my position. Not even close.

I am no expert on ballistics, per se. Many here are better versed than I on that subject. However, Pat is not one of them.

[Greg Burnham]

Pat,

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

[Brian Schmidt]

I specifically used the term “covert assassination tactics,” because that’s really the crux of what we’re talking about. It was—most of us would agree at least—a covert assassination. Therefore, it’s not merely an argument about bullets or weapons, because the whole reason we’re debating the use of a silenced .22 in the first place is because there was a clandestine necessity. Now, if you wanted to kill JFK most efficiently, why not use the most powerful weapon possible? Why not just machine gun him down? Of course a .22 is an inferior weapon (so is a Mannlicher Carcano), but that’s the whole point— it’s a trade-off for surreptitious means.

Your argument was very much an argument for deferring to expertise and authority. I don’t think anyone on this forum is a ballistics expert. I also highly doubt that many here have both "been there and read that" and "been there and done that", as you suggest. But your willingness to defer to researchers with gun experience over the actual literature on the subject is very questionable, IMO.

[Greg Burnham]

Brian,

I would be guilty of committing the fallacy, Appeal to Authority, if I was arguing that: "The claim made by Person A is true because Person A is an authority (expert, famous, etc.) on the subject." That is not my argument. An argument stands or falls based on its own merits. However, it is not fallacious to suggest that, "All other things being equal, the arguments advanced by Person A carry more weight than the arguments advanced by Person B due to the greater level of expertise, experience and training possessed by Person A." That does not mean that Person A is infallible or necessarily correct. It means, assuming the arguments advanced by both men are equally logical, Person A's conclusion is more likely to be valid. So I do not dismiss Pat's claim because he has no experience. I dismiss it because my first hand experience contradicts his claim.

"Covert assassination tactics" is not the crux of what I was talking about. And, as you already should know, I do not think that any number of hours spent shooting a firearm qualifies the shooter as an "expert in assassination tactics," covert or otherwise. However, having worked on Diplomatic Protection Details, as a function of my former career, I might know just a little something about that subject.

But, as I said, that is not the point. We are talking about "scenario-specific" weapons of choice as well as the ammunition to which they are associated. When I say "scenario-specific," I am not referring to the "nature" of the act, such as, murder vs target practice. I am talking about actual physical characteristics: sniper position (distance and elevation) relative to target, velocity of target (speed and direction), physical characteristics of the designated kill zone, weather conditions, concealment, et cetera. The scenario-specifics of "the event in Dealey Plaza" dictate the acceptable "weapons of choice" and ammunition insomuch as they ruled out employing certain "inferior to the task" weapons in favor of employing those more likely to succeed.

There are "more than a few" members of this forum who have BOTH "been there and READ that" and "been there and DONE that" -- including me. I am, of course, referring to those members who have firearms training in both the classroom, as well as, practical experience on the range or in the field.

I did not say, nor did I imply, that knowledge acquired from experience alone is preferable to knowledge acquired from BOTH experience and education. Certainly you must agree that knowledge acquired from BOTH education AND experience is preferable to knowledge acquired only from education or only from experience?

In my opinion, Pat would be better equipped to address this specific issue (regarding the practicality of utilizing .22 subsonic ammo for the purpose suggested) after his having acquired more "practical" information.

To be clear: My objection to Pat's approach is his making rather definitive statements about a subject with which he has no practical experience. He need not accumulate years of experience to be better informed, but enough to test his hypothesis on "paper targets" instead of just on paper. A few hours (max) at a gun range with a qualified professional would give him a lot more data. Perhaps his mind would not be changed, but it would at least be better informed.

My apologies to Bob if I have wandered too far off topic.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I specifically used the term “covert assassination tactics,” because that’s really the crux of what we’re talking about. It was—most of us would agree at least—a covert assassination. Therefore, it’s not merely an argument about bullets or weapons, because the whole reason we’re debating the use of a silenced .22 in the first place is because there was a clandestine necessity. Now, if you wanted to kill JFK most efficiently, why not use the most powerful weapon possible? Why not just machine gun him down? Of course a .22 is an inferior weapon (so is a Mannlicher Carcano), but that’s the whole point— it’s a trade-off for surreptitious means.

Your argument was very much an argument for deferring to expertise and authority. I don’t think anyone on this forum is a ballistics expert. I also highly doubt that many here have both "been there and read that" and "been there and done that", as you suggest. But your willingness to defer to researchers with gun experience over the actual literature on the subject is very questionable, IMO.

Hi Brian

Please explain to me why you believe a "Mannlicher Carcano" (the proper name is simply Carcano) would be an inferior weapon.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Brian,

I would be guilty of committing the fallacy, Appeal to Authority, if I was arguing that: "The claim made by Person A is true because Person A is an authority (expert, famous, etc.) on the subject." That is not my argument. An argument stands or falls based on its own merits. However, it is not fallacious to suggest that, "All other things being equal, the arguments advanced by Person A carry more weight than the arguments advanced by Person B due to the greater level of expertise, experience and training possessed by Person A." That does not mean that Person A is infallible or necessarily correct. It means, assuming the arguments advanced by both men are equally logical, Person A's conclusion is more likely to be valid. So I do not dismiss Pat's claim because he has no experience. I dismiss it because my first hand experience contradicts his claim.

"Covert assassination tactics" is not the crux of what I was talking about. And, as you already should know, I do not think that any number of hours spent shooting a firearm qualifies the shooter as an "expert in assassination tactics," covert or otherwise. However, having worked on Diplomatic Protection Details, as a function of my former career, I might know just a little something about that subject.

But, as I said, that is not the point. We are talking about "scenario-specific" weapons of choice as well as the ammunition to which they are associated. When I say "scenario-specific," I am not referring to the "nature" of the act, such as, murder vs target practice. I am talking about actual physical characteristics: sniper position (distance and elevation) relative to target, velocity of target (speed and direction), physical characteristics of the designated kill zone, weather conditions, concealment, et cetera. The scenario-specifics of "the event in Dealey Plaza" dictate the acceptable "weapons of choice" and ammunition insomuch as they ruled out employing certain "inferior to the task" weapons in favor of employing those more likely to succeed.

There are "more than a few" members of this forum who have BOTH "been there and READ that" and "been there and DONE that" -- including me. I am, of course, referring to those members who have firearms training in both the classroom, as well as, practical experience on the range or in the field.

I did not say, nor did I imply, that knowledge acquired from experience alone is preferable to knowledge acquired from BOTH experience and education. Certainly you must agree that knowledge acquired from BOTH education AND experience is preferable to knowledge acquired only from education or only from experience?

In my opinion, Pat would be better equipped to address this specific issue (regarding the practicality of utilizing .22 subsonic ammo for the purpose suggested) after his having acquired more "practical" information.

To be clear: My objection to Pat's approach is his making rather definitive statements about a subject with which he has no practical experience. He need not accumulate years of experience to be better informed, but enough to test his hypothesis on "paper targets" instead of just on paper. A few hours (max) at a gun range with a qualified professional would give him a lot more data. Perhaps his mind would not be changed, but it would at least be better informed.

My apologies to Bob if I have wandered too far off topic.

No problem. I can barely remember what the original topic actually was.

[Brian Schmidt]

I guess we all rely on our own personal experiences, for better or for worse, to inform what we think is probable in a particular area. I won’t rehash what I’ve already mentioned, but I don’t think one should dismiss something as impossible or laughable when the literature and historical record says otherwise. I also disagree that after spending some time at a gun range with a qualified professional, it will somehow open your eyes and provide great insight into the ammunitions strategies of the most highly skilled operators. But don’t get me wrong, Greg, I too have serious concerns about a scenario with which the conspirators would rely on such inferior ammunition.

Robert, I don’t want to get into the weeds about the merits of specific weapons, and my posts weren’t implying that this forum’s members don’t have excellent knowledge of weapons. The point I was demonstrating is that a Carcano is deficient relative to other commercially available guns in 1963. So if someone is trying to argue that the conspirators would pick the most efficient gun possible, they clearly had other motives—such as keeping the operation clandestine.

[Tom Neal]

A bullet fired from the sniper's nest at 400-450 fps would lose 100-150 fps before striking the target,

and barely break the skin. Humes testified that he couldn't even find an opening beyond the fascia just

beneath the skin.

Pat,

Below is a re-post of reply #39 from me. I presume it was lost in the many posts

occurring simultaneously and you didn't have a chance to respond. I don't have

the data available that you have at hand, so could you please supply the data

I've requested? With this info I believe I can at least satisfy myself as to whether

or not a 'short shot' could create a 'shallow back wound.'

The point I am making is that you must fulfill two simultaneous constraints for

the same shot. Presuming that the gun has been sighted in at that range or

compensated for a different range, and the shooter has aligned his sights to the

back of the head, and the bullet departs the gun at normal velocity the bullet

will hit the back of the head as planned.

The shallower the penetration of the bullet the less energy/velocity it had at

impact. This impact velocity is vital to any calculations. What is your source

for stating that at 300 fps (more than 200 mph) a .22 bullet would barely

break the skin?

To prove your theory is possible:

1. The velocity required for this .22 bullet to penetrate the skin to the required

depth must be calculated.

2. With the sights on the back of the head, the path of this bullet at this

reduced velocity must impact the back at a point "x" inches below the aim point.

Please state the following:

1. type of bullet (.22 short?)

2. normal muzzle velocity of this bullet

3. range to target

4. distance from intended body impact point to actual impact point

5. velocity of bullet at impact that would barely penetrate the skin

6. muzzle velocity of this 'short' shot

With your charts and graphs it should be easy enough to calculate the impact point

for both trajectories (remember that the rifle is aimed at the higher target in

BOTH trajectories). If the difference between impact points equals the distance

between the targeted and actual impact points then you theory has been proven.

Tom

Edited August 17, 2015 by Tom Neal

[Larry Hancock]

Well since this thread is sort of all over the place, I'd like to offer Brian an option. That option being that the shooters would be using the best weapons to ensure a kill, but is an an ambush and the priority is to kill JFK. Its not even a classic covert operation since rather than going for deniablity, there is a corollary effort to point to Castro. With such an option there is no particular effort to be totally covert or to disguise multiple shots...the only criteria is to make the kill and then ex-filtrate. The only thing demanding the involvement of a Carcano in any way is to associate the attack with Lee Oswald. In this scenario its perfectly acceptable to leave evidence of multiple shooters and a conspiracy. And if you get the chance to tie in Oswald, great, if not, that's secondary. I know this is old stuff and I hesitate to toss it out once again but it seems to me that jumping through hoops to involve Carcano's as the required weapon for all shooters is an assumption, not necessarily a given.

[Pat Speer]

Tom, I'm not arguing that a .22 bullet caused Kennedy's back wound, or even that it would break the skin at 400 fps, although I suspect it would. My claim is simply that Robert is incorrect in dismissing that a short shot could have struck Kennedy. As far as my feeling a bullet traveling 300 fps would barely break the skin, I suppose I am averaging out the statements of wound ballistics experts Martin Fackler, who supported the SBT and said that the bullet was traveling 400 fps upon exit from Connally's wrist, and Larry Sturdivan, who said the bullet was traveling 155-135 fps upon impact with Connally's thigh. I'm not sure if the exact velocity at which a bullet would have broken the skin on Kennedy's back can be calculated, seeing as there are so many variables, including the resistance of the clothing, but it's certainly in a range between what Fackler and Sturdivan have offered. Do you disagree?

Edited August 17, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Tom Neal]

...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.

Robert P,

Considering the various materials that could have been used to construct a frangible bullet, could impact

with soft tissue such as skin, muscle, or the lung itself cause the bullet to fragment? Or would that require

contact with bone e.g. a vertabra, or a rib?

Is it possible that a large fragment from the 'back shot' bullet could have caused the relatively small hole in

JFK's throat as it exited his body?

Thanks for any thoughts,

Tom

[Tom Neal]

My claim is simply that Robert is incorrect in dismissing that a short shot could have struck Kennedy.

Pat,

Thank you for responding.

From the information you have provided, I do not see sufficient evidence to dismiss Roberts theory

as incorrect.

Giving an approximate value for the velocity of a specific bullet type that would barely penetrate the body

and stop, is only one of several data points that are required to prove or disprove your theory that

the 'shallow back shot' was caused by a lower than normal velocity bullet that was aimed at JFK's head.

Certainly an under-powered bullet could cause a shallow wound, and absolutely an underpowered

bullet would impact at a point below the aim point, but your response does not address the crux of

my question: Could a bullet aimed at the back of JFK's head hit him in the upper back at a location

only 10"-12" (I can only guess what distance you believe) below the aiming point and retain ONLY

enough velocity at impact to inflict a very shallow wound?

I have a very good theoretical and a good working knowledge of physics and ballistics, and I will be

more than a bit surprised if it's possible to achieve your trajectory AND arrive at such a low velocity

when the gun/rifle has been aimed as you say. However, science is not always intuitive, and I am

open to the possibility that this MAY be possible.

If you will provide the data I requested, I will work the problem and post the data.

Tom

Edited August 17, 2015 by Tom Neal