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

[Kenneth Drew]

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!"

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)

Edited August 17, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[Kenneth Drew]

Craig Roberts, a Vietnam sniper said in his book, "Kill Zone", that he couldn't have performed the feat. If he couldn't, you think Os could?

other than LNers no one thinks Os did.

[Kenneth Drew]

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.

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?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Here is a rough idea of the kind of bullet drop we would be looking at if a "bad" round reduced the muzzle velocity to 300 fps. I went to this website

http://www.handloads.com/calc/index.html

and used the ballistics calculator they provide there. I entered 300 fps as the velocity, 162 grains as the bullet weight (6.5mm Carcano FMJ), 100 yards as the zeroed in range, .311 as the ballistic co-efficient (obtained from another calculator), and .5" as the "sight height" (vertical distance of the line of sight above the centre of the barrel, again calculated earlier). Here are the results:

Range Velocity Impact Drop Energy

0 300 -0.5 0 32

10 300 16.59 2.14 32

20 301 29.84 8.13 33

30 301 39.25 17.95 33

40 301 44.85 31.58 33

50 301 46.68 48.99 33

60 301 44.74 70.16 33

70 302 39.08 95.05 33

80 302 29.73 123.64 33

90 302 16.69 155.91 33

100 302 0 191.83 33

Note that, midway to a 100 yard target, the bullet would be 46.68 inches or almost 4 feet above the line of sight. This is just a tad more than the difference between aiming at the centre of the head and hitting JFK between the shoulder blades, I might point out. However, this is very misleading, and the actual reality is far worse, for the simple fact this table represents a rifle actually SIGHTED IN for a cartridge travelling 300 fps.

A far better indication is the column titled "DROP", which deals with nothing more than the force of gravity; expressed earlier by Mark Knight as 32 feet per second per second. This shows this bullet to have a drop of 48.99 inches at 50 yards, and a whopping drop of 191.83 inches at 100 yards.

If we use the same data for a 6.5mm Carcano bullet, but this time enter 2200 fps as the velocity (normal velocity for an M91/38 Carcano), we find a bullet impacting at 100 yards to be .77 inches above the line of sight at 50 yards. Therefore, if we subtract .77 inches from 48.99 (bullet drop at 50 yards for a Carcano bullet at 300 fps) we get a bullet that is 48.22 inches below the point of aim at 50 yards.

Whereabouts on the trunk of the limo do you think the "short" shot would have impacted?

Edited August 18, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Pat Speer]

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

I don't think we can prove it one way or the other, seeing as we're discussing theoretical bullets fired from theoretical rifles sighted in at theoretical distances from theoretical locations. But I long ago made some rough calculations relative to the Carcano and its scope. I concluded the misaligned scope would make a fully-charged bullet land about 23 inches high. As Frazier testified that Oswald would have to have led Kennedy by six inches to hit him, and as the short shot I've proposed would take about 4 times as long to reach Kennedy as a fully-charged bullet, it follows that short load would cancel out the misalignment of the scope, vertically, and the bullet would fall within inches of its intended target.

Horizontal is another issue. The limo was traveling slightly to the right in relation to the sniper's nest. A bullet traveling one fourth normal velocity might very well hit a foot or more to the left of where it had been aimed. This is yet another reason to suspect this shot was fired from the Dal-Tex Building, IMO.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Kenneth Drew]

Here is a rough idea of the kind of bullet drop we would be looking at if a "bad" round reduced the muzzle velocity to 300 fps. I went to this website

http://www.handloads.com/calc/index.html

and used the ballistics calculator they provide there. I entered 300 fps as the velocity, 162 grains as the bullet weight (6.5mm Carcano FMJ), 100 yards as the zeroed in range, .311 as the ballistic co-efficient (obtained from another calculator), and .5" as the "sight height" (vertical distance of the line of sight above the centre of the barrel, again calculated earlier). Here are the results:

Range Velocity Impact Drop Energy

0 300 -0.5 0 32

10 300 16.59 2.14 32

20 301 29.84 8.13 33

30 301 39.25 17.95 33

40 301 44.85 31.58 33

50 301 46.68 48.99 33

60 301 44.74 70.16 33

70 302 39.08 95.05 33

80 302 29.73 123.64 33

90 302 16.69 155.91 33

100 302 0 191.83 33

-0.27

Note that, midway to a 100 yard target, the bullet would be 46.68 inches or almost 4 feet above the line of sight. This is just a tad more than the difference between aiming at the centre of the head and hitting JFK between the shoulder blades, I might point out. However, this is very misleading, and the actual reality is far worse, for the simple fact this table represents a rifle actually SIGHTED IN for a cartridge travelling 300 fps.

A far better indication is the column titled "DROP", which deals with nothing more than the force of gravity; expressed earlier by Mark Knight as 32 feet per second per second. This shows this bullet to have a drop of 48.99 inches at 50 yards, and a whopping drop of 191.83 inches at 100 yards.

If we use the same data for a 6.5mm Carcano bullet, but this time enter 2200 fps as the velocity (normal velocity for an M91/38 Carcano), we find a bullet impacting at 100 yards to be .77 inches above the line of sight at 50 yards. Therefore, if we subtract .77 inches from 48.99 (bullet drop at 50 yards for a Carcano bullet at 300 fps) we get a bullet that is 48.22 inches below the point of aim at 50 yards.

Whereabouts on the trunk of the limo do you think the "short" shot would have impacted?

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.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Here is a rough idea of the kind of bullet drop we would be looking at if a "bad" round reduced the muzzle velocity to 300 fps. I went to this website

http://www.handloads.com/calc/index.html

and used the ballistics calculator they provide there. I entered 300 fps as the velocity, 162 grains as the bullet weight (6.5mm Carcano FMJ), 100 yards as the zeroed in range, .311 as the ballistic co-efficient (obtained from another calculator), and .5" as the "sight height" (vertical distance of the line of sight above the centre of the barrel, again calculated earlier). Here are the results:

Range Velocity Impact Drop Energy

0 300 -0.5 0 32

10 300 16.59 2.14 32

20 301 29.84 8.13 33

30 301 39.25 17.95 33

40 301 44.85 31.58 33

50 301 46.68 48.99 33

60 301 44.74 70.16 33

70 302 39.08 95.05 33

80 302 29.73 123.64 33

90 302 16.69 155.91 33

100 302 0 191.83 33

-0.27

Note that, midway to a 100 yard target, the bullet would be 46.68 inches or almost 4 feet above the line of sight. This is just a tad more than the difference between aiming at the centre of the head and hitting JFK between the shoulder blades, I might point out. However, this is very misleading, and the actual reality is far worse, for the simple fact this table represents a rifle actually SIGHTED IN for a cartridge travelling 300 fps.

A far better indication is the column titled "DROP", which deals with nothing more than the force of gravity; expressed earlier by Mark Knight as 32 feet per second per second. This shows this bullet to have a drop of 48.99 inches at 50 yards, and a whopping drop of 191.83 inches at 100 yards.

If we use the same data for a 6.5mm Carcano bullet, but this time enter 2200 fps as the velocity (normal velocity for an M91/38 Carcano), we find a bullet impacting at 100 yards to be .77 inches above the line of sight at 50 yards. Therefore, if we subtract .77 inches from 48.99 (bullet drop at 50 yards for a Carcano bullet at 300 fps) we get a bullet that is 48.22 inches below the point of aim at 50 yards.

Whereabouts on the trunk of the limo do you think the "short" shot would have impacted?

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.

Excellent point, Kenneth, and one I had not considered into the calculation.

Considering that it was calculated that the top of JFK's head was 48.52 inches above the pavement while he was sitting in the limo, my question should not have been where on the trunk of the limo the bullet would have hit, it should have been where on the back bumper did it hit, if it hit the limo at all.

[Robert Prudhomme]

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

I don't think we can prove it one way or the other, seeing as we're discussing theoretical bullets fired from theoretical rifles sighted in at theoretical distances from theoretical locations. But I long ago made some rough calculations relative to the Carcano and its scope. I concluded the misaligned scope would make a fully-charged bullet land about 23 inches high. As Frazier testified that Oswald would have to have led Kennedy by six inches to hit him, and as the short shot I've proposed would take about 4 times as long to reach Kennedy as a fully-charged bullet, it follows that short load would cancel out the misalignment of the scope, vertically, and the bullet would fall within inches of its intended target.

Horizontal is another issue. The limo was traveling slightly to the right in relation to the sniper's nest. A bullet traveling one fourth normal velocity might very well hit a foot or more to the left of where it had been aimed. This is yet another reason to believe this shot was fired from the Dal-Tex Building, IMO.

Show me your math that would have the rifle shooting 23 inches high. If it was shooting that high, how did it make the head shot?

[Robert Prudhomme]

HOWEVER, there is more to consider here, and things may look even worse for the "short" shot than I first considered.

Tom Neal brought up a good point earlier, and it has been nagging at me all day. He wondered about the lethality of a Carcano bullet travelling 300 fps as, after all, this was still going 200 mph (204.55 actually, Tom).

If you refer to the ballistics calculation I did for the 6.5mm Carcano bullet leaving the rifle at 300 fps, you will notice something a bit odd. Instead of slowing down, this bullet actually picks up velocity on its way to the target until, at 100 yards, it is moving at 302 fps. this, of course, is on level ground, and I can only imagine how much velocity the bullet would gain from six storeys up. This is assuming the bullet gained velocity due to the fact it is coming downhill from the top of a 4 foot trajectory.

Interestingly, the 6.5mm Carcano bullet is calculated on this table to have 33 ft/lbf or 45 Joules of energy at 50 yards. Would 45 Joules of energy be enough to make this bullet penetrate well into JFK's right lung? For comparison, let us look at the .22 shorts we were discussing earlier. A .22 short bullet weighing 29 grains and possessing a muzzle velocity of 830 fps is listed as having muzzle energy of a mere 60 Joules. I have seen the effect of shooting gophers with .22 shorts when I was a lad back in Saskatchewan, and I sincerely believe one of these bullets at point blank range would end up in your lung, if you were shot in the back.

So, is 300 fps too fast? I picked that number out of the air when I first started this thread but, it seems I might have been a bit to generous. Perhaps 150-200 fps would be more realistic.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Kenneth Drew]

HOWEVER, there is more to consider here, and things may look even worse for the "short" shot than I first considered.

Tom Neal brought up a good point earlier, and it has been nagging at me all day. He wondered about the lethality of a Carcano bullet travelling 300 fps as, after all, this was still going 200 mph (204.55 actually, Tom).

If you refer to the ballistics calculation I did for the 6.5mm Carcano bullet leaving the rifle at 300 fps, you will notice something a bit odd. Instead of slowing down, this bullet actually picks up velocity on its way to the target until, at 100 yards, it is moving at 302 fps. this, of course, is on level ground, and I can only imagine how much velocity the bullet would gain from six storeys up. This is assuming the bullet gained velocity due to the fact it is coming downhill from the top of a 4 foot trajectory.

Interestingly, the 6.5mm Carcano bullet is calculated on this table to have 33 ft/lbf or 45 Joules of energy at 50 yards. Would 45 Joules of energy be enough to make this bullet penetrate well into JFK's right lung? For comparison, let us look at the .22 shorts we were discussing earlier. A .22 short bullet weighing 29 grains and possessing a muzzle velocity of 830 fps is listed as having muzzle energy of a mere 60 Joules. I have seen the effect of shooting gophers with .22 shorts when I was a lad back in Saskatchewan, and I sincerely believe one of these bullets at point blank range would end up in your lung, if you were shot in the back.

So, is 300 fps too fast? I picked that number out of the air when I first started this thread but, it seems I might have been a bit to generous. Perhaps 150-200 fps would be more realistic.

and I can only imagine how much velocity the bullet would gain from six storeys up.

I still object to the assumption that a bullet was fired from 6 stories up. Never seen any proof of it.

[Robert Prudhomme]

HOWEVER, there is more to consider here, and things may look even worse for the "short" shot than I first considered.

Tom Neal brought up a good point earlier, and it has been nagging at me all day. He wondered about the lethality of a Carcano bullet travelling 300 fps as, after all, this was still going 200 mph (204.55 actually, Tom).

If you refer to the ballistics calculation I did for the 6.5mm Carcano bullet leaving the rifle at 300 fps, you will notice something a bit odd. Instead of slowing down, this bullet actually picks up velocity on its way to the target until, at 100 yards, it is moving at 302 fps. this, of course, is on level ground, and I can only imagine how much velocity the bullet would gain from six storeys up. This is assuming the bullet gained velocity due to the fact it is coming downhill from the top of a 4 foot trajectory.

Interestingly, the 6.5mm Carcano bullet is calculated on this table to have 33 ft/lbf or 45 Joules of energy at 50 yards. Would 45 Joules of energy be enough to make this bullet penetrate well into JFK's right lung? For comparison, let us look at the .22 shorts we were discussing earlier. A .22 short bullet weighing 29 grains and possessing a muzzle velocity of 830 fps is listed as having muzzle energy of a mere 60 Joules. I have seen the effect of shooting gophers with .22 shorts when I was a lad back in Saskatchewan, and I sincerely believe one of these bullets at point blank range would end up in your lung, if you were shot in the back.

So, is 300 fps too fast? I picked that number out of the air when I first started this thread but, it seems I might have been a bit to generous. Perhaps 150-200 fps would be more realistic.

and I can only imagine how much velocity the bullet would gain from six storeys up.

I still object to the assumption that a bullet was fired from 6 stories up. Never seen any proof of it.

I know, Ken but, we have to start somewhere. The "six storeys up" reference is for anyone still believing the shot came from the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

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

I don't think we can prove it one way or the other, seeing as we're discussing theoretical bullets fired from theoretical rifles sighted in at theoretical distances from theoretical locations. But I long ago made some rough calculations relative to the Carcano and its scope. I concluded the misaligned scope would make a fully-charged bullet land about 23 inches high. As Frazier testified that Oswald would have to have led Kennedy by six inches to hit him, and as the short shot I've proposed would take about 4 times as long to reach Kennedy as a fully-charged bullet, it follows that short load would cancel out the misalignment of the scope, vertically, and the bullet would fall within inches of its intended target.

Horizontal is another issue. The limo was traveling slightly to the right in relation to the sniper's nest. A bullet traveling one fourth normal velocity might very well hit a foot or more to the left of where it had been aimed. This is yet another reason to believe this shot was fired from the Dal-Tex Building, IMO.

Show me your math that would have the rifle shooting 23 inches high. If it was shooting that high, how did it make the head shot?

This should be fun to watch.

[Pat Speer]

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

I don't think we can prove it one way or the other, seeing as we're discussing theoretical bullets fired from theoretical rifles sighted in at theoretical distances from theoretical locations. But I long ago made some rough calculations relative to the Carcano and its scope. I concluded the misaligned scope would make a fully-charged bullet land about 23 inches high. As Frazier testified that Oswald would have to have led Kennedy by six inches to hit him, and as the short shot I've proposed would take about 4 times as long to reach Kennedy as a fully-charged bullet, it follows that short load would cancel out the misalignment of the scope, vertically, and the bullet would fall within inches of its intended target.

Horizontal is another issue. The limo was traveling slightly to the right in relation to the sniper's nest. A bullet traveling one fourth normal velocity might very well hit a foot or more to the left of where it had been aimed. This is yet another reason to believe this shot was fired from the Dal-Tex Building, IMO.

Show me your math that would have the rifle shooting 23 inches high. If it was shooting that high, how did it make the head shot?

This should be fun to watch.

The sniper didn't use the scope for the head shot, Robert. This was the fervent belief of the HSCA's ballistics experts, and I suspect they actually got this one right.

[Chris Newton]

The sniper didn't use the scope for the head shot, Robert. This was the fervent belief of the HSCA's ballistics experts, and I suspect they actually got this one right.

LOL Try that in real life - If you use the iron sights and need to place your aiming point 23" above your target. I'll think you'll find that you can't see the target at all and then it really becomes "magic"

[Pat Speer]

The sniper didn't use the scope for the head shot, Robert. This was the fervent belief of the HSCA's ballistics experts, and I suspect they actually got this one right.

LOL Try that in real life - If you use the iron sights and need to place your aiming point 23" above your target. I'll think you'll find that you can't see the target at all and then it really becomes "magic"

I never said anything about anyone placing their aiming point 23" above a target. The lead for the head shot was only about 6 inches. The scope was misaligned, and would lead anyone using it to fire high. The FBI and WC tried to pretend the misaligned scope worked to Oswald's advanatage. The HSCA"s experts, however, took a more honest look at the situation and said the scope was more hindrance than help.