The Shallow Back Wound: Possible Explanation

[David Von Pein]

19 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

[Secret Service Agent Glen] Bennett...was consistent on a few points we can take to the bank, namely, that the bullet creating the back wound impacted...at a location too low to support the single-bullet theory.

Neither Glen Bennett nor any other person who witnessed the assassination as it was happening in real time in Dealey Plaza could have possibly known the precise location of the entry hole in JFK's back.

It's beyond silly to think that any human being, in those "as it was happening" circumstances, could have discerned such a microscopic detail about the precise location of a tiny bullet hole.

 

Edited October 14, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Yes, of course, it is "witness bashing" to point out problems and inconsistencies with a witness' statements.

But you didn’t point out any problems.  You just make stuff up.  

You cited the demolishment of the SBT as a problem.  It isn’t.

The problem with Bennett’s use of the phrase “very sparse” is mysterious.  

If Bennett wasn’t counting the first firecracker sound as a firearm report then there was very little time between the first and second shot.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

 

It's clearly much much smurter to cherry-pick one line from one statement and interpret it in a manner that feeds into one's pet theory. 

Which is exactly what you’re doing.  And no, I don’t think it very smurt.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Bennett is not a problem for my theories, Cliff. He was consistent on a few points we can take to the bank, namely, that the bullet creating the back wound impacted before the bullet creating the head wound, and impacted at a location too low to support the single-bullet theory. As to the number and spacing of the shots, he was not so reliable. 

His movements are photographically corroborated.  He couldn’t have faced full front until after Z255, with the shots after circa Z285.  There is nothing inconsistent in his account.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

But if you insist on believing the back wound was inflicted a spilt second before head wound, as it appears, then how do you explain JFK's reaction circa Z-224.

He was shot in the throat before he went behind the sign.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Oh, I remember...an ice bullet. I get it.

So the autopsists speculated prior to the full blown cover-up.

So you think JFK raised his fists in front of his throat due to a back shot?

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

 

Much as Lifton with his response to "surgery to the head" you had an aha moment when you read Bennett's statement suggesting the possibility the back wound was inflicted after JFK first reacted. Except he didn't say that, did he? 

Bennett said he saw the back shot “immediately” before the head shot.

Your position is pure spin.

Edited October 14, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

But you fidn’t  You cited the demolishment of the SBT as a problem.  The problem with Bennett’s use of the phrase “very sparse” is mysterious.  If Bennett wasn’t counting the first firecracker sound as a firearm report then there was very little time between the first and second shot.

Which is exactly what you’re doing.  And no, I don’t think it very smart.

His movements are photographically corroborated.  He couldn’t have faced full front until after Z255, with the shots in the after circa Z285.  There is nothing inconsistent in his account.

He was shot in the throat before he went behind the sign.

So the autopsists speculated prior to the full blown cover-up.

So you think JFK raised his fists in front of his throat due to a back shot?

Bennett said he saw the back shot “immediately” before the head shot.

Your position is pure spin.

I have spent more time than probably any human on Earth dismantling the SBT. Bennett's placement of the back wound is a problem for the SBT. The same people who rally around his suggestion of a first shot miss avoid like the plague he placed the wound too low to support the SBT. 

And yes, I agree, the films and photos suggest he would not have seen an impact on the back at 190, or 224. 

So the question for us--you and I, who agree on the above points--is whether or not Bennett saw a bullet impact just before 313, or saw a bloody mark on the jacket at this time. His early statements are unclear, and his latter statements suggest the latter. But you can believe whatever you want. Just don't pretend a singular and possibly confused statement from a quite possibly hungover witness is the Rosetta Stone upon which all other evidence should be interpreted. 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Neither Bennett nor any other person who witnessed the assassination as it was happening in real time in Dealey Plaza could have possibly known the precise location of the entry hole in JFK's back.

“[A]bout 4 inches down from the right shoulder.”  The bullet holes in the clothes are 4 inches below the bottom of the collar, to the right of midline..

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

It's beyond silly to think that any human being, in those "as it was happening" circumstances, could have discerned such a microscopic detail about the precise location of a tiny bullet hole.

 

You struggle with the meaning of the word “about”?

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

I have spent more time than probably any human on Earth dismantling the SBT. Bennett's placement of the back wound is a problem for the SBT. The same people who rally around his suggestion of a first shot miss avoid like the plague he placed the wound too low to support the SBT. 

He didn’t say the first shot was a miss.  He wasn’t looking at Kennedy at the first report which reminded him of a firecracker.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

And yes, I agree, the films and photos suggest he would not have seen an impact on the back at 190, or 224. 

So the question for us--you and I, who agree on the above points--is whether or not Bennett saw a bullet impact just before 313, or saw a bloody mark on the jacket at this time. His early statements are unclear, and his latter statements suggest the latter. But you can believe whatever you want.

By all means cite the later statements.  His contemporaneous account is unequivocal:. He saw “the Boss” get hit.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Just don't pretend a singular and possibly confused statement from a quite possibly hungover witness is the Rosetta Stone upon which all other evidence should be interpreted. 

Bingo!  Here comes the smears, the bashing of witnesses in favor of pet theories.  

The physical evidence corroborates his account, as do the contemporaneous written reports of a half dozen witnesses in position of authority, as does the properly prepared medical evidence, and the consensus statements of 15 other witnesses.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

. There’s also the problem that the Willis photo at Z-202 shows Bennett still staring to his right.

Consistent with his statement.

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

If there’d been a shot at Z-160 and had Bennett immediately turned to his left, as pushed by those claiming Bennett's statement the Rosetta Stone, he should already be looking at Kennedy in the Willis photo.

Where in his statement did he mention a firecracker st Z160?  Out of which orifice do you pull this stuff, Pat?

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

This suggests instead that Bennett heard a shot at 190, not 160.

Willis 5 shows him looking to the right, as per his statement.

Altgens 6 shows Bennett with blurred features, consistent with turning face forward as per his statement.

The “problems” and “inconsistencies” are products of your invention.

 

 

Edited October 14, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

37 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Consistent with his statement.

Where in his statement did he mention a firecracker st Z160?  Out of which orifice do you pull this stuff, Pat?

Willis 5 shows him looking to the right, as per his statement.

Altgens 6 shows Bennett with blurred features, consistent with turning face forward as per his statement.

The “problems” and “inconsistencies” are products of your invention.

 

 

It's really not that difficult, Cliff. I compared Bennett's statements against what lone-nutters claim his statements support, not what you claim. Millions believe Bennett supports a first shot at 160, an SBT shot at 224 and a head shot at 313. We agree that this is nonsense. 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

It's really not that difficult, Cliff. I compared Bennett's statements against what lone-nutters claim his statements support, not what you claim. Millions believe Bennett supports a first shot at 160, an SBT shot at 224 and a head shot at 313. We agree that this is nonsense. 

So where are there inconsistencies and problems with Bennett’s well corroborated contemporaneous account?

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

From chapter 20:

 

The Low Down on the Short Shot

A problem has been raised with this scenario that deserves some discussion. It has been pointed out that an undercharged bullet would take longer to reach its target than a normal round, and that a bullet so undercharged it would barely penetrate Kennedy's back would have to have been aimed well above and beyond Kennedy to hit him in that location.

Now, this is indeed difficult to work out. But not impossible, IMO.

If the assassin used the scope on the first shot, the misalignment of the scope would lead him to fire 14 inches high or more at only 53 yards, the distance of the limo from the sniper's nest around frame 190 of the Zapruder film. As the bullet struck Kennedy on his back, and not his head, moreover, it follows that the bullet struck Kennedy a good 10 inches below where it was originally aimed (assuming, of course, that the bullet was aimed at his head.) This suggests, then, that the bullet struck Kennedy about 24 inches below where it was originally headed.

So now let's consider that the presumed target, Kennedy, was moving at the time. Robert Frazier's testimony before the Warren Commission reflects that someone firing the rifle found in the building would need to lead Kennedy by 6 inches or so to strike him at 90 yards. We can extrapolate from this, then, that one might need to lead Kennedy by 4 inches or so at 53 yards. Well, if the bullet was traveling but one sixth its normal velocity, as is suggested by the shallow wound on Kennedy's back, the sniper firing this bullet would have to have led Kennedy by 24 inches or so.

Let's check the math.

1. The rifle, when using the scope and standard ammo, fires 14 inches high.

2. The target moves 24 inches higher in the time it takes the bullet to reach the target.

3. The bullet lands about 10 inches below the center of the target.

Well, this suggests the bullet landed pretty much where we would expect it to land. So what's the problem?

Bullet drop. Ballistics calculators suggest that a bullet traveling but 350 fps (the fastest one can presume it was traveling and still have the bullet barely make a hole on Kennedy's back) would drop about 36 inches over the distance to Kennedy. Well, this suggests that the shot landed about 36 inches higher than it should have, and that the sniper was therefore aiming about 36 inches above Kennedy at the time of the first shot. Hmmm...

While I'm not so sure we can trust these numbers, there is reason to believe that, even if accurate, this three feet of bullet drop is not lethal to the proposition Kennedy was hit with a short shot.

So, how's that?

Since the short shot occurred, we can only presume, due to the sniper's improperly hand-loading the bullet, and since we have separately come to conclude subsonic ammunition was used in the assassination, we can assume the sniper knew full well that this bullet was not gonna travel at its usual velocity, and to have compensated for this by firing 11 inches or so higher than normal. This puts the original target about 25 inches higher than one would expect.

Or less. A Marine Corps sniper book in my possession recommends that right-handed shooters tracking a target from left to right double their lead, as there is a "natural hesitation in follow through when swinging against the shooting shoulder." So, yikes, this suggests the original target may have been as little as 14 inches higher than one would expect

And that's not the only bit of subtraction in order. The bullet, if fired from the sniper's nest, was fired from about 21 degrees above Kennedy at frame 190 of the Zapruder film. Well, this cuts the presumed bullet drop down from 3 feet to as little as 27 inches or so. And this puts the original target around 5 inches higher than one would otherwise expect.

Now, this is all guesswork, of course, but I think we can agree that there are just too many variables to dismiss that an undercharged bullet hit Kennedy--and to say this proves the bullet striking Kennedy in the back actually went into his chest, etc. I mean, that goes too far.

PS--

Not to get lost in the weeds---but why assume 350 fps, and not say, 700 fps? 

Are you assuming no hole at all in JFK's back?

Hume seemed to indicate a one inch to two inch hole in JFK's back. 

The three autopsists seemed to think the bullet had penetrated JFK, which is why they made a long search for it. Would they believe the bullet had penetrated JFK if there was only a surface bruise or abrasion? 

 

Add on: I get different figures from you on the amount of drop to be expected over 60-75 yards. 

At 700 fps, we are looking at maybe 10-12 inches of drop--but also the gunner was pointing downhill. 

https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/practical-ballistics-for-22lr/

According to the above link, for a .22 shot at 1032 fps, we get zero drop at 50 yards, and 7.4 inches at 100 yards. 

I think a Western Cartridge slug at 700 fps at 60 yards would have a reasonable amount of drop, in the 5 inch range....

 

Edited October 15, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

From Secret Service SA Glenn Bennett's contemporaneous notes written on AFI on the flight back to DC.:

<quote on>

...The Presidents auto moved down a slight grade and the crowd was very sparse.  At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded of a firecracker. Immediately upon hearing the so called firecracker, looked at the Boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder; a second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Boss's head.

<quote off>

Bennett accurately described the location of the back shot.  Willis 5 shows Bennett looking to his right at Z202.  Altgens 6 (Z255) shows Bennett in the back seat of the follow-up car with blurred facial features, consistent with head movement.

Did JFK raise his fists in front of his throat to protect against another back shot?  Maybe in some parallel universe.

Was the soft tissue no-exit wound in the throat also under-charged?  Both rounds removed prior to the autopsy?

I find it amusing that some would posit a military-style ambush featuring defective Italian ammo.

 

There are varying witness accounts of the JFKA.

In any event, if the first and undercharged bullet struck JFK in the back, then an internal shock wave from the second bullet might have dislodged it. 

I am positing what I think is a plausible scenario. 

It all comes down to Landis, in a way. 

If Landis memory is correct and he is earnest, then we have answer how a slug that looked like CE-399 ended up on the top of the rear seat of the President limo. 

I have provided a plausible explanation. 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

There are varying witness accounts of the JFKA.

So what?  The more corroboration the testimony has the stronger it is.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

In any event, if the first and undercharged bullet struck JFK in the back, then an internal shock wave from the second bullet might have dislodged it. 

But it didn’t.  Bennett’s account aside, we can see with our own eyes JFK react to the throat shot.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I am positing what I think is a plausible scenario. 

Sure, as long as you disregard the physical evidence, the contemporaneous written account of a half-dozen witnesses in position of authority, the properly prepared medical evidence, the Dealey Plaza photographs, and the consensus statements of 16 witnesses.

[Benjamin Cole]

4 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

So what?  The more corroboration the testimony has the stronger it is.

But it didn’t.  Bennett’s account aside, we can see with our own eyes JFK react to the throat shot.

Sure, as long as you disregard the physical evidence, the contemporaneous written account of a half-dozen witnesses in position of authority, the properly prepared medical evidence, the Dealey Plaza photographs, and the consensus statements of 16 witnesses.

Cliff--

I am shocked---shocked!---we are on different pages on this particular issue. 

If we posit Landis' memory is correct and earnest...where did the CE399 lookalike slug on the rear seat of the limo come from? 

(For the sake of discussion, I am positing Landis is earnest and correct, although is is probably an unknowable).  

 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Cliff--

I am shocked---shocked!---we are on different pages on this particular issue. 

If we posit Landis' memory is correct and earnest...where did the CE399 lookalike slug on the rear seat of the limo come from? 

I don’t see how the 60-year old memory of a guy selling a book counterfeits the extant corroborated evidence.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

(For the sake of discussion, I am positing Landis is earnest and correct, although is is probably an unknowable).  

 

 

 

More False Mystery.  It never ends...