John Orr's analysis of the shots

[Tim Nickerson]

2. The best weapon he can come up with is his unlikely Carcano, even though he could've bought a better weapon on every street corner in Dallas.

Oswald bought the Carcano to shoot Walker with it. A better weapon on any street corner would have cost a great deal more than he was willing to pay.

3. He manages to accomplish his mission even though expert marksmen have a hell of a time trying to duplicate it.

What exactly were those expert marksmen attempting to duplicate?

4. One bullet virtually explodes, another remains almost pristine.

Stop playing stupid. It's annoying.

5. The SBT is improbable at best.

The SBT is highly probable. A non single bullet scenario has a lot of problems that cannot be addressed with much degree of plausibility.

[Tim Nickerson]

Yes, but Orr argues that the first shot hit the "chrome strip" above the windshield not the windshield itself.

Still, I would think a bullet traveling that fast would have gone through the strip and not just dented it.

Frazier testified that: "This [dent] was made by a projectile not having the weight or velocity of a whole bullet moving at, in the range of a thousand to 1,500 feet per second or more."

Mr. SPECTER - Now assume the same sequence with respect to exit velocity from the point of the President's neck at the same rate of 1,772 to 1,798 feet per second, and assume still further that the bullet had, the whole bullet had, struck the metal framing which you have heretofore described and identified. What effect would that have had on the metal framing?
Mr. FRAZIER - It would have torn a hole in the chrome, penetrated the framing both inside and outside of the car. I can only assume, since I haven't tested the metal of that particular car, I would assume that the bullet would completely penetrate both the chrome, the metal supporting the chrome, on the inside, and the body metal on the outside which supports the windshield of the car.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, assume the same set of factors as to the exit velocity from the President's neck. What effect would that bullet have had on any other portion of the automobile which it might have struck in the continuation of its flight?
Mr. FRAZIER - In my opinion it would have penetrated any other metal surface and, of course, any upholstery surface depending on the nature of the material as to how deep it would penetrate or how many successive layers it may have penetrated.

[Lance Payette]

Oswald bought the Carcano to shoot Walker with it. A better weapon on any street corner would have cost a great deal more than he was willing to pay.

In 1976, 13 years after the JFK, I bought a pristine Remington 30.06 with a good quality Weaver 4X scope for $75, no paperwork and no questions asked, from a guy who had run a classified ad in the Arizona Republic. Oswald had more cash than that, and I'm betting the Dallas newspapers were as full of gun ads as the Arizona ones were.

I don't know what the bullet passing through JFK would have done to the chrome strip of the windshield. Sitting on my porch on a ranch, I stupidly fired my 30.06 and a 30-30 lever action Winchester at an old truck frame about 25 yards away. The 30.06 drilled an absolutely perfect hole. The 30-30 ricocheted off and bounced off the side of the house right next to me. The 30.06 travels about 2700 fps, but the 30-30 is still around 2300 fps. The result of my slightly insane experiment probably had to do with precisely how the bullets impacted, but anyway I'm never prepared to say what a bullet "must" have done or "could not" have done.

What exactly were those expert marksmen attempting to duplicate?

The firing of the Carcano within the allotted time and the apparent degree of accuracy, no? As I mentioned previously, I played golf with a guy who was a MILITARY SNIPER for more than 20 years. He had no great interest in the JFKA, but he did think the supposed feats of Oswald and his Carcano were impossible.

Stop playing stupid. It's annoying.

I actually am stoopid, so hopefully that will make it less annoying. Yes, I understand the arguments as to why one bullet fragmented so completely and one remained intact, but the one that remained intact is highly puzzling and I don't find Orr's theory implausible or annoying.

The SBT is highly probable. A non single bullet scenario has a lot of problems that cannot be addressed with much degree of plausibility.

The SBT is possible, not highly probable - at least in my opinion. What do you see as the problems raised by Orr's theory that cannot be plausibly addressed?

I'm not arguing for a CT position, merely than I believe Orr is on the trail of by far the most plausible CT theory. If I reject his "Oswald the faux Marxist" and "Jack Ruby the point man" stuff, I believe his theory is quite plausible. Oswald was a genuine Marxist who desperately wanted entry to Cuba. If he were led to believe he was involved in a pro-Castro plot, he was the perfect patsy. It wouldn't have mattered if he were discovered in the TSBD before he fired or apprehended before he escaped or two hours later - anything he had to say would have been exactly what the Mafia wanted people to hear. If he thought any second gunman was part of the same pro-Castro plot, no problem. There would have been no need at all for someone like Ruby to eliminate him.

Again, I'm not arguing against the LN narrative. I am arguing that there is really only one plausible conspiracy theory and that Orr is on the right path. I'm surprised the CT community hasn't coalesced around this theory. They haven't because it isn't grand, elaborate and sexy enough and because their theorizing is driven more by a political/ideological agenda than a quest for historical truth. If there was a conspiracy, my guess is that it is to be found somewhere in the work of Larry Hancock and John Orr, with Oswald being pretty much who the LN narrative says he was. I haven't attempted to connect the dots between the anti-Castro folks and Marcello, but I'm guessing it could be done with the involvement of only a handful of participants.

[Charles Collins]

Just about every aspect of Orr’s first shot scenario is impossible. That is why some of us consider it ridiculous. One aspect that I will address is the claimed deflection (aka: ricochet) of about 30-degrees, from ~19-degrees downward to ~11-degrees upward. Orr’s idea has this supposed bullet deflection due to the bullet hitting a tiny thin protrusion of the T1 vertebra.

Going from memory:

Orr himself wrote that the bullet penetrated the back of the base of the neck at approximately 1-3/4” right of the centerline of the spine. I will assume this is to the centerline of the bullet hole.

The average width of an adult male human T1 vertebra body is close to one inch (25 point something mm). Just eyeballing photos and drawings, I will be generous and say the protrusion extends about 1/2” to the side of the body of the vertebra. These dimensions would place the extreme end of the protrusion at approximately 3/4” from the centerline of the spine. With the centerline of the 6.5 mm (~1/4”) bullet 1-3/4” to the right of the centerline of the spine the left edge of the bullet hole would miss the end of the T1’s  protrusion by approximately 7/8”. Therefore I suggest the bullet’s temporary shock wave (as it passed through the soft tissues) is what caused the non-displaced fracture (aka: cracked) of the tiny T1 vertebra protrusion. I do seem to remember reading some professional medical experts saying this same thing. But I do not have any citations handy.

Regardless of whether or not one wants to believe the bullet actually hit the tiny thin protrusion, there is no way that that tiny bone could have possibly caused a very stable by nature Carcano bullet moving at close to 2000 fps and 1500 ft/lbs of energy to deflect ~30-degrees. Again going by memory, the experiments by the Haags, the video of which can be seen online, showed a hole the size of a fist and about 1-1/2” deep in asphalt road paving as the result of an attempted bullet ricochet. It takes a very hard and mostly immovable object to deflect a bullet with the physical characteristics and energy level of that Carcano bullet. That tiny thin protrusion just couldn’t do it, period.

[Tim Nickerson]

In 1976, 13 years after the JFK, I bought a pristine Remington 30.06 with a good quality Weaver 4X scope for $75, no paperwork and no questions asked, from a guy who had run a classified ad in the Arizona Republic. Oswald had more cash than that, and I'm betting the Dallas newspapers were as full of gun ads as the Arizona ones were.

Oswald was a cheapskate. We don't know how much cash he had in March of 63. Purchasing via mail order was the cheapest means of obtaining a rifle and revolver.

I don't know what the bullet passing through JFK would have done to the chrome strip of the windshield. Sitting on my porch on a ranch, I stupidly fired my 30.06 and a 30-30 lever action Winchester at an old truck frame about 25 yards away. The 30.06 drilled an absolutely perfect hole. The 30-30 ricocheted off and bounced off the side of the house right next to me. The 30.06 travels about 2700 fps, but the 30-30 is still around 2300 fps. The result of my slightly insane experiment probably had to do with precisely how the bullets impacted, but anyway I'm never prepared to say what a bullet "must" have done or "could not" have done.

I can't offer anything on your anecdotal experience without knowing the thickness of the metal frame of that old truck. Robert Frazier had no problem saying what a bullet "must" have done or "could not" have done.

The firing of the Carcano within the allotted time and the apparent degree of accuracy, no? As I mentioned previously, I played golf with a guy who was a MILITARY SNIPER for more than 20 years. He had no great interest in the JFKA, but he did think the supposed feats of Oswald and his Carcano were impossible.

What was the allotted time?

The SBT is possible, not highly probable - at least in my opinion. What do you see as the problems raised by Orr's theory that cannot be plausibly addressed?

According to the Robert West Survey map of Dealey Plaza (1964), the vertical angle from the sniper's nest to where Kennedy was at Z207 was 21°50'. Factoring in the 3° slope of the street, the vertical angle of the trajectory through JFK at Z207 would be 18°50'. Orr would have the bullet changing from a 19° degree downward angle to a slightly upward one as a result of passing through about 6.5 inches of flesh. Orr erroneously has the bullet striking the right transverse of T1. He falsely claims that it was a finding of the HSCA.  In examining autopsy photos (posterior and lateral views), the Clark Panel determined that the entry wound on Kennedy was about 3.5 cm above the wound in the throat.

From their Report:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md59/html/Image07.htm

Examination of photographs of anterior and posterior views of thorax, and anterior, posterior and lateral views of neck (Photographs 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 38, 39, 40, 41).

"There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the skin of the back located approximately 15 cm. medial to the right acromial process, 5 cm. lateral to the mid-dorsal line and 14 cm. below the right mastoid process. This wound lies approximately 5.5 cm. below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. This fold can also be seen in a lateral view of the neck which shows an anterior tracheotomy wound. This view makes it possible to compare the levels of these two wounds in relation to that of the horizontal plane of the body. A well defined zone of discoloration of the edge of the back wound, most pronounced on its upper and outer margins, identifies it as having the characteristics of the entrance wound of a bullet. The wound with its marginal abrasion measures approximately 7 mm. in width by 10 mm. in length. The dimensions of this cutaneous wound are consistent with those of a wound produced by a bullet similar to that which constitutes exhibit CE 399. At the site of and above the tracheotomy incision in the front of the neck, there can be identified the upper half of the circumference of a circular cutaneous wound the appearance of which is characteristic of that of the exit wound of a bullet. The lower half of this circular wound is obscured by the surgically produced tracheotomy incision which transects it. The center of the circular wound is situated approximately 9 cm. below the transverse fold in the skin of the neck described in a preceding paragraph. This indicates that the bullet which produced the two wounds followed a course downward and to the left in its passage through the body."

An FMJ bullet travelling at 1800 ft/s would have passed through the chrome piece, not merely denting it.

There were no bullet holes in the limo.

The bullet that hit Connally in the back was yawed when it did so. Orr claims that it wasn't. The dimensions of the hole leave no doubt that the bullet was tumbling when it struck Connally. Orr has that bullet passing to the right of Kennedy. Considering that Connally was positioned well inboard of Kennedy, that is just not possible.

[Lance Payette]

Oswald was a cheapskate. We don't know how much cash he had in March of 63. Purchasing via mail order was the cheapest means of obtaining a rifle and revolver.

Just to be clear, I wasn't talking about the purchase of the Carcano. I was talking about the point at which he realized he would be involved in an attempted Presidential assassination. He left more than enough cash with Marina to have purchased an excellent weapon, and he could have easily done so in Dallas within 24 hours of the assassination. The Walker attempt was, in every sense, Little League stuff compared to the JFKA. It is rather odd that he, an ex-Marine, decided to trust his Grand Finale to the clunky Carcano. This is a distinct oddity under either an LN or CT narrative. One LN-supportive perspective is that the JFKA was an extremely last-minute decision, not finalized until after Marina had rebuffed him when he visited her at Ruth's the evening before. One CT alternative (not Orr's), of course, is that Oswald wasn't involved in the JFKA at all and that the Carcano was planted because it was the weapon traceable to him.

Although I have read most of the major works (I think), I have resisted trying to turn myself into a medical/ballistics pseudo-expert. This is a fascination for many people, apparently including you. It barely interests me at all. There are just too many variables and uncertainties, and too many dueling experts and pseudo-experts, for me to believe anyone can speak in definitive terms such as "must" or "impossible" or even "ridiculous." I note the following in Dr. Gary Aguilar's seminal article, https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm, which doesn't sound to non-pseudo-expert me too different from what Orr is saying:

A second problem has to do with the course of the supposed back shot through Kennedy’s body. The HSCA’s ballistics experts concluded that, between the back and the throat, the bullet had carved an 11-degree upward track. Since Oswald was 17 degrees above Kennedy at the moment of the back shot, that means the bullet’s path was deviated upward by 28 degrees. Subtracting 3 degrees, because JFK’s limo was on was a 3-degree down slope, that still means that the bullet was pushed up 25 degrees during its encounter with Kennedy. This problem is scarcely diminished by the fact the same bullet then supposedly carved a decidedly downward path through Connally’s chest.

Sensitive to this problem, the HSCA argued that, although anatomically the bullet had indeed followed an upward track through JFK, the actual track was still downward relative to the positions of Oswald and Connally, and to the positions of the limousine and the street. The incongruity was thus dismissed as only apparent. That is, by the supposed fact that JFK was leaning forward at the moment of the back shot, and so the declining bullet left what only seemed to be an upward track through Kennedy’s body. Unfortunately for HSCA’s theory, the Zapruder film discloses that when Kennedy was first struck he was not leaning forward, he was sitting nearly bolt upright.

As stated, the LN narrative is not my religion. As with many theological doctrines that actually ARE my religion, I hold a sufficient level of conviction to consider myself a believer while acknowledging a fair amount of doubt and retaining an openness to better arguments and evidence. I am genuinely puzzled by those who do seem to have some sort of quasi-religious attachment to the LN narrative and to regard themselves as Defenders of the LN Faith. I had hoped that Larry Schnapf would weigh in since he obviously knows way more about Orr's work than I do, and I had hoped to send him a PM encouraging him to do so - but it appears that he is either not a member as I had thought or perhaps doesn't accept PMs. Perhaps someone here who is also a member at the Ed Forum can contact him and see if he wants to weigh in?

[Lance Payette]

Orr erroneously has the bullet striking the right transverse of T1. He falsely claims that it was a finding of the HSCA.

Since you're accusing Orr of being a liar, perhaps you can clarify.

The statements to which you refer are on page 9 of Orr's analysis. He says "The HSCA pathology panel noted ..." and "Dr. G. M. McDonnel, a consulting radiologist to the panel, wrote in his report ...." He does not say "The HSCA found ...."

What the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel noted, in its section on "Course of the missile through the body," was precisely as Orr quotes it: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0054b.htm (paragraph 278).

What Dr. McDonnel wrote in his report was precisely as Orr quotes it: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0115a.htm. Dr. Aguilar quotes this as well.

[Tom Graves]

[...]

Dear Lance,

It's interesting that you, Ohr and Gary "Rudeness" Aguilar, et al., are willing to accept some JFKA conspiracy theory or other (which, by definition, involves the participation of many bad guys and bad gals over the past sixty-two years) instead of the high probability that former Marine sharpshooter Oswald, a self-described Marxist with a quite accurate short-rifle, killed JFK all by him widdle self by firing three shots at him -- the last two of which were easy -- over 10.2 seconds in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza.

Questions:

Was Oswald duped by the bad guys (the evil, evil CIA or the Mafia) into thinking he'd be killing JFK for Fidel Castro?

If so, did he realize he'd be receiving "assistance" from another pro-Castro shooter in the DalTex building or some-such place?

-- Tom