John Orr's analysis of the shots

[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

[Tim Nickerson]

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.

That is true.

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:

I've never thought of it as a fascination on my part. That may very well be what it is. Some years ago on John McAdams' Google groups page, an LN of some stature thought that he could denigrate conspiracy theorists by calling them CT hobbyists. The truth of the matter is that most of us who engage in discussion and debate on the subject are hobbyists. That really is what I am. I don't bring much of my own to the debate. I've spent countless hours searching and researching on different aspects of the case. I spent many many hours debating and researching on the Klein's Sporting Goods Money order over a number of years. I was personally satisfied that the thing had been cashed but the issue wasn't put completely to rest in the minds of all of those with some capacity for reasoning until you came along in the Fall of 2015. And you put it to rest in relatively short order. I was pleased to see you piss off the Armstrong sycophants with your questioning of the Wilmouth document. I had done the same thing a couple of years prior. Except that my questioning of Armstrong's take on the document never reached his "desk".

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.

The HSCA’s ballistics experts did not conclude that, between the back and the throat, the bullet had carved an 11-degree upward track. Several members of the FPP believed that "when the body is repositioned in the anatomic position (not the position at the moment of shooting) the direction of the missile in the body on initial penetration was slightly upward(11 degrees)". Several members. Not the panel as a whole. Not even a majority.

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?

Quasi-religious attachment to the LN narrative? I don't think that describes me. But me being an SBT zealot, maybe it does. The theological stuff is weighing heavily on me as of late. My own views are somewhat malleable. I am a heretic. That much I do know. My aunt did read a nice bible passage at my Uncle's burial today. He was an agnostic. Yesterday a priest gave a very nice reading and dedication at the burial of my neighbour in that same cemetery. He was the first Catholic Priest to ever reside over a burial ceremony in our family cemetery since the first burial there in the mid 1800s. I live right next to that cemetery and have spent many years taking care of it.

[Tim Nickerson]

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.

I'm not comfortable calling Orr or anyone else a liar.

From Orr's "Analysis of Gunshots in Dealey on November 22,1963":

On entering the back, the bullet penetrated less than two inches of soft tissue and then fractured the right transverse process of the first thoric vertebra(T-1). The transverse process is a thin bone extending from the rear of the body of the vertebra. HSCA pathology panel noted an "interruption in the continuity of the right transverse process of the 1st thoracic vertebra..." In other words, the HSCA panel found that the bullet completely separated the process from the T-1 vertebra.

I may have read more into that than what is there. It wouldn't be the first time that I've done so. 

I don't see anything in McDonnel's report in which he offers the opinion that a bullet struck the right transverse process of T-1.

[Charles Collins]

John Orr’s article mistakenly identifies what appears to be a white purse in the background crowd to be an impact, and resulting crack, of a bullet on the windshield.



As can be seen in a zoomed in image, the white purse is further away from the camera than the rear view mirror and JFK’s jacket. This in itself shows that Orr’s idea is wrong.

The bullet impact crack isn’t in the windshield until after the head shot. See cropped photo below:





Later edit:

Based on the title of this image it appears that credit goes to [Anthony?] Marsh for identifying what appears to be a white purse:

[Lance Payette]

Bear in mind, folks, Orr's analysis is dated 1995. I have no idea what tweaks he may have made in the intervening 30 years. This is why I wish Larry Schnapf would weigh in, since he thinks enough of Orr's analysis to have been working with him for years. I posted Orr's analysis only because someone was questioning whether there is, in fact, a Knott Lab "study" underlying the Knott Lab animation. Since Orr commissioned the work by Knott Lab, I assumed his analysis was the basis of the work and thought others might find it interesting. Since Schnapf and Orr are apparently working on a new animation, it will presumably reflect the current state of their thinking on the shots. I found, and still find, Orr's analysis to be impressive and interesting, but I did not start this thread as an Orr apologist. If you think Orr's analysis is flawed for reasons other than knee-jerk, quasi-religious LN zealotry, that's fine; as a provisional LNer, I find the SBT and the LN medical/ballistics analysis in general to be considerably less than compelling. Last time I checked, the "experts" couldn't agree as to what part of JFK's skull the Harper fragment was from, and the HSCA "experts" placed the head wound something like 4" higher than the autopsy doctors.