John Orr's analysis of the shots

[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.

[Lance Payette]

That is true.

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".

I absolutely claim no status beyond hobbyist either, and the JFKA would be about tenth in my list of hobbies and interests. When I exposed the money order silliness after about an hour on Google, I was amused to find myself referred to on a couple of sites as "researcher Lance Payette." Gee, is that what it takes to be a researcher? Oh-so-serious Dan O'Meara doesn't seem to grasp that my references to myself as a Serious and Dedicated Researcher are entirely tongue-in-cheek. What I don't understand is why folks, LNers in particular, become so wedded to a particular narrative that propping it up becomes almost a crusade. Something like Orr's theory is way more interesting and fun. (As you probably know, pretend lawyer and certified nutcase Sandy Larsen still thinks he kicked my butt on the money order issue and regards it as one of his great triumphs. I finally traced through ALL the federal regulations dating back to the 1800s and was something like 10,000 words into THE definitive article on the money order silliness - which IS silliness - before saying "Oh, for God's sake, I have better things to do with my life than this.")

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.

My point was just that exactly what the bullet hit and how its path might have been altered seem to be very much open issues. Orr doesn't seem to me to be suggesting anything too wild.

Lest we forget, Orr was a respected and honored official in the Antitrust Division of the USDOJ and, while still in that position, submitted his report to Attorney General Janet Reno in hopes of reopening the JFKA investigation. He may have made errors, but I have to believe he wasn't playing fast and loose with the facts.

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.

Cool! One of our homes was right next to a cemetery. I could never understand why realtors considered that a negative. I can't imagine a more peaceful and reflective place to live - we loved it. My own religious beliefs are such that (1) I have been banned, multiple times, from literally every major Christian forum, and banned so many times from City-Data that I ("Irkle Berserkle" in my most famous persona) am something of a legend there, and (2) on said forums, I am routinely described as a "fundie" by the atheists and "not a Christian at all" by the fundies. I regard (1) and (2) as proof that I'm on the right path or at least pretty close.

[Charles Collins]

I absolutely claim no status beyond hobbyist either, and the JFKA would be about tenth in my list of hobbies and interests. When I exposed the money order silliness after about an hour on Google, I was amused to find myself referred to on a couple of sites as "researcher Lance Payette." Gee, is that what it takes to be a researcher? Oh-so-serious Dan O'Meara doesn't seem to grasp that my references to myself as a Serious and Dedicated Researcher are entirely tongue-in-cheek. What I don't understand is why folks, LNers in particular, become so wedded to a particular narrative that propping it up becomes almost a crusade. Something like Orr's theory is way more interesting and fun. (As you probably know, pretend lawyer and certified nutcase Sandy Larsen still thinks he kicked my butt on the money order issue and regards it as one of his great triumphs. I finally traced through ALL the federal regulations dating back to the 1800s and was something like 10,000 words into THE definitive article on the money order silliness - which IS silliness - before saying "Oh, for God's sake, I have better things to do with my life than this.")
My point was just that exactly what the bullet hit and how its path might have been altered seem to be very much open issues. Orr doesn't seem to me to be suggesting anything too wild.

Lest we forget, Orr was a respected and honored official in the Antitrust Division of the USDOJ and, while still in that position, submitted his report to Attorney General Janet Reno in hopes of reopening the JFKA investigation. He may have made errors, but I have to believe he wasn't playing fast and loose with the facts.

Cool! One of our homes was right next to a cemetery. I could never understand why realtors considered that a negative. I can't imagine a more peaceful and reflective place to live - we loved it. My own religious beliefs are such that (1) I have been banned, multiple times, from literally every major Christian forum, and banned so many times from City-Data that I ("Irkle Berserkle" in my most famous persona) am something of a legend there, and (2) on said forums, I am routinely described as a "fundie" by the atheists and "not a Christian at all" by the fundies. I regard (1) and (2) as proof that I'm on the right path or at least pretty close.

What I don't understand is why folks, LNers in particular, become so wedded to a particular narrative that propping it up becomes almost a crusade. Something like Orr's theory is way more interesting and fun.

That last sentence nails the reason why I think that the controversy continues.




Lest we forget, Orr was a respected and honored official in the Antitrust Division of the USDOJ and, while still in that position, submitted his report to Attorney General Janet Reno in hopes of reopening the JFKA investigation. He may have made errors, but I have to believe he wasn't playing fast and loose with the facts.

Let’s hear from another respected and honored official of the USDOJ. Howard Willens was an integral part and a leader of the Warren Commission staff. Here is part of what he had to say about the SBT from his book “History Will Prove Us Right”:

“ It was incredible to us then—and to me some fifty years later—that the members would reject persuasive scientific and other evidence in order to avoid suggesting that a single prestigious witness may have been incorrect in assessing, from memories of a traumatic event, which bullet hit him.”

.
.
.

“ the single-bullet conclusion was the only supportable interpretation of all the evidence”


It is still the only supportable interpretation of all the evidence over 61-years later. Have fun as long as you wish with the wanna be ideas. When you decide you want answers, I suggest that you start listening to “the crusaders”.

[Jack Nessan]

What I don't understand is why folks, LNers in particular, become so wedded to a particular narrative that propping it up becomes almost a crusade. Something like Orr's theory is way more interesting and fun.

That last sentence nails the reason why I think that the controversy continues.




Lest we forget, Orr was a respected and honored official in the Antitrust Division of the USDOJ and, while still in that position, submitted his report to Attorney General Janet Reno in hopes of reopening the JFKA investigation. He may have made errors, but I have to believe he wasn't playing fast and loose with the facts.

Let’s hear from another respected and honored official of the USDOJ. Howard Willens was an integral part and a leader of the Warren Commission staff. Here is part of what he had to say about the SBT from his book “History Will Prove Us Right”:

“ It was incredible to us then—and to me some fifty years later—that the members would reject persuasive scientific and other evidence in order to avoid suggesting that a single prestigious witness may have been incorrect in assessing, from memories of a traumatic event, which bullet hit him.”

.
.
.

“ the single-bullet conclusion was the only supportable interpretation of all the evidence”


It is still the only supportable interpretation of all the evidence over 61-years later. Have fun as long as you wish with the wanna be ideas. When you decide you want answers, I suggest that you start listening to “the crusaders”.

Spot on. The Orr theory is flawed in a number of ways. Not even worth a second look.

[Lance Payette]

Spot on. The Orr theory is flawed in a number of ways. Not even worth a second look.

Would that be because it differs from YOUR two-shot theory, about which Charles and others here (but not me!) would say and have said the same things? Oh, the ironies abound at JFKA forums. If folks of the caliber of Larry Schnapf think Orr's theory is worth considerably more than a second look, I'm at least going to listen.