Customer Reviews

JFK. Analysis of a Shooting: The Ultimate Ballistics Truth Exposed

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

This book makes a major contribution to the Kennedy Assassination literature, and I am displeased by what the first reviewer said.

First, he criticizes Martin for suggesting that the bullet that struck Kennedy in the back came out his chest. The reviewer said there was "no evidence" for that. Well, if you dismiss the magic bullet theory and the idea that it was found unscathed on a stretcher in Parkland Hospital as nonsense, then you are left not knowing what happened to that bullet. It definitely struck Kennedy in the back, adjacent to the third thoracic vertebra. We have all seen the bullet hole. Something must have happened to the bullet. So what did happen? Did it fall out? But how? He was wearing several layers of clothing. Why wasn't it found? How could it disappear? There are theories that it might have been a "sabot" bullet designed to leave evidence, presumably to implicate Oswald. Very interesting. But still, the question remains: what happened to it? So, I think Orlando may be on to something in saying that the bullet did what bullets flying at over 2000 feet per second do: it went through Kennedy. Why wasn't it noticed at Parkland Hospital? I don't know, but why was the back entry wound not noticed at Parkland Hospital? There were 17 doctors looking at him.

I have communicated with Orlando Martin about this, and he thinks that it may have exited below Kennedy's armpit, and if they cut his shirt off and left the sleeves, maybe it was inconspicuous. Is it a speculation? Of course. But just remember: this is an area of the assassination that lacks definitive answers. So, I think this new theory of Orlando's is worth considering. Why dismiss it so fast when, to date, no one has provided proof of anything else?

So, I admit that his speculation about a chest exit wound in Kennedy is by no means certain. But, I consider that the only major point of contention in the book. His take on the first shot which missed is very detailed and compelling. His take on the fatal head shot is very interesting, reflecting his in-depth knowledge as an Army sharpshooter and ballistics expert. And his treatment of the sniper locations and the reasons why Oswald could not have taken any shot at all that day are very compelling.

Yes, the book is amateurish with regard to editing. And no one is going to accuse Mr. Martin of being the most polished writer in the world. But why be petty? It isn't that bad. Believe me, you will be enthralled with much of the content, and you are definitely going to get your money's worth.

Despite its shortcomings, this book makes a meaningful and valuable contribution to JFK assassination literature. Orlando knows guns, and he knows ballistics. Martin talks about the left-to-right trajectory of the bullet that struck Kennedy in the back. That is not in dispute, but how many reviewers mention it? Oswald was to the right of Kennedy, so any bullet he might have fired, by necessity, would have had a right-to-left trajectory. He talks about the angle of entry, which was much steeper than what would have come from a shot taken from the 6th floor Depository.

There is a lot of substance in this book. Orlando Martin cannot be glibly dismissed- even if you don't agree with him about everything.

A micro view of the assassination.
Forgive the poor expression and spelling and bow to the author's specialist knowledge which allows him to offer the last word on the mechanics of the shooting.

I can't vouch for everything Orlando says, but after reading his book, there is no doubt in my mind that President Kennedy was killed by multiple shooters from different directions, and therefore, there was a conspiracy. It's obvious that Mr. Martin is an expert when it comes to guns and bullets and ballistics. His explanation of why the bullet that struck Kennedy' head had to be a different kind of bullet than the one that hit his back, one that was designed to explode, really rang true to me. I'm glad I read this book, and I recommend it highly.

This book is billed by the publisher as a comprehensive analysis of the ballistics of the JFK assassination, but it falls woefully short. The author spends a great deal of time demolishing the single-bullet theory, but substitutes an equally implausible theory that the neck/back wound bullet exited Kennedy's chest -- an assertion that has no evidence at all.
Next, the author demonstrates a slavish belief in the Zapruder film, when there is growing evidence (see Assassination Science) that it was doctored.
Occasionally, the non-ballistic content descends into buffoonery, as when the author finds sinister motives in the failure of the Parkland doctors to preserve evidence.The author apparently does not realize that they were trying to save Kennedy's life.
Finally, the editing of this book is the most amateurish I have seen in years. There is on average one major error per page.
For example, we are twice told that JFK was "the dully-elected
President." The editor or author consistently uses "in lieu of"
when apparently he means "in view of." Other howlers include "decease" for "disease" and "seize" for "cease."
In short, don't waste your time or money on this book.

Got a little confused by the startling Publisher's Disclaimer where they say something to the effect that Martin's scientific approach is unorthodox - how? - lasers?; and by the upfront statement by the author that no shots came from the 6th floor of the SBD. (I think there are two Depository workers who watched the motorcade from the *5th* floor who would disagree).

But, reading on: this author makes a very compelling case that more than one bullet-type was used at Dealey Plaza - or at least the fatal shot came not from a Carcano. He also postulates that "evidence" should never serve as a block to speculation and study of alternatives.

To this Reviewer, it's very plausible that LHO was involved in a [rogue] CIA/Mob driven plot, which involved, among other things, the delivery of his 12.78 rifle to his place of employment - to be easily found and traced. This Author's work, as awkward (some poorly presented quotable quotes from witnesses and even himself) and redundant as it is in spots, provides solid support for that theory.

Book includes some graphic photos.

I thought it would be refreshing to read a book on the Kennedy assassination written by someone who knows guns. Unfortunately, this book was poorly written and poorly proofed. Spelling errors seemed to be the things that spellcheck won't find, such as "core" for "corps". The author often used the wrong word, one that sounded similar to the correct one. I would like to see this book reissued with the help of a tough editor. Much of its analysis seemed credible (unlike most other analysis of the Kennedy shooting).

Fast service on a quality book written by someone who seems to have really studied this event, having himself been a soldier who knows firearms. very well written, easy to understand. Shocking to comprehend.

Only someone unfamiliar with the JFK assassination could find anything useful about this book. Basically it fails to uncover 'ballistics truth' and instead invents a new wound in JFK's back, supposedly exiting his chest area which none of the medical professionals in attendance at Parkland hospital saw. It was not noted at the autopsy either. There is simply no evidence from anywhere that such a wound was filled in with mortician's wax (as the author suggests). Sorry Mr Martin, but you cannot just make up a new wound in an attempt to explain something that you think you might have seen in the discredited (i.e. faked) Zapruder film.

Also, how can JFK possibly have been shot in the back with a bullet passing through him, presumably shattering a rib or two in the process, but make no obvious sound or sign of being hit? No blood or tissue emerging from the exit wound? No yell of pain? According to Martin JFK was then hit in the throat several seconds after this back wound. So, JFK just sat upright looking pretty comfortable for maybe 6 seconds after receiving a bullet wound in his back that passed through his chest before being hit finally in the head?

The book is full of spelling and grammatical errors, and full of 'padding'; there is about 20 pages maximum of genuine ballistic analysis, the remainder of the material looks like it has been downloaded from Wikipedia to pad out the required number of pages. Orlando Martin knows very little about the JFK assassination and it shows.

I had high hopes for Orlando Martin's book. A thorough, detailed, and unbiased look at the ballistics in the JFK case has never been done before. Unfortunately, despite Martin's claim of exposing the ultimate truth, it still has not. Like so many of the other JFK-related books published over the last 46 years, JFK. Analysis of a Shooting proved to be a huge disappointment. According to Martin he spent nearly three years researching "the many elements of the assassination of President Kennedy" before he reached his conclusions. (Martin, p. xiii) That three years is no where near long enough to master the massive amount of evidence in this case is clearly evident throughout this slim volume. Errors of fact permeate Martin's writing and, as we shall see, he makes one huge gaffe that completely destroys the credibility of his reconstruction.

Before we get to the major flaws, as I see them, I should note that Martin makes a good case for why the President's fatal head shot could not have come from Oswald's rifle. As he writes, the bullet which caused this wound, "completely disintegrated upon impacting the President's head." (p.74) Indeed, as anyone familiar with the Warren Commission testimony knows, when the skull X-rays were viewed during the autopsy at Bethesda, they revealed 30 to 40 tiny fragments scattered throughout the brain. (2H353) Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman described this dispersion of bullet fragments as looking "like a little mass of stars." (ibid 100) Martin notes that this fact "gives irrefutable testament to one ballistic fact; this projectile could not have been a standard, copper-jacketed Carcano bullet." (p. 74) He goes on to discuss Gary Mack's terrible Inside the Target Car and explains that without intending to, the show actually proved Martin's point: "Both of the shots that his [Mack's] shooter took at the heads with the 6.5 mm rifle penetrated and completely traversed their targets without disintegrating, or deflecting." Additionally, "these bullets continued flying a straight course, in their whole states, with the potential to inflict further harm." (p. 86)

Martin contends that the President's head was struck by only one bullet; a "frangible" round fired from the grassy knoll. (pgs. 76-77) Many will find this hard to accept in light of the fact that the autopsy surgeons claimed to have located an entrance hole in the back of the head, "2.5 cm, laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance." (Autopsy Protocol, p. 4, ARRB MD 3) But the simple truth is that the current set of autopsy materials do not show the entrance hole Dr s. Humes and Boswell described in their report. Doug Horne revealed in his recent multi-volume set, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, that during its tenure the ARRB asked three independent forensic specialists to review the JFK autopsy collection. Apparently the evidence is ambiguous enough that the three experts disagreed on a number of issues. But there was one point upon which they were unanimous: No entry wound in the back of the head can be seen on the X-rays! (Horne, pgs. 584-586) Warren Commission apologists will, of course, point to the infamous "red spot" seen in the cowlick area of the autopsy photos of the back of the head. The problem they face is that the autopsy doctors were adamant in their discussions with the HSCA that the "red spot" did not represent an entry wound in the scalp. Dr. Humes flatly stated, "I don't know what that [the red spot] is. No. 1, I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don't know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of entrance." (7HSCA254)

Unfortunately, the bad far outweighs the good in JFK. Analysis of a Shooting and I must now move on to the former. Like Gerald Posner and Dale Myers before him, Martin tries to make a case for an early missed shot. He places the shot around Zapruder frames 150 to 154 and the only evidence he can offer to support his contention is Connally's rightward head-snap between frames 162 and 163. (p. 26) Like Myers and Posner, Martin expects us to believe that this is in accordance with Connally's testimony regarding his reaction to hearing the first shot. But it is not. Connally did not say he simply looked to his right upon hearing the sound of gunfire, he said he turned to his right to try to get a look behind him at President Kennedy:

"We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I though was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder. So I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt. So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back." [emphasis mine] (4H132-133)

The meaning of Connally's testimony is clear: He wanted to see what was happening behind him, not next to him. The Zapruder film clearly shows that Connally does not begin to make his rightward turn until after he reappears from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign at frame 224.

Martin makes the claim that the Warren Commission failed to utilize or publish the pre-surgery X-rays of Governor Connally and that consequently, "crucial and revealing ballistics facts concerning the President's shooting could not be assessed." (p. xiv) To be honest, I did not recall seeing them myself and was initially inclined to believe that he had put his finger on something significant here. However, after a little double-checking to refresh my memory, I found that the X-rays were published in Warren Commission volume 17 (exhibits 690-696) and that Connally's surgeons did in fact examine them during their testimonies. (4H106) And what's more, prior to performing their tests aimed at replicating Connally's wounds, the Commission's ballistics experts at Edgewood Arsenal had also studied the X-rays. (5H81) This type of mistake goes to heart of the problems with Martin's book because it demonstrates that he has not studied the official record concerning the ballistics evidence for himself. How then could he be expected to expose the "ultimate ballistics truth"?

His lack of familiarity with the official record causes the author to make a number of beginners mistakes. For example, he writes matter of factly that the bullet which struck Connally was "flying sideways" and the entrance wound in his back was "three centimetres long." (Martin, p. 36) This myth has been propagated by Warren Commission defenders for decades, in order to provide support for the SBT, but it is refuted by the actual evidence. Dr. Robert Shaw, Connally's thoracic surgeon, testified that the wound was only 1.5 cm long. (6H85) Three centimetres was the length of the wound after it was surgically enlarged. (ibid 88) In his book Case Closed author Gerald Posner claimed that since Dr. Shaw's original operating notes only mentioned the 3 cm measurement, his recollection had been "influenced by Connally's early opinion that he was hit by a separate bullet from the one that hit JFK." (Posner, p. 336n) What Posner chose to ignore was the concrete corroboration for Shaw's testimony provided by the holes in Connally's shirt and jacket--measuring 1.3 and 1.7 cm respectively. (7HSCA138-141) Martin makes another rookie error when he postulates that the fourth shot fired in Dealey Plaza struck only the governor's wrist (with a fragment going on to injure the thigh). (Martin, p. 71) Had he studied the testimony of Dr. Alfred Olivier, he would have discovered that the tests performed at Edgewood Arsenal showed that the wrist could not have been the first impact point of a bullet. If it had been, as Dr. Olivier testified, the wrist "would have had a larger exit wound than an entrance wound" which it did not. (5H83) Additionally, Connally's wrist surgeon Dr. Charles Gregory testified that "it was evident early that clot had been carried into the wound from the dorsal surface to the bone and into the fracture. This would imply that an irregular missile [my emphasis] had passed through the wrist." (6H98) Dr. Olivier concurred that the wrist "wasn't struck by a pristine bullet"--a fact which of itself destroys the SBT.

One thing that surprised me was to find Martin making invalid criticisms of the Parkland doctors. For example, he writes that "no photographs are known to have been taken by attending medical personnel...of Governor Connally's chest exit wound, his wrist entry and exit wounds, or his left thigh wound." According to Martin taking such photographs "should have been the most basic and essential element of any ballistics investigation conducted." (p. 56) Of course, it hardly needs to be pointed out that photographically documenting the wounds of a serious gunshot victim is not now and never has been the concern of an emergency room physician. But Martin goes much further than this. The doctors at Parkland, he says, "handled the medical evidence under their control in an irresponsible, dubious and highly suspicious manner." (p. 95) To buttress this incredible claim he writes that the physicians must have been aware that "the condition of the nearly intact bullet found in their hospital" contradicted the SBT but "made no direct adverse comments regarding this consequential element of the shooting." (ibid) It is difficult to know where to begin with this nonsense because it is wrong on every level. Firstly, the doctors were not present when a bullet was found at Parkland so they never saw it. Secondly, the Commission never proved that CE399 was that same bullet. Thirdly the majority of the Parkland doctors were never shown CE399. And finally one of the two who were shown the bullet, Dr. Shaw, did object to its near-pristine condition. During his testimony, Dr. Shaw politely told Arlen Specter that he felt "that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds as being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet." (4H114) I can only conclude that Martin wanted to paint a negative picture of the Parkland doctors so that his readers would find it easier to accept what follows.

Martin believes that the second bullet fired entered the President's back and went on to strike Connally under the right armpit, yet he rightly asserts that the wound in JFK's throat was too high to have been the exit for this projectile. So how does he get around this major problem? By asserting that there must have been a hitherto undisclosed wound in the top of President Kennedy's chest! (pgs. 38-51) I kid you not, Orlando Martin has invented a new wound to JFK's body--a wound not seen by a single eyewitness in Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital or Bethesda Naval Hospital. When I read this preposterous claim I nearly dropped the book in shock and disgust. It appears that Martin has managed to convince himself of this nonsensical theory by buying into David Lifton's long-discredited body alteration hypothesis and by being completely ignorant of the real evidence of the case.

According to Martin, in their efforts to save Kennedy's life, the Parkland physicians "primarily focused on the head wound" and consequently "his clothes were not removed." (p. 54) As a result, they did not see the exit wound in his chest. A la Lifton, Martin then has the body being stolen aboard Air Force One and the imaginary chest wound "filled in, most likely with wax resin mixed with a hardening compound." (p. 51) Most likely? This is "most likely"? Is it also "most likely" that when the autopsy surgeons opened up the chest and removed the President's internal organs they missed this wax-filled exit cavity? Not hardly.

It is a shame that nobody saw fit to tell Orlando Martin that, contrary to Lifton's claim, there was never any opportunity for the body to be stolen. As historian David Wrone explained in his book, The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination, "Lifton omits from his account that the body was wet, dripping in blood and other fluids that, when lifted from the coffin, would have left telltale signs and alerted aides, crew, and guards...Further, when the pallbearers placed the coffin on board, steel wrapping cables were placed around it and its lid to prevent shifting during takeoff and landing and in case of air disturbances in flight, as must be done to cargo on airplanes for safety. Removing and replacing such cables would have required time and opportunity that were unavailable to any would-be conspirators. In addition, the casket was under ample armed guard at all times during the flight, a fact that Lifton neglects to mention." (Wrone, p. 133) In 1987, long-time aide and friend to President Kennedy Dave Powers gave an interview to author Harrison Livingstone in which he swore that "the coffin was never unattended. Lifton's theory is the biggest pack of malarkey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it during the period he says it was unattended...not even thirty seconds. I never left it. There was a general watch. We organized it." (Livingstone, High Treason, P. 35)

But Martin could have saved himself from a whole lot more embarrassment if he'd just read the official testimony for himself--something it is obvious he never did. If he had then he would have come across this crucial exchange in the testimony of Dr. Charles Carrico:

SPECTER: Was any heartbeat noted at his arrival?
CARRICO: After these initial observations we opened his shirt, coat, listened very briefly to his chest, heard a few sounds which we felt to be heartbeats and then proceeded with the remainder of the examination.
SPECTER: In your opinion was President Kennedy alive or dead on his arrival at Parkland.
CARRICO: From a medical standpoint I suppose he was still alive in that he did still have a heartbeat?
SPECTER: What action, if any, was taken with respect to the removal of President Kennedy's clothing?
CARRICO: As I said after I had opened his shirt and coat, I proceeded with the examination and the nurses reomoved his clothing as is the usual procedure.
SPECTER: Was President Kennedy wearing a back brace?
CARRICO: Yes; he was.
SPECTER: Would you describe as precisely as you can that back brace?
CARRICO: As I recall, this was a white cotton or some sort of fiber standard brace with stays and corset, in a corset-type arrangement and buckles.
SPECTER: How far up on his body did it come?
CARRICO: Just below his umbilicus, as I recall.
SPECTER: How far down on his body did it go?
CARRICO: I did not examine below his belt at that time.
SPECTER: Did you at any time examine below his belt?
CARRICO: I did not; no, sir. [My emphasis]

Martin should also have studied the testimony of Carrico's colleagues at Parkland, where he would have found ample corroboration, and Commission Exhibits 393 and 394--the President's coat and shirt. If he had taken the time to view the later he would not only have seen for himself the cuts made by the nurses' scissors but also the fact that there is no bullet hole in the front of the jacket or the chest area of the shirt. The evidence is absolutely 100% conclusive that JFK's clothing was removed at Parkland Hospital. It is a thoroughly documented, established, uncontested fact. An error like this reveals an unbelievable degree of ignorance that ruins the credibility of Martin's work.

There are many other problems with JFK. Analysis of a shooting, but once you're aware of the above there is really little need to elaborate. In a recent online exchange, I made Orlando Martin aware of the information above but, I'm sad to say, it did little good. His reply: "Neither you or I, nor anyone else reading this, will ever know with complete certainty what actually transpired at Parkland Hospital, inside the aircraft, or at the autopsy. We were not there."

I guess you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink

I found this book very facinating. The Author did his home work. Quite detailed book. It sheds a great deal of light on the events of that day.

Martin Ullstrup