Jim Fetzer & Conspiracies

[I Ratant]

What always gets me is how irrelevant both the quality of the weapon involved, and the quality of Oswald's marksmanship, are in this matter. If anyone points a rifle in the general direction of the person they intend to kill, and knows enough about the use of the weapon to fire it, they might just score a lucky killing shot, purely by chance. However bad their rifle allegedly is, or however bad the scope on top of it allegedly is, or however bad their marksmanship skills allegedly are.

One characteristic of conspiracy theorists is that they refuse to believe anything bad can ever happen through coincidence and sheer bad luck (or through sheer good luck, depending on which side you're on).

.
The Italian Army was so content with the Carcano that when they adopted the NATO style rifle to be compatible with NATO, their shooting team continued to use the Carcano.
The fixed sights on the service weapon were designed to place a bullet between the belt and upper chest of a enemy combatant, with the sights aligned at the belt line. The trajectory is flat enough so that the target will be hit between the belt line and the upper chest at any range out to 300 meters!
As LHOLN fired the rifle using an unconventional hold, butt on the left shoulder, according to Marina, the scope would be less useful than the fixed sights.

 

[FromBelgiumWithLove]

.
The Italian Army was so content with the Carcano that when they adopted the NATO style rifle to be compatible with NATO, their shooting team continued to use the Carcano.

Indeed. From what I've read/seen about it (I don't know all that much about firearms, never even having held one in my life), the Carcano was a reliable and accurate rifle, and Oswald's USMC records show him to have been a very good shot.

But even lousy shooters, with lousy weapons, can also kill, by pure luck. It happens all the time in the US, where sometimes even toddlers manage to accidentally kill people with a single shot, fired by accident. Heck, the Czech resistance managed to kill Reinhard Heydrich, even though both of the lousy stenguns the assassins had been provided with by the British malfunctioned. On the other hand, De Gaulle survived a very well-planned and carried out assassination attempt only by virtue of being in a car with front wheel drive and hydropneumatic suspension, that could still be driven with one rear wheel shot away. It's very often the luck of the draw that matters, not how competent the assassin is, or how good his weapon.

 

[dudalb]

THe Carcano got it's bad reputation because the Ammo used by the Italian Army in World War 2 was often of poor quality,and it was underpowered anyway.Why remains a mystery, since the Carcano was capable of handling much more powerful cartridges. With good ammo, it was a fine rifle.
But the most idiotic of all the JFK assination firearms nonsense is that Oswald could not have gotten off all the shots with a bolt action rifle. Anybody who has actually used one should consign that straight to the nonsense file.

 

[Horatius]

But the most idiotic of all the JFK assination firearms nonsense is that Oswald could not have gotten off all the shots with a bolt action rifle. Anybody who has actually used one should consign that straight to the nonsense file.

Best example of debunking this ever, from Alex Jones of all people:


http://youtu.be/wy9e1AIEc1E?t=6m


...not that he realizes he debunks it. Count the shots.

Five!

 

[Tomtomkent]

THe Carcano got it's bad reputation because the Ammo used by the Italian Army in World War 2 was often of poor quality,and it was underpowered anyway.Why remains a mystery, since the Carcano was capable of handling much more powerful cartridges. With good ammo, it was a fine rifle.
But the most idiotic of all the JFK assination firearms nonsense is that Oswald could not have gotten off all the shots with a bolt action rifle. Anybody who has actually used one should consign that straight to the nonsense file.

For what it's worth: the ammo was possibly a result of Mussolini's self sufficiency policy I believe. Buying Italian and using inferior ersatz components to avoid importing.

 

[I Ratant]

Best example of debunking this ever, from Alex Jones of all people:


http://youtu.be/wy9e1AIEc1E?t=6m


...not that he realizes he debunks it. Count the shots.

Five!

.
I've wondered if there's a continuous film strip of the shooting in "JFK", when the stop watch is started -before- the first shot.. Something that would permit timing the actual shot sequence.. ???

 

[I Ratant]

Talking to Howard Donahue (author of "Mortal Error") years back, he mentioned the rifle had been tested by many people, none of whom felt any need to clean it after use, and the barrel had degraded to being unsafe to shoot.

 

[dudalb]

.
I've wondered if there's a continuous film strip of the shooting in "JFK", when the stop watch is started -before- the first shot.. Something that would permit timing the actual shot sequence.. ???

Oliver Stone's "JFK" is, frankly, one big pile of crap. The "impossible to get off all the shots" is one of the worst distortions.

 

[I Ratant]

Yeah,but is it possible to find a continuous clip of that, where say the sound track can be seen in an editor and the shot sequence noted in real time?
Any cuts away from that scene might screw up the sound track, though.

 

[Redwood]

THe Carcano got it's bad reputation because the Ammo used by the Italian Army in World War 2 was often of poor quality,and it was underpowered anyway.Why remains a mystery, since the Carcano was capable of handling much more powerful cartridges. With good ammo, it was a fine rifle.
But the most idiotic of all the JFK assination firearms nonsense is that Oswald could not have gotten off all the shots with a bolt action rifle. Anybody who has actually used one should consign that straight to the nonsense file.

The Carcano rifle design in quite good, but surplus specimens that showed up were often badly maintained and in some cases the workmanship itself was poor, especially wartime production.

Ironically, the heavy bullet used in military ammo made for mediocre performance, as it is over-penetrating, which allowed Oswald to wound both JFK and Gov. Connally with one shot. The Italian Army would have done better with a lighter bullet loaded to a higher velocity.

 

[I Ratant]

The 6.5mm Carcano bullet was called a "flying drill", based on the -feet- of pine boards it could penetrate.
That penetration turned out to less than useful when Italy invaded Ethiopia, as the Ethiopian soldiers wore loose robes, no thick uniforms, so the bullet would zip on through too frequently without disabling the target .
The Carcano bullet was changed to a 7.35mm composite bullet for that reason.
It would tumble in the target, creating massive internal trauma.
Some of the Carcano's available are 7.35, and not 6.5 as a result. Same cartridge, necked up to the larger caliber. And rebarreled of course.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The primary mistake a lot of CT advocates make is in thinking that the consensus is with anything other than the Warren Commission narrative. They feel that because the majority of people believe in a conspiracy, that is the consensus. But....

There is no unified field theory of conspiracy. There is no conspiracy theory with a popular enough support, least of all among those within academic fields on whose studies we can form a consensus, to or even a viable alternative. A null that there was a conspiracy of some kind and all evidence can be honest or faked as required is a none sense.

Show me theory built on tangible and documented evidence that explains events in a way that better fits all evidence and I will consider the null over turned.

Unfortunately human nature fights against this. Even the smartest and most scholarly advocates of alternate theories have fallen for the three-cite-flaw, where bad evidence is taken for the truth if it is cited three times (so for example try and research JFK and you will find it very easy to be convinced six shots were fired or the front yard photos were faked from the number of times these are stated as fact, with the citations all tracing back to the same origin).

The "bad rifle" is a prime example of this. CT advocates are not intending to be untruthful, but it is so often repeated they assume it to be true with out considering a need to check. It can appear as obvious as the date, or the names of the victims.

 

[I Ratant]

I was kinda CT oriented on this based on the popular views, but after looking at one of the conspiracy novels, and comparing that to the WCR, the intent to deceive was obvious in the novel, and all those I've picked up or looked at subsequently.

 

[Redwood]

It all makes sense, now!

Originally Posted by Matthew Cline
It would seem that, in Fetzer's world, conspirators do things in a way that maximizes how much they have to fake and how much could go wrong, rather than minimize it.

That's what happens when you reverse-engineer contingency into a purely normative conspiracy- you end up, through your own effort, with a maximized pile of things you need to explain away, with no evidence that these things actually happened, only your necessity for them to support your "theory." If you disbelieve the autopsy report which shows that all shots came from behind, you need to invent a scenario in which the body is (somehow) altered on the plane, another scenario where there are (somehow) shooters in front, another scenario where Oswald is (somehow) framed (for both JFK and Tippit), etc., etc...You've reasoned backward from a conclusion unsupported by anything but scenarios, certainly no evidence for them, and the "somehows" are simply taken for granted, since it's a given property of conspiracies that, whatever they need to do to be a conspiracy, they are able to do; the more you make up, the more you need to make up, until the whole thing is a pile of "explanations" resting, like an inverted pyramid, on the point of the conclusion, instead of a conclusion resting on a foundation of evidence. Or, to put it another way- conclusions are properly a sum of evidence; in CT methodology, the "evidence" is the conclusion multiplied by itself over and over and over and...

I ran across an amusing example of that in perusing an old 9/11 thread:

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
um, Malcom, you seem to have forgotten t[h]at you made much of supposed pedophile connections to 9/11. will you be getting to that sometime soon?

If you were David Rockefeller, would you promote some donkey to be POTUS without having something on him that could finish him in a heartbeat.

Homosexuality is a bit passe these days, paedophilia would be a lot better. You find some wannabe politicians, invite them to a weekend in Bohemian Grove. You keep the 'players' and sack the rest. Now you have puppets, all ready and eager to dance to your tune. Check out "Conspiracy of Silence" and "The Franklin Cover Up".

Boystown, no doubt started in good faith, would soon become a magnet for paedophiles etc. Next, you get your political puppets to mix civilian in with military and you have a ready made airfield 20 mins from Boystown.
You can now ship paedo's in and kids out, maybe down to DC for the weekend.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2645806&postcount=161

 

[SpitfireIX]

Ah, good old Malcolm. Probably my "favorite" conspiracy theorist of all time. The guy's a walking, talking Stundie factory.

 

[CompusMentus]

Back to our Jim.........

HERE you'll find one of his interminable blog articles which help to sum up the usual Fetzer output. It is a typical mish-mash of conjecture, speculation, assumption and the outright fabrication of fact.

A particularly amusing example:-

(3) The planted fuselage

Later, of course, debris would start showing up. Since there was none even as the fire trucks were extinguishing the fires, it has to have come from somewhere. It would have been difficult to have had officers and enlisted men carry pieces of debris out onto the lawn without being observed, so it has occurred to me that perhaps it was dropped from a C-130, which was circling the Pentagon that morning. That’s my best guess. I am open to other possibilities, but I haven’t been able to think of real alternatives.

My bold.

<Sigh>

Compus

 

[trustbutverify]

Later, of course, debris would start showing up. Since there was none even as the fire trucks were extinguishing the fires, it has to have come from somewhere. It would have been difficult to have had officers and enlisted men carry pieces of debris out onto the lawn without being observed, so it has occurred to me that perhaps it was dropped from a C-130, which was circling the Pentagon that morning. That’s my best guess. I am open to other possibilities, but I haven’t been able to think of real alternatives.

People carrying aircraft debris onto the Pentagon lawn would have been too obvious, but a massive plane dropping tons of parts would have escaped detection?

What a brilliant "scholar".

 

[carlitos]

It's not like there were any cars driving by at the time, looking at the burning Pentagon...

 

[frenat]

It's not like there were any cars driving by at the time, looking at the burning Pentagon...

In a city that has many thousands of tourists each day.

 

[Redwood]

Back to our Jim.........

HERE you'll find one of his interminable blog articles which help to sum up the usual Fetzer output. It is a typical mish-mash of conjecture, speculation, assumption and the outright fabrication of fact.

A particularly amusing example:-

Originally Posted by Fetzer
(3) The planted fuselage

Later, of course, debris would start showing up. Since there was none even as the fire trucks were extinguishing the fires, it has to have come from somewhere. It would have been difficult to have had officers and enlisted men carry pieces of debris out onto the lawn without being observed, so it has occurred to me that perhaps it was dropped from a C-130, which was circling the Pentagon that morning. That’s my best guess. I am open to other possibilities, but I haven’t been able to think of real alternatives.

My bold.

<Sigh>

Compus

Musta been one helluva expert crew, pushing a bunch of debris with a low weight to surface area ratio, thus subject to random air drafts (like the backwash of a C-130 ) and have it land anywhere near the right spot!

They must have practiced that maneuver dozens of times before they got it right! Or maybe the debris had guidance systems to bring it to the right spot?