• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
If the conspirators' aim was to make Oswald the "lone gunman" patsy, why did they employ another assassin in another location to make a shot that Oswald couldn't possibly have made?
 
Jango said:
1. Lol. More Sgt. Schultzism. Read the Huffington Post article Axx posted.

2. No *********** ****. Is English not your primary language? Tell me what is and I'll say what I've already specifically said to you 2-3 times now.
Click to expand...

I read the testimony of SS Hill and his memorandum for the record decades ago. I didn't see a Huffington post article from Axxman cited. I did see his testimony referenced.

You can say it as many times as you like. Repeating a claim a multitude of times doesn't make it any truer than it was initially. Yours is simply an assumption that you've posted here as a fact. And nothing you've posted since has proven that assumption true.

EDIT: Went back and see I overlooked the citation to a claim in a book published decades after the fact. I'll stick with his original not-for-profit claims, thanks.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Hans said:
Hank

Jango is intelligent and he knows the concept but his ego won't allow him to accept the fact that his acceptance of other opinions as 'facts' and expressing them as such has blown up in his face.

He will continue to act the juvenile until he can find some way to change the subject way from this embarrassing failure.
Click to expand...

There's always the 40 medical witnesses!
 
HSienzant said:
Hate to be a party poop, but where can I go to apply for the job I'm now doing for free?

All we're asking for is your evidence. I knew going in you didn't have any, so I knew all along it would end up this way. With you pretending we're being unreasonable for asking you to prove your assertions.

Hank
Click to expand...
Jango said:
Sure you are. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, I am. If you know of where I can apply for a paycheck for this, by all means, send me the info.

Below is my original post to you on the subject of Jackie going onto the trunk to retrieve ejecta. I see you still haven't proven the claim I questioned:

Jango said:
I'll try.
* Mrs. Kennedy scrambles unto the trunk to retrieve the ejecta from the back of President Kennedy's head.
Click to expand...
HSienzant said:
And you saw all this in the Zapruder film? I emphasized the questionable statement above.

Can you tell me specifically (where & in what frames) you see ejecta on the trunk, or damage to the back President Kennedy's head? I believe a strong case can be made that you got at least as much wrong as Rather.

And a conservative guess would be you've seen it a couple hundred times - often stabilized, zoomed-in, and in slow-motion? Right?

Rather had none of those advantages. Cut the man some slack.

What was your point in bringing up what Rather said?

Hank
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Jango said:
Again, you guys fail to amaze me.

When I go for accountability with, say, 9/11, the world is coming to an end given all the bitching and moaning. But if someone questions the official narrative y'all are paid to rigorously defend on a daily basis, I MUST COME UP WITH A 100% AIRTIGHT COUNTER-THEORY OR IT NEVER HAPPENED!!!!!!!!

Lol.
Click to expand...

Where specifically from the front?
 
JohnG said:
If the conspirators' aim was to make Oswald the "lone gunman" patsy, why did they employ another assassin in another location to make a shot that Oswald couldn't possibly have made?
Click to expand...

Unlimited budget... and they had to spend it all, as otherwise it would be cut in half the next year. ;)

So they did it the hard way, leaving a Mauser in the Depository, then switching it for the Mannlicher-Carcano; altered the Zapruder film; killed a multitude of witnesses; planting Oswald's palmprint on the rifle; planted a paper bag; faked photos of Oswald holding the rifle; altered the Altgens photo, which showed Oswald in the doorway, and substituted for Oswald someone who looked almost exactly like him from a distance; faked his handwriting on the order form for the rifle; faked his handwriting on the Money Order paying for the rifle; faked that it was shipped to his PO Box; killed a policeman to make him appear guilty; dropped a jacket nearby that couldn't be traced to Oswald to frame him for the policeman's murder; altered the President's body, planted a bullet in Parkland Hospital; planted three shells at the sniper's nest window; had Oswald doubles roaming around all over (everywhere but Las Vegas, apparently) doing totally innocuous things like cashing a check or getting a haircut to frame him for the President's assassination... I'm sure I'm leaving a great deal out.

Can you imagine how clean this operation could have been if they just framed Oswald for owning a good weapon and shot the President with that good weapon from behind?

But with an unlimited budget, why not do it the hard way?

Hank
 
Last edited:
JohnG said:
If the conspirators' aim was to make Oswald the "lone gunman" patsy, why did they employ another assassin in another location to make a shot that Oswald couldn't possibly have made?
Click to expand...

Hiring more than one shooter is not controversial. LHO is credited with three shots, one of them being a miss. The job likely called for a double-tap. After missing and not scoring a headshot, the second shooter would step up and finish the job.

In the aftermath, it was internally decided to keep the narrative simple: LHO did it and did it alone. That was the conclusion of the Warren Commission and the MSM reported what the commission/government said. End of story.
 
JayUtah said:
Whether I personally have shot someone or something in the head is a question probably intended to be inflammatory, and only tangentially relevant in the debate.

A better question would be what knowledge I have of what happens in a head shot and how I know that. And if Jango would read the thread he would have that answer. Between my responses to Robert Prey and those to bobtaftfan, there are a substantial number of posts to answer Jango's interest. He seems to take interest in my post count when it suits his purposes, but doesn't seem motivated to read the posts.

An even better question would be what knowledge exists in the corporate wisdom of mankind, of what happens in a head shot, and how it was determined. Jango wants this to be a personal battle. He doesn't seem to want to consider whether the "ejecta" argument has any traction in science as a whole.
Click to expand...

I've posted in this thread a video that shows the live fire testing of concealable soft body armor and traditional military type body armor.

The individual wearing the soft armor (Richard Davis) shoots himself with S & W model 29 .44 magnum, and the vest works as intended but miraculously Rich isn't knocked down - any viewing of any movie in the Dirty Harry series portrays the terminal ballistic effects of the same firearm and cartridge, and the movie versions depict reactions from the targets much more dramatic, as per usual in the Hollywood world of firearms and terminal ballistics.

In the case of the military vest, the test subject (Alec Jason, ex-S.F.P.D., and I've also recently become aware of the fact that Jason assisted Randi in his exposes of some evangelical faith healer fraud) is shot point blank w/ a rifle chambered in 7.62 NATO, once while balancing on one foot, and again the subject isn't pushed back or knocked over.

Ballistics of 7.62 NATO

http://www.gunnersden.com/index.htm.7-62x51-nato.html

Ballistics of 6.5 Carcano

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5×52mm_Carcano

Where a more powerful cartridge at point blank range can't move an individual standing on one foot where the test subject takes 100% of the kinetic energy delivered by the projectile, it's very difficult to maintain that a lesser cartridge can move a living un-armored target backwards from impact.

Jango has watched that vid but clings to his (and Stone, Garrison, et al) assertion that JFK's head motion proves that the shot that impacted JFK came from the front.

I've also posted the video of the summary execution of a V.C. suspect by a S.V.N. officer captured during Tet '68.

The video shows the point-blank headshot (.38 Special wheelgun) and in opposition to the CT terminal ballistics touchstone the victim's head doesn't exhibit the stereotypical dramatic head movement depicted by popular fiction, and the victim simply collapses according to body alignment at the moment of death.

Jango doesn't need to have witnessed or participated in the killing of anyone or anything, all he needs to do is understand what he is seeing is real, and the Hollywood versions of terminal ballistics is fiction, pure and simple.
 
Jango said:
The job likely called for a double-tap.
Click to expand...

What is your evidence for what "the job likely called for?"

After missing and not scoring a headshot, the second shooter would step up and finish the job.
Click to expand...

Why couldn't the second shooter, in presumably a better place, simply have done the job himself?

Have you ever been to Dealey Plaza? Have you ever been inside the TSBD? Upon what basis are you deciding where the shooters would best be?

In the aftermath, it was internally decided to keep the narrative simple...
Click to expand...

Decided how and by whom? You're just inventing chapter two of your fictional narrative to explain the events you invented in chapter one. And if the Zapruder film so inescapably proves shots from both directions, why was it permitted to still exist and be widely seen?
 
Jango said:
Hiring more than one shooter is not controversial. LHO is credited with three shots, one of them being a miss. The job likely called for a double-tap. After missing and not scoring a headshot, the second shooter would step up and finish the job.

In the aftermath, it was internally decided to keep the narrative simple: LHO did it and did it alone. That was the conclusion of the Warren Commission and the MSM reported what the commission/government said. End of story.
Click to expand...

Please provide a documented example where more than one precision shooter was used to fire on one specific human target.

A "double tap" refers to a shooter firing a controlled pair of rounds to center mass, not a tactic for precision shooting.

Given that bullet impacts on living targets do not produce the dramitic effects you assume, how would a second shooter know LHO shot maggies drawers?
 
BStrong said:
Please provide a documented example where more than one precision shooter was used to fire on one specific human target.

A "double tap" refers to a shooter firing a controlled pair of rounds to center mass, not a tactic for precision shooting.
Given that bullet impacts on living targets do not produce the dramitic effects you assume, how would a second shooter know LHO shot maggies drawers?
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the technical definition. Two to the chest and one to the head (Mozambique Drill) is how I was trained in the Corps. Snipers are taught one shot, one kill. When going after a high value target, a recent example being OBL, the SEALS double-tapped the hell out of OBL. Understand that when I use that term, I'm saying: they put enough rounds in him to absolutely be sure that he was as dead as possible. ;) The pop culture reference is Zombieland rule #2, which is, in essence, make sure the ********** is dead.
 
Jango said:
No need to apologize, man. I don't mind expending virtual ink.
Click to expand...

A real man apologizes for his errors. You know, you could simply have repeated your single-word answer rather than make a personal attack that required more virtual ink. Upon what basis are you positioning your hypothetical second shooter?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom