Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Ranb]

Why not use a weapon that was designed for subsonic bullets? And the mob would have made their own suppressors, rather than buying commercial units that were traceable.

That is a good idea. But what do you think they would have used? Was there anyone in the mob who was capable of making a suitable subsonic rifle accurate to nearly 100 yards? Was anyone making one of these rifles prior to 1963?

As we see in the videos, numerous people made their own, very effective suppressors out of flashlights, oil filters and beer cans. I suspect that with a little effort, the mob could have done at least as well.

Suspecting is fine. But evidence that they were able to or actually did it is better.

I doubt that they would have used, "readily available" weapons. Why wouldn't they have mounted a suppressor on a weapon that met there particular needs?

What weapon would this be? Any evidence it exists?

Hmm.. no, I never put you on my ignore list. But I've been bombarded by a LOT of posts. If I haven't replied to something you feel is important, please repost it.

You claimed that;

Oswald's rifle was tested by the HSCA and proven to generate a 130 decibel shock wave, emanating directly from the bullet, followed almost instantly by a muzzle blast that was almost as loud. Other rifles are 2-3 times louder than Oswald's.

I think that any Carcano shooting standard ammo is going to be at least 150 decibels and not 2-3 times less noisy than other rifles unless you are comparing them to 50 caliber rifles with muzzle brakes.

What forum did you run?

You said;

The total absence of visible startle reactions to the early shots and the apparent fact that one of them seems to have been totally inaudible.

How is a rifle made totally inaudible?

This link you posted;
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Silencers.aspx sucks as a source of info on silencers. I hope you will acknowledge this.

Ranb

 

[Hans]

Stop posting that damned link.
We've seen it.

If he puts it up again just alert the mod to his spamming the board

Simples!

 

[Hans]

Bob, we've discussed this at length before......snip

might get tired of going over the same ground again and again.

I'm interested in this wanting to go over the same material again and again. How many times would you say this material has been presented and discussed and how many times has he made corrections to it?

 

[Border Reiver]

Tell that to the thousands of military snipers who have used them in every major war, since 1914, or the numerous police forces and SWAT teams who use them regularly.

The military doesn't routinely use suppressors. Most snipers engage at ranges beyond 300m, at which range it is rather challenging to pinpoint where a sound is coming from, particularly if there is any sort of other ranged combat going on. I am not a sniper, however one of my Captains is a regular competitor at CAFSAC and Bisley and a graduate of the OPP Sniper training course is, and, at least in the CF, suppressors are not commonly used by snipers outside of JTF 2 (and not even then) as the degradation in accuracy is not something a sniper wants.

 

[Ranb]

No sniper would do so. The loss of accuracy, not to mention projectile velocity would preclude any chance of a kill shot.

Considering the amazing advances in silencers, subsonic ammo and the weapons made to use them, today's sniper could be inclined to use them for shorter range sniping out to 200 meters. No way anything better than a Mauser type rifle was available for a lone assassin like LHO back in 1963 though.

Ranb

 

[Robert Harris]

Excuse me? It is all about your assertion that you see reactions to a shot at 285.

No sir, it's about your claim that you posted a refutation of my analysis, and your refusal to repost it or even describe it.

Now, Bob, this exemplifies the reason people say you don't understand the critiques made of your theory.

You said you have previously posted a refutation. Why don't you cut 'n paste it right here, and we will have something talk about, other than a lot of excuses?

I didn't say—and what kind of idiot would?—"that no one would spin around in reaction to a loud noise."

I'm glad to hear that, so what was your point?

I said that spinning around is not the result of a startle reflex reaction, which by definition is the spasmodic, involuntary contraction of certain muscles.

You changed your story, first raising this issue as an attempt to refute the notion that Greer spun around because he was startled. But since you now admit that people do spin around in reaction to such loud noises, your argument is kaput.

Greer, BTW, began his turn within a third of a second following 285, so it had to have been involuntary.

So, I guess we still have a ways to go before you get the "refutation of the year" award, eh

But you just demonstrated that you don't.

Nonsense. Not only did I link a video in which we can see a startled basketball player begin to spin around within a third of a second,

http://jfkhistory.com/bb.gif

I cited Britannica, stating that startle reactions can be an "evasive movement of the head", which is exactly what turning away from the source of the startling noise is.

Startle reaction, also called Startle Pattern, an extremely rapid psychophysiological response of an organism to a sudden and unexpected stimulus such as a loud sound or a blinding flash of light. In human beings it is characterized by involuntary bending of the limbs and a spasmodic avoidance movement of the head. Musculature returns to normal in less than one second,

What evidence did you present, Sandy?

You have never brought forth anything from the literature on startle reactions to support your claim that spinning around is a type of startle reflex action.

Well of course. By "evasive movement", perhaps they meant digging hole to escape through.

All you've ever come up with is the vague reference in an edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica to "a spasmodic avoidance movement of the head"—from which you had a marked tendency to elide the "spasmodic" part.

No sir, I did not. And the reference was quite specific.

I challenged you to present ANY video in which we could see "spasms" as people ducked, spun around, etc. Since I'm still waiting I presume you figured out that such responses are invisible in a film like Zapruder's.

Tell me Sandy, exactly how many spasms did you see in the video I linked of people reacting to the bomb in Olympic village? Many of them were closer to the camera than Zapruder was to the limo.

Would you like me to link it again so that you can count 'em?

 

[Robert Harris]

Considering the amazing advances in silencers, subsonic ammo and the weapons made to use them, today's sniper could be inclined to use them for shorter range sniping out to 200 meters. No way anything better than a Mauser type rifle was available for a lone assassin like LHO back in 1963 though.

Ranb

Yes, I see no evidence of suppressed shots later than frame 223, when the limo was about 100 feet from the Daltex.

And Oswald was obviously, not using a suppressed rifle.

 

[Robert Harris]

The military doesn't routinely use suppressors. Most snipers engage at ranges beyond 300m, at which range it is rather challenging to pinpoint where a sound is coming from, particularly if there is any sort of other ranged combat going on. I am not a sniper, however one of my Captains is a regular competitor at CAFSAC and Bisley and a graduate of the OPP Sniper training course is, and, at least in the CF, suppressors are not commonly used by snipers outside of JTF 2 (and not even then) as the degradation in accuracy is not something a sniper wants.

Yes, of course. But I was responding to an allegation that suppressors were uncommon. Obviously, any suppressed rifle used to fire the early shots, would have been of relatively low caliber and subsonic.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

I'm interested in this wanting to go over the same material again and again. How many times would you say this material has been presented and discussed and how many times has he made corrections to it?

I haven't kept a count, but I am confident in saying that the number of times Harris has made corrections to his argument is roughly zero.

 

[Robert Harris]

That is a good idea. But what do you think they would have used? Was there anyone in the mob who was capable of making a suitable subsonic rifle accurate to nearly 100 yards? Was anyone making one of these rifles prior to 1963?

This rifle was apparently, only used up to about 100 feet. The shots after that, were obviously unsuppressed and enormously louder.

Suspecting is fine. But evidence that they were able to or actually did it is better.

Well, some suspicions are better than others. I think that if a teenager or an
Alabama redneck can do it, pretty much anyone else can, who sets his mind to it. No, I can't prove that and I don't intend to try.

What weapon would this be? Any evidence it exists?

Sorry, I didn't get the make and model, but yes, there is plenty of evidence it existed. A low caliber, suppressed weapon is the only plausible explanation for the shots at 150-160 and 223, since only one of them was even audible to most witnesses and neither were able to generate the kind of startle reactions we see, following the shots at 285 and 313.

I think that any Carcano shooting standard ammo is going to be at least 150 decibels and not 2-3 times less noisy than other rifles unless you are comparing them to 50 caliber rifles with muzzle brakes.

When the HSCA used microphones to measure the sound levels from an identical model, they got 130 decibels from the shock wave at a point 10 feet from the bullet's path.

They got a measurement of 135 decibels, 30 feet (if memory serves) out from the muzzle, which of course diminished with distance. So, measuring right at the barrel, you are probably right.

What forum did you run?

The JFK History forum. I also partnered with John McAdams in '94, to form the first moderated JFK, usenet newsgroup on the Internet. I wrote the charters for both forums.

How is a rifle made totally inaudible?

I won't say "totally", but it's close. Move the timer to about 1:25.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haiqFcIXTqs

This link you posted;
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Silencers.aspx sucks as a source of info on silencers. I hope you will acknowledge this.

I will if you can give me a good reason. What specific facts did they get wrong?

 

[Robert Harris]

I haven't kept a count, but I am confident in saying that the number of times Harris has made corrections to his argument is roughly zero.

And you would as usual, be wrong.

I do not change my "arguments", but after the first 10 or so hours posting, I do start to make too many typos.

I find it amazing that you would be more concerned about counting my corrections, than posting some kind of honest rebuttal. How many hours do you invest in that activity, Sandy?

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

[...]


You changed your story, first raising this issue as an attempt to refute the notion that Greer spun around because he was startled. But since you now admit that people do spin around in reaction to such loud noises, your argument is kaput.

It's quite amazing that you still don't get my point, which hasn't changed at any time.
You clearly don't know what a reflex reaction is.

Greer, BTW, began his turn within a third of a second following 285, so it had to have been involuntary.

Besides the fact that spinning around cannot be a reflex reaction, there is the fact that people can react voluntarily, deliberately (i.e., not a reflex), and make a decision, even, in a much smaller interval than a third of a second. I showed you the results of tests that proved that, and you said, Well, that is when people knew they were being tested. I said the factor of the subjects' degree of attentiveness is unquantifiable and in the situation under consideration it stands to reason that the limo passengers would have been in a heightened state of alertness.

Again, this is quite aside from the salient fact that spinning around is not mentioned as a startle reaction in any of the literature you love to (mis)cite, and the Britannica reference to "a spasmodic movement of the head" does not equal such.

So, I guess we still have a ways to go before you get the "refutation of the year" award, eh

Alas, there has been so much competitiion for that prize right here in the past week or so.

Nonsense. Not only did I link a video in which we can see a startled basketball player begin to spin around within a third of a second,

Wow, you sure are determined to prove that you don't understand my argument (or reflex reactions).
Look, man, I know that already!
I've been trying to tell you something.

I cited Britannica, stating that startle reactions can be an "evasive movement of the head", which is exactly what turning away from the source of the startling noise is.

Startle reaction, also called Startle Pattern, an extremely rapid psychophysiological response of an organism to a sudden and unexpected stimulus such as a loud sound or a blinding flash of light. In human beings it is characterized by involuntary bending of the limbs and a spasmodic avoidance movement of the head. Musculature returns to normal in less than one second,

Yes, that clearly refers to one particular kind of spasmodic motion, involving the contraction of the neck and shoulder muscles, as described in all the other literature. Don't you think it would have specified such a drastic movement as turning to look behind? And where in the world is any reference at all to pivoting on one's feet and running away, as a reflex reaction?

So you're saying you really don't see the difference?

[...]

I challenged you to present ANY video in which we could see "spasms" as people ducked, spun around, etc. Since I'm still waiting I presume you figured out that such responses are invisible in a film like Zapruder's.

That was one of my points, Bob. You can't argue anything about supposed shots with noise-suppressed weapons from the alleged absence of discernible startle reactions in the low-res Z-film.

Tell me Sandy, exactly how many spasms did you see in the video I linked of people reacting to the bomb in Olympic village? Many of them were closer to the camera than Zapruder was to the limo.

Would you like me to link it again so that you can count 'em?

It seems to me you've totally missed the point of our discussion.

 

[Robert Harris]

I'm going to call it a night, but please consider these two, brief animated GIFs. The first includes a list of Kellerman's reactions to the shot at 285. I honestly don't know how any rational person can doubt that this man was exhibiting classic startle reactions.

http://www.jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif

In this animation, from the 1996 bombing of Olympic village, watch the lady in black to the far right of the screen. Notice that she briefly raises her hand to her ear, almost exactly as Kellerman did, and she also raised and then quickly lowered her shoulders, also like Kellerman did.

http://jfkhistory.com/atlanta1996.gif

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

And you would as usual, be wrong.

I do not change my "arguments", but after the first 10 or so hours posting, I do start to make too many typos.

Surely, you must know that that is not what I was referring to.

I find it amazing that you would be more concerned about counting my corrections, than posting some kind of honest rebuttal. How many hours do you invest in that activity, Sandy?

My rebuttals have all been honest. It appears you have once again failed to comprehend them.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No, I can't prove that and I don't intend to try.

This seems to be a feature of all of your claims.

Did you ever come up with objective, verifiable evidence for a suppressed rifle? If so, what caliber was it and how many rounds were fired from it and by whom? Or for anything?

Were you ever able to overcome the refutation that your opinion isn't evidence or is that still a fatal flaw for you?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I find it amazing that you would be more concerned about counting my corrections, than posting some kind of honest rebuttal.

Speaking of being honest, have you thought of any way to overcome the rebuttal that your inferences aren't evidence? As it stands, that is a fatal flaw to your reasoning and you still have the burden of proof.

How many hours do you invest in that activity, Sandy?

How many years for you? And what has the FBI done with the objective, verifiable evidence you showed them?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

A low caliber, suppressed weapon is the only plausible explanation for the shots at 150-160 and 223, since only one of them was even audible to most witnesses and neither were able to generate the kind of startle reactions we see, following the shots at 285 and 313.

Since the "reactions" to 285 appear to amount merely to the swaying forward of the people in the car in response to its driver lifting off the gas pedal, and that visible flinching in reaction to 313 is easily attributable to both the sound of impact and perhaps the spray of debris from the fatal shot, I should say that there is absolutely no need to invoke any silenced weapon to explain any lack of such flinching earlier in the film.

Plainly you will not agree but to suggest your version is "the only plausible explanation" is frankly ludicrous.

 

[Belz...]

This rifle was apparently, only used up to about 100 feet.

Apparently ? We're far from that stage.

 

[JayUtah]

I honestly don't know how any rational person can doubt that this man was exhibiting classic startle reactions.

Translation: If you don't agree with me that this is what I need it to be for my beliefs to hold, then you're irrational.

 

[JayUtah]

Notice that she...

...acts completely differently than the guy next to her. If you intended this to be proof of the alleged universality of a "startle reponse," the way you formulate it, it didn't work.