JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[BazBear]

Usually, that's an argument for why bullet holes are sometimes smaller than the diameter of the bullet used to make it.

I can't speak for Jay, but my impression is that it's an argument that the bullet hole could larger, smaller, or about the same diameter as the projectile.

 

[MicahJava]

Wasn't that a NatGeo documentary?

IIRC, they couldn't quite say for certain it hit there, but the odds were very high. A fascinating hour to watch.

The documentary was "JFK: The Lost Bullet".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyECKcK0uCw&t=54m54s

They determined that the traffic pole was the same as in 1963, but found no physical evidence of a bullet mark. They found photographic evidence of a through-and-through hole near the corner of the traffic light, but unfortunately if that's a bullet hole it seems that could be made by a missed shot from the SBDT from that angle. If that's a bullet hole, then IMO it traces back much better to the Dal-Tex building

 

[MicahJava]

Actually, forget my last comment. The "bullet hole" in the traffic light was disproven before "The Lost Bullet" even aired.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-9c-mr-holland-s-colossal-blunder

Typical garbage disinfo peddled by television hitpieces purporting to debunk conspiracy theories. They're a dime a dozen. They're trying to tell us that the first missed shot came from a 130-140 decibel MC no more than 100 feet from the P resident, yet almost all of the witnesses who actually heard it thought that it was a firecracker or motorcycle backfire, and nobody, including the secret service, did anything in reaction? Don't make me laugh! Stuff like that, even as an amateur JFK truth-seeker makes me 99% certain the official story is bunk. Robert is right, the first missed shot probably came from a firearm with a suppressor.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Wasn't that a NatGeo documentary?

IIRC, they couldn't quite say for certain it hit there, but the odds were very high. A fascinating hour to watch.

Yeah. I think Nat Geo covered it. IIRC their documentary had one of the witnesses that CTers had long dismissed out of hand being interviewed because the footage showed Oswald, in the window, much as he had always described.

 

[MicahJava]

Yeah. I think Nat Geo covered it. IIRC their documentary had one of the witnesses that CTers had long dismissed out of hand being interviewed because the footage showed Oswald, in the window, much as he had always described.

Amos Euins. My favorite part in his FBI report and his Warren Commission testimony is that he mentioned several times that he distinctly remembered that the gunman in the window had a bald spot on his head. Not a receding hairline, a bald spot.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/pdf/wh2_euins.pdf

http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessmap/euins.htm

He also said in his WC testimony that, while describing the man's head as having a "white spot" in his first report, it was incorrectly written that he thought he saw a white man. He clarified that he couldn't tell if the man was white or black.

It is also interesting that he consistently claimed to have heard four shots, but when he was interviewed for a CBS Program in 1967, he changed his story to say he heard three shots (that exact part wasn't used in the program): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QwH_5umBZM

 

[abaddon]

Amos Euins. My favorite part in his FBI report and his Warren Commission testimony is that he mentioned several times that he distinctly remembered that the gunman in the window had a bald spot on his head. Not a receding hairline, a bald spot.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/pdf/wh2_euins.pdf

http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessmap/euins.htm

He also said in his WC testimony that, while describing the man's head as having a "white spot" in his first report, it was incorrectly written that he thought he saw a white man. He clarified that he couldn't tell if the man was white or black.

It is also interesting that he consistently claimed to have heard four shots, but when he was interviewed for a CBS Program in 1967, he changed his story to say he heard three shots (that exact part wasn't used in the program): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QwH_5umBZM

That doesn't hang together. You are claiming that he couldn't distinguish between a black man or a white man, yet somehow, he could see a bald spot?

 

[Axxman300]

Actually, forget my last comment. The "bullet hole" in the traffic light was disproven before "The Lost Bullet" even aired.

Not really, it is just as viable as anything else at this point.

Typical garbage disinfo peddled by television hitpieces purporting to debunk conspiracy theories. They're a dime a dozen.

Yeah, because at that time NatGeo had a big stake in the game. I mean who wants a Pulitzer Prize or Peabody Award for journalism? Just ignore the methodical approach to ballistics anyway since it gets in the way of a cool conspiracy theory.

They're trying to tell us that the first missed shot came from a 130-140 decibel MC no more than 100 feet from the P resident, yet almost all of the witnesses who actually heard it thought that it was a firecracker or motorcycle backfire, and nobody, including the secret service, did anything in reaction?

The Carcano sounded like a firecracker, but whatever.

Don't make me laugh!

Stuff like that, even as an amateur JFK truth-seeker makes me 99% certain the official story is bunk.

Oh, by all means, go professional. Why let reality get in your way.

It's been 53 years and no credible evidence has ever surfaced to change the FACT that Oswald fired 3 shots from the Texas Schoolbook Depository. He was the lone shooter.

Robert is right, the first missed shot probably came from a firearm with a suppressor.

No. Robert has demonstrated he does not understand guns, ballistics, or suppression devices on a functional level. Nor does he understand sound or acoustics. Robert has as many as 7 bullets flying around Dealey Plaza during the assassination, yet nobody else is hit. Not in the limousine, not on either side of the sidewalk. Nobody else is stuck by these phantom snipers with silencers on their rifles.

Robert cannot name a silencer that was used in 1963 on a 6.5mm or even a .306. He just assumes they exist or could easily be manufactured.

Of all of the JFK CTs, Robert's is the weakest.

 

[MicahJava]

That doesn't hang together. You are claiming that he couldn't distinguish between a black man or a white man, yet somehow, he could see a bald spot?

His original police affadavit says that he saw a white man, but who knows. Maybe they were just looking down the whole time? Maybe the man was tan?

 

[pgwenthold]

Typical garbage disinfo peddled by television hitpieces purporting to debunk conspiracy theories. They're a dime a dozen. They're trying to tell us that the first missed shot came from a 130-140 decibel MC no more than 100 feet from the P resident, yet almost all of the witnesses who actually heard it thought that it was a firecracker

A firecracker is about 150 dB

http://www.fceia.unr.edu.ar/acustica/biblio/firecr1.htm

A car backfiring can be 110 dB.

But then, how loud it is for anyone depends on their location. Standing right next to a car when it backfires is louder than being 100 feet from a firecracker when it goes off.

This is a really meaningless objection

 

[MicahJava]

Not really, it is just as viable as anything else at this point.

To my understanding, they discovered before the airing of the show that the type of traffic light in the videos naturally had a narrow hole like that. Even then, they determined that a bullet hitting the sign like that would cause a much bigger deformation. It's all in the Pat Speer link

Yeah, because at that time NatGeo had a big stake in the game. I mean who wants a Pulitzer Prize or Peabody Award for journalism? Just ignore the methodical approach to ballistics anyway since it gets in the way of a cool conspiracy theory.

My favorite part is when the ballistics expert says that a bullet couldn't have come from the Grassy Knol because it would have exited the left side of his head and hit Jackie. Of course, ignoring the possibility that a exploding/frangible bullet was used. Some have even speculated that the Knol shooter(s) were ordered to use exploding/frangible bullets to prevent Jackie from getting hurt.

The Carcano sounded like a firecracker, but whatever.

All observers rated the rifle shots as very very loud, and they were unable to understand how they could have been described as a firecracker or backfire.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/pdf/HSCA_Vol8_AS_3_Earwitness.pdf

The magic bullet: quiet enough to not spook the secret service, loud enough for the echoes to bounce off of the post office and make it sound like a shot from the Grassy Knol!

No. Robert has demonstrated he does not understand guns, ballistics, or suppression devices on a functional level. Nor does he understand sound or acoustics. Robert has as many as 7 bullets flying around Dealey Plaza during the assassination, yet nobody else is hit. Not in the limousine, not on either side of the sidewalk. Nobody else is stuck by these phantom snipers with silencers on their rifles.

Robert cannot name a silencer that was used in 1963 on a 6.5mm or even a .306. He just assumes they exist or could easily be manufactured.

Of all of the JFK CTs, Robert's is the weakest.

James Tague got hit with a fragment of something (he also swears that it happened after he heard the second or third shots). How could he, of all people, be hit with anything from a missed shot if it was aiming at such a steep angle?

Regarding silencers: http://www.ctka.net/pr1195-hewett.html

 

[No Other]

It's been 53 years and no credible evidence has ever surfaced to change the FACT that Oswald fired 3 shots from the Texas Schoolbook Depository. He was the lone shooter.

FACT by definition means it is not speculative/subjective, your claim does not meet that standard.

 

[turingtest]

Not really, it is just as viable as anything else at this point.



Yeah, because at that time NatGeo had a big stake in the game. I mean who wants a Pulitzer Prize or Peabody Award for journalism? Just ignore the methodical approach to ballistics anyway since it gets in the way of a cool conspiracy theory.



The Carcano sounded like a firecracker, but whatever.







Oh, by all means, go professional. Why let reality get in your way.

It's been 53 years and no credible evidence has ever surfaced to change the FACT that Oswald fired 3 shots from the Texas Schoolbook Depository. He was the lone shooter.




No. Robert has demonstrated he does not understand guns, ballistics, or suppression devices on a functional level. Nor does he understand sound or acoustics. Robert has as many as 7 bullets flying around Dealey Plaza during the assassination, yet nobody else is hit. Not in the limousine, not on either side of the sidewalk. Nobody else is stuck by these phantom snipers with silencers on their rifles.
Robert cannot name a silencer that was used in 1963 on a 6.5mm or even a .306. He just assumes they exist or could easily be manufactured.

Of all of the JFK CTs, Robert's is the weakest.

And not only is nobody hit, no other physical evidence of these other bullets is found. How could the conspirators have been sure that no odd holes in the limo, marks on sidewalks, etc., that would point to another location than LHO's, would be found? The only possible answer to this lack of evidence for other bullets is to make that lack part of the narrative- that the conspiracy covered up the evidence. But, of course, when you must assume the conspiracy you're trying to prove in order to escape a requirement for the evidence you need to prove it, then you're dealing in circular faith, and don't really have a theory at all.

 

[Tomtomkent]

His original police affadavit says that he saw a white man, but who knows. Maybe they were just looking down the whole time? Maybe the man was tan?

You seem to be missing the point. Witnesses are by their nature, going to give confused evidence. We now know what he saw because we have stabilised film footage...

 

[Tomtomkent]

FACT by definition means it is not speculative/subjective, your claim does not meet that standard.

It however is the only conclusion viable from available evidence.
It is also the most likely conclusion that best fits the totality of evidence.

As speculation against it would not be considered a reasonable doubt, it can be stated as proven, and ergo a fact.

 

[MicahJava]

You seem to be missing the point. Witnesses are by their nature, going to give confused evidence. We now know what he saw because we have stabilised film footage...

Not not saying "the real shooter" had a bald spot, but Amos seemed pretty sure that's what he saw. He distinctly remembered it.

 

[MicahJava]

And not only is nobody hit, no other physical evidence of these other bullets is found. How could the conspirators have been sure that no odd holes in the limo, marks on sidewalks, etc., that would point to another location than LHO's, would be found? The only possible answer to this lack of evidence for other bullets is to make that lack part of the narrative- that the conspiracy covered up the evidence. But, of course, when you must assume the conspiracy you're trying to prove in order to escape a requirement for the evidence you need to prove it, then you're dealing in circular faith, and don't really have a theory at all.

There were early reports of one or two bullets being found in the grass.

http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/extras.htm

This article has refutations of the mcadams piece about this: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/slug.htm

Funny how the blond-haired man is unidentified.

Sheriff's Deputy E. R. (Buddy) Walthers denied knowing of any bullet found in the grass, but, like many, he is also considered a person of interest in the JFK Assassination. http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKwalthersB.htm

 

[MicahJava]

A firecracker is about 150 dB

http://www.fceia.unr.edu.ar/acustica/biblio/firecr1.htm

A car backfiring can be 110 dB.

But then, how loud it is for anyone depends on their location. Standing right next to a car when it backfires is louder than being 100 feet from a firecracker when it goes off.

This is a really meaningless objection

At what range??

 

[JayUtah]

FACT by definition means it is not speculative/subjective, your claim does not meet that standard.

Fact by definition means it cannot be subject to reasonable speculation or perspective to the contrary. The world is full of unreasonable speculations and skewed perspectives. That doesn't stop facts from existing.

 

[No Other]

It however is the only conclusion viable from available evidence.
It is also the most likely conclusion that best fits the totality of evidence.

As speculation against it would not be considered a reasonable doubt, it can be stated as proven, and ergo a fact.

If you are describing the definition of "fact", I am in total agreement.

 

[Bubba]

And not only is nobody hit, no other physical evidence of these other bullets is found. How could the conspirators have been sure that no odd holes in the limo, marks on sidewalks, etc., that would point to another location than LHO's, would be found? The only possible answer to this lack of evidence for other bullets is to make that lack part of the narrative- that the conspiracy covered up the evidence. But, of course, when you must assume the conspiracy you're trying to prove in order to escape a requirement for the evidence you need to prove it, then you're dealing in circular faith, and don't really have a theory at all.

Maybe not necessarily circular faith.

Conspirators generally dont think to cover their tracks, if possible?

I'm not saying there was a conspiracy, but if there was a conspiracy, how does one rule out a conspirator or two being in position to make sure evidence is not seen?