JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[Axxman300]

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

Like I said, it was just a theory. Speer is a JFK CTer.

The main problem was that the original traffic signal has long since been scrapped. So nobody can say either way.

The hole is the right size for that powerful of a round, and would explain the deflection. Who really knows?

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.

My favorite part is when non-ballistics experts ignore actual ballistics experts.

The skull is thinner on the sides, a bullet, even a dum-dum, would pass through at that close range.

Doesn't matter, the actual bullet entered from behind.

Some have even speculated that the Knol shooter(s) were ordered to use exploding/frangible bullets to prevent Jackie from getting hurt.

Some people need a better understanding of killing and killers.

"No, we don't kill Jackie, we just traumatize her for life."

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.

The Carcano had the reputation of sounding like a firecracker going back to WWI. What they heard depended on where they stood.

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!

The Secret Service heard all three shots. The driver of the second limo contends that all three bullets struck JFKs vehicle. Everyone had their own interpretations of what they saw and what they thought they saw.

And for the 50th time, Dealey Plaza has a nasty echo.

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?

First, he remembers it wrong. Second, it's not that steep, and those bullets has a terrific twist on them. Bullets are funny things, for example the .762 round will blast through concert cinder blocks, but can be deflected by thick foliage.

 

[Axxman300]

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

Facts:

It was Oswald's weapon.
The weapon was fired from Oswald's place of employment.
Oswald was the only employee to flee the scene of the crime.
Oswald killed DPD Officer J.D. Tippet while trying to flee, and later attempted to kill a second DPD officer during his apprehension at the movie theater with the same handgun.

Out of all the people detained by DPD on that day, Oswald was the only one to violently resist arrest.

These facts alone would have sent Oswald to the electric chair.

 

[Tomtomkent]

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

So, to be clear, you do agree it is reasonable to call Oswalds three shots a fact, as they meet the criteria I listed?

 

[Tomtomkent]

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

And now we can check. Because we have video evidence.

We expect witnesses to give false information, because they are flawed. They are human. It may have looked to the guy like there was a bald spot. He might have picked that up from stuff he heard after. Human memory is limited, it is pliable and it is flawed.

Arguing about what a guy might or might not have described, is somewhat redundant now we can look at the video footage, and now he has confirmed the figure he saw.

We have better evidence.

But... sure... whatever... continue to argue as though it matters. That is very much expected from CTists. We see it all the time in the thread. Was Oswald's wife reliable or not? Can we trust what she says about a photograph? Who cares. We have the photograph to inspect. We have physical and objective evidence.

I am constantly astounded by how those who insist on conspiracy theories flip flop over witnesses. If the witness agrees with them they are perfect, and beyond reproach. If they disagree they are apparently buffoons and unreliable.

It never seems to sink in that human memory is flawed and limited. That the psychology of memory is well known, and we expect there to be a certain amount of conflict and discrepancy. We understand that memory is not photographic, and is not a film recorded in your head. You hear people talking about something, you read about something, you have question asked a different way, and you will describe something differently, even to yourself.

So, as useful as witnesses are, we look for better evidence to confirm, or to prove their statements. What Amos said before is useful. What he says now, that we can show him filmed footage of the window he described, is interesting. What we can judge for ourselves from the frames of film in question, is somewhat conclusive.

 

[abaddon]

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?

Maybe it was a green pixie. That kind of speculation gets you nowhere.

 

[HSienzant]

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

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

Early rumors and hearsay. No -- underline that "no" - evidence.
Not one person is on record as saying they *saw* a bullet in the grass.

Look at a portion of what Griffith reports here:

...An unidentified blond-haired man in a suit was photographed bending down, reaching out his left hand toward the dug-out point on the ground as if to pick up something, standing back up, apparently holding a small object in his hand, and then putting his hand in his pocket (Shaw and Harris 73-74). The hole made by the bullet was even photographed, and the picture appeared in the FORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM on 11/23/63.

In his WC testimony, Officer Foster denied a bullet was recovered from near the manhole cover, though he did not explain what the man in the suit picked up and put into his pocket....

It went from - by Griffith - a supposition of a man picking something up to a declaration of a bullet causing the hole within one sentence.

Quite frankly, this kind of nonsense is what passes for evidence of a conspiracy throughout this case. Hearsay becomes elevated to evidence. A supposition becomes a fact. A guess in one sentence becomes solid evidence in the next. That's not getting to the truth of the matter.

And there's still no evidence of a conspiracy. None.

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

You mean refutations of the Mike Griffith piece.

Funny how the blond-haired man is unidentified.

Everyone in a crowd of 500 or so should be identified or identifiable?

Why? And if they are not, why is that worthy of remarking upon?

Sheriff's Deputy E. R. (Buddy) Walthers denied knowing of any bullet found in the grass

Yes, and unlike you, he was actually there. At the time. And saw no bullet.

but, like many, he is also considered a person of interest in the JFK Assassination. http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKwalthersB.htm

Calling him "a person of interest" is merely a way to question what he reported. Isn't it? Isn't he denoted as "a person of interest" because he denied seeing a bullet?

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

And now we can check. Because we have video evidence.

The only video evidence (featured on JFK: The Lost Bullet) is one bit of amateur footage in Dealey Plaza that shows a blurry splotchy thing that moves slightly in the east window of the sixth floor of the School Book Depository. Not many conspiracy advocates try to say that there was no shooter there, nor is it necessary to say that Oswald wasn't one of those shooters. I don't want to discount the witnesses who saw someone in the window, nor witnesses like Harold Norman (although, of course, there is always speculation that some witnesses just "went along to get along").

We expect witnesses to give false information, because they are flawed. They are human. It may have looked to the guy like there was a bald spot. He might have picked that up from stuff he heard after. Human memory is limited, it is pliable and it is flawed.

Arguing about what a guy might or might not have described, is somewhat redundant now we can look at the video footage, and now he has confirmed the figure he saw.

We have better evidence.

But... sure... whatever... continue to argue as though it matters. That is very much expected from CTists. We see it all the time in the thread. Was Oswald's wife reliable or not? Can we trust what she says about a photograph? Who cares. We have the photograph to inspect. We have physical and objective evidence.

I am constantly astounded by how those who insist on conspiracy theories flip flop over witnesses. If the witness agrees with them they are perfect, and beyond reproach. If they disagree they are apparently buffoons and unreliable.

It never seems to sink in that human memory is flawed and limited. That the psychology of memory is well known, and we expect there to be a certain amount of conflict and discrepancy. We understand that memory is not photographic, and is not a film recorded in your head. You hear people talking about something, you read about something, you have question asked a different way, and you will describe something differently, even to yourself.

So, as useful as witnesses are, we look for better evidence to confirm, or to prove their statements. What Amos said before is useful. What he says now, that we can show him filmed footage of the window he described, is interesting. What we can judge for ourselves from the frames of film in question, is somewhat conclusive.

See above.

 

[MicahJava]

Like I said, it was just a theory. Speer is a JFK CTer.

The main problem was that the original traffic signal has long since been scrapped. So nobody can say either way.

The hole is the right size for that powerful of a round, and would explain the deflection. Who really knows?

The Speer page links to external sources that show why the bullet-hole-in-traffic-light theory is incorrect. It was shown to be incorrect before the program even aired. If there really was a bullet hole in a traffic light, why would Speer have an inclination to ignore it? It's kind of a big deal that traffic light with bullet damage was just replaced and destroyed quietly.

My favorite part is when non-ballistics experts ignore actual ballistics experts.

The skull is thinner on the sides, a bullet, even a dum-dum, would pass through at that close range.

Are you stating for a fact that an exploding bullet could not create damage similar to Kennedy's official head wound? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/1/16/20120228153914!JFK_skull_trajectory.jpg

Doesn't matter, the actual bullet entered from behind.

Too bad Kennedy's brain is long gone so we can't examine that. Also, as you may know, it has been hypothesized that Kennedy's head was hit more than once.

The Carcano had the reputation of sounding like a firecracker going back to WWI. What they heard depended on where they stood.

Interesting. Maybe all of this first-shot-was-too-quiet stuff is bologna after all! Source?

And for the 50th time, Dealey Plaza has a nasty echo.

I'm having trouble finding the original HSCA document that details this, but they did an experiment which showed that, even standing on the knol, no echoing would get in the way of knowing the general origin of a MC shot from the depository. https://books.google.com/books?id=y...age&q=hsca Earshot Experiment of 1978&f=false

First, he remembers it wrong. Second, it's not that steep, and those bullets has a terrific twist on them. Bullets are funny things, for example the .762 round will blast through concert cinder blocks, but can be deflected by thick foliage.

Lol, what makes you say he's remembering wrong? Also, are you advocating that the first missed bullet hit the foliage outside of the depository (which may or may not have stripped the copper jacket), defected, hit the curb on the other side of Dealely Plaza (causing the "lead smear", and then a piece of concrete off of that hit Tague? I think Posner advocated something similar.

 

[Axxman300]

Are you stating for a fact that an exploding bullet could not create damage similar to Kennedy's official head wound?

It's called a "Hollow Point". It expands on impact, but it has no explosive charge.

It's hard to say what kind of wound a hollow point would have caused at that range. What we do know is the kind of damage a 6.5 caliber round can do to the human body. The President's wounds and those of the Governor are consistent with that round.

Too bad Kennedy's brain is long gone so we can't examine that. Also, as you may know, it has been hypothesized that Kennedy's head was hit more than once.

JFK's brain was interred with his body when it was moved to its current resting place under the eternal flame at the order of RFK. Again, no mystery.

Interesting. Maybe all of this first-shot-was-too-quiet stuff is bologna after all! Source?

I have posted all of my sources for the MC on this thread already.

What you and other ignore is that sound and what people hear is relative. There were hundreds of cheering people on the street that day, and the vehicles in the motorcade were much louder in 1963 than their modern counterparts. Everyone's attention was focused on the President and the first shot just didn't register.

There is no mystery here.

I'm having trouble finding the original HSCA document that details this, but they did an experiment which showed that, even standing on the knol, no echoing would get in the way of knowing the general origin of a MC shot from the depository.

Useless data as what an individual hears is subjective.

Lol, what makes you say he's remembering wrong?

Yes, I submit that his recollection is confused. This is normal, not to mention that the echo would have been worse where he was standing, so he would have no idea of the the shot order.

Also, are you advocating that the first missed bullet hit the foliage outside of the depository (which may or may not have stripped the copper jacket), defected, hit the curb on the other side of Dealely Plaza (causing the "lead smear", and then a piece of concrete off of that hit Tague? I think Posner advocated something similar.

No, I'm saying that bullets are unpredictable when they ricochet of random surfaces. My personal belief is that Tague was struck by a fragment of the fatal headshot round when it exited the top front of his skull, but that's just me.

 

[Tomtomkent]

This is becoming another go down the Helter Skelter.

The frangible/hollowpoint/explosive bullets?

Debunked.

Human memory is flawed.

A single frame of stabilised film offers objective analysable information. Limited, yes, but enough to make reasonable deductions of what witnesses were describing.

And it is telling that the larger point I made was ignore, seemingly to retain the right to argue against the character of a witness.

We get to the bottom and go back to the top... And the CTers still make the same flawed arguments, with the same lack of evidence, and the same holes in it, once again...

 

[HSienzant]

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.

You mean like the bald spot on the anatomical left side of the head of the suspect as shown here?

http://blog.aarp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Lee_Harvey_Oswald_arrest_card_1963.jpg

I'm unclear why you differentiate between a bald spot and a receding hairline. It's apparently your assumption that Euins was attempting to differentiate between those two different losses of hair, but you cite no evidence of that. And wouldn't the left side of the head (as opposed to the top or back of the head) be what was predominantly visible to Euins as the shooter looked down Elm from that window 60 feet above ground level? So why do you presume the "bald spot" would be anywhere but in the left temple region - the part of the shooter's head facing Euins?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

He [Amos Euins] 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

It's also interesting that you accept his later clarification of his original signed statement when he testified to something different (regarding the 'white man' reference) but appear to denigrate his later clarification of his testimony (regarding the 'four-shot' reference).

Especially since his original signed statement only mentions three shots: "... I heard a shot.... I saw a man in a window with a gun and I saw him shoot twice. He then stepped back behind some boxes..."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0113a.htm

I count three shots referenced in his original statement. Don't you? So where did he "consistently claimed to have heard four shots"?

I also count three shells found on the sixth floor, according to the testimony of the man who first saw the sniper's nest window later that day.

Mr. BALL - We will get to that in a moment. Now, I show you 510.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 510 for identification.)
Mr. BALL - Is that the empty shells you found?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Are they shown there?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Now, will you take this and encircle the shells?
Mr. MOONEY - All right.
Mr. BALL - Put a fairly good sized circle around each shell. That is the way they were when you saw them, is that right?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0124a.htm

Why should we believe Euins four-shot reference as opposed to the three-shot ones? Especially since we only have hard evidence of three shells? And since so many others spoke of three shots, not four (there are more witnesses who referenced hearing only two shots than referenced hearing four or more, according to Josiah Thompson's tabulation in SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS).

So when we look at more of the evidence than the claims of one witness, we get a different view of the number of shots, don't we?

Why should Euins' definitely minority four-shot reference overturn all that?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I'm having trouble finding the original HSCA document that details this, but they did an experiment which showed that, even standing on the knol, no echoing would get in the way of knowing the general origin of a MC shot from the depository. https://books.google.com/books?id=y...age&q=hsca Earshot Experiment of 1978&f=false

The source you cited names its source. It's HSCA Volume 8, pages 128-169.

It starts here: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0066b.htm

Here's the conclusions from that study: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0077b.htm

They don't sound a whole lot like the claims from the conspiracy book you cited.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

You mean like the bald spot on the anatomical left side of the head of the suspect as shown here?

http://blog.aarp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Lee_Harvey_Oswald_arrest_card_1963.jpg

I'm unclear why you differentiate between a bald spot and a receding hairline. It's apparently your assumption that Euins was attempting to differentiate between those two different losses of hair, but you cite no evidence of that. And wouldn't the left side of the head (as opposed to the top or back of the head) be what was predominantly visible to Euins as the shooter looked down Elm from that window 60 feet above ground level? So why do you presume the "bald spot" would be anywhere but in the left temple region - the part of the shooter's head facing Euins?

Hank

I don't meant to grasp at straws, but from reading Euin's testimony, it can easily be inferred that he was talking about a distinct white bald spot on the back of the head.

 

[MicahJava]

The source you cited names its source. It's HSCA Volume 8, pages 128-169.

It starts here: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0066b.htm

Here's the conclusions from that study: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0077b.htm

They don't sound a whole lot like the claims from the conspiracy book you cited.

Hank

The conspiracy book says that the experts interpreted their results to be more compatible with the official story than it actually was. The data in the HSCA page is more important than the conclusions section. The data pretty much says that a shot from the Depository sounds like a shot from the Depository and a shot from the Knol sounds like a shot from the Knol.

OBSERVER: Dennis McFadden

On the grass north of Elm street in front of the Zapruder position[/B

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0079a.htm

1 misreport out of 17 shots, and when it was it was unsure and not precise.

On sidewalk on north side of Elm, across east-west side street (also Elm?) from TSBD

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0080b.htm

1 misreport out of 15 shots, Depository mistaken for Knol, but unsure and not precise.

On underpass over the most southerly lane of Elm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0082a.htm

2 misreports out of 25 shots, both of which were a shot from the Knol mistaken for a shot from the Depository.
OBSERVER: Fred Wightman

On grass north of Elm street in front of Zapruder position

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0084b.htm

Perfect reporting out of 17 shots.

On sidewalk on north side of Elm, across east-west side street (also Elm?) from TSBD

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0085b.htm

4 misreports out of 15 shots, 2 of which a shot from the Depository mistaken for a shot from the Knol, 2 of which were a shot from the Depository "equally" a shot from both

On underpass over the most southerly lane of Elm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0086b.htm

7 misreports out of 25 shots

 

[HSienzant]

I don't meant to grasp at straws, but from reading Euin's testimony, it can easily be inferred that he was talking about a distinct white bald spot on the back of the head.

That would be your inference. From what, precisely, that he said?

Can you quote that language that leads you to infer Euins was referencing a bald spot on the back of the assassin's head?

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

It's also interesting that you accept his later clarification of his original signed statement when he testified to something different (regarding the 'white man' reference) but appear to denigrate his later clarification of his testimony (regarding the 'four-shot' reference).

Especially since his original signed statement only mentions three shots: "... I heard a shot.... I saw a man in a window with a gun and I saw him shoot twice. He then stepped back behind some boxes..."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0113a.htm

I count three shots referenced in his original statement. Don't you? So where did he "consistently claimed to have heard four shots"?

I also count three shells found on the sixth floor, according to the testimony of the man who first saw the sniper's nest window later that day.



http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0124a.htm

Why should we believe Euins four-shot reference as opposed to the three-shot ones? Especially since we only have hard evidence of three shells? And since so many others spoke of three shots, not four (there are more witnesses who referenced hearing only two shots than referenced hearing four or more, according to Josiah Thompson's tabulation in SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS).

So when we look at more of the evidence than the claims of one witness, we get a different view of the number of shots, don't we?

Why should Euins' definitely minority four-shot reference overturn all that?

Hank

He said he heard one shot, and then he looked around and saw a man in the window shoot twice. Did he prepare the statement for himself to sign? It could have been worded in a way that suggests only perceiving three shots, only for him to later clarify that he actually heard four. Not a big deal, I know most witnesses recall hearing three.

I don't know if this has been discussed here, but author Barry Krusch made this expose of the discrepancies in the shell casing's chain of custody: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25QiW5K9U9c

He is now offering $5000 to anybody who can use available evidence to resolve these discrepancies: http://krusch.com/jfkshell/story.html

He has made two threads on reddit asking for refutations, but both threads were removed: https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyvi...he_chain_of_custody_sequence_for_the_primary/, https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/458rqx/5000_to_the_smartest_skeptic/

 

[Axxman300]

The problem is that there was no shot from the knoll.

Ignored by JFK CTers is the fact that someone standing behind the fence would have been visible to everybody. There's not much to hide behind, and he would be visible in the Polaroid taken from across the street. Not in the matrixing mess CTers point to, be would have stood out like a lighthouse.

 

[Axxman300]

I went to Dallas in 1986 a JFK Ct-nutjob, but standing there on the sidewalk where Kennedy took the fatal shot it was clear that NONE of the assassination advocates knew what they were talking about. I was there on a sunny day, just like 1963, and there is nowhere for a rifleman to hide.

Most important is the fact that it was an easy shot from the 6th floor. Easy. The landscape of Dealey Plaza is self explanatory, not complex, and a professional shooter had many good options on the rooftops of most of the buildings - all of which would have afforded concealment and escape. The Texas Schoolbook Depository makes sense only for Oswald, he worked there. A professional shooter would have hit JFK on Houston Street while the target was approaching with a stable profile and having to slow for the turn onto Elm.

The reason JFK is killed on Elm is because Oswald was still getting into place as the motorcade approached. The visit to the 6th Floor Museum makes it clear that the shot was easy to make, and the adjustments from the 1st miss, the 2nd low, and the 3rd dead-on are consistent with shots from that window.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I don't meant to grasp at straws, but from reading Euin's testimony, it can easily be inferred that he was talking about a distinct white bald spot on the back of the head.

That is an interpretation you are placing upon his words, not inferring from it.

It can however, be inferred he did not mean the back of the head, given the positions he describes for the man in the window, and which parts of the head would be visible.