JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[Tomtomkent]

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.

You have mistaken convenience in respect of your theory for importance.

 

[KDLarsen]

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.

I respectfully disagree. A shot down Houston Street would have resulted in the angle to hit JFK becoming more acute as he approached, ending with an almost comically sharp downwards angle during the turn, whereas as a shot down Elm Street resulted in a near-steady angle as the car descended towards the underpass.

That is to say, for a shot coming from the Texas Schoolbook Depository. I yield to local knowledge as far as potential shots coming from other buildings around Dealy Plaza.

 

[MicahJava]

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.

1. You went to Dealey plaza in 1986 with a poor understanding of the talking points of CTs. You straw-manned yourself. Everyone except a few know that JFK would've been a visible shot from the TSBD.

2. What evidence is there that Oswald ever trained to shoot at downward angles?

3. How are you sure the first shot missed? Reading the eyewitness accounts, a lot of them say JFK slumped over after the first shot.

 

[MicahJava]

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.

Depends on how your hair is. Bald spots can be on the top of the head. As in, what you might see if you someone was aiming a rifle from that window.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Depends on how your hair is. Bald spots can be on the top of the head. As in, what you might see if you someone was aiming a rifle from that window.

It could also be thinning in several other places.
More likely, given the witness is looking up at somebody, who is staring along a rifle. Exactly how the top of the head would be visible makes no sense to me.

 

[Belz...]

2. What evidence is there that Oswald ever trained to shoot at downward angles?

You must be joking.

3. How are you sure the first shot missed? Reading the eyewitness accounts, a lot of them say JFK slumped over after the first shot.

So you've never actually readr about this case, then?

 

[Axxman300]

1. You went to Dealey plaza in 1986 with a poor understanding of the talking points of CTs. You straw-manned yourself. Everyone except a few know that JFK would've been a visible shot from the TSBD.

No, I had a dozen books on the JFK Assassination written by guys like Jim Mars and Mark Lane. I was a JFK Assassination CT nut job too back then. I bought into it all.

The problem was that everything that I read was an obvious lie.

It was obvious from just standing on the sidewalk.

The CTers tell everyone that the shots from the Depository were impossible, that Oswald was a lousy shot, and the Carcano was a crappy weapon. These are all lies.

There was no way for me to come away from Dallas still believing any of the CTs after I'd see the area in person.

2. What evidence is there that Oswald ever trained to shoot at downward angles?

Oswald had been a member of a little-known fraternal organization called the United States Marine Corps. Shooting is their religion, their rifles are their deity of choice.

As a boy living with his mother in NYC, Oswald used to shoot a corner market fruitstand with a pellet gun from his apartment window.

All three shots, at that range, with that rifle, would not require any special training. Oswald got plenty of range time, and in addition he spent evenings shooting bottles he'd toss into the river. The assassination did not require Superman, just an ex-Marine.

 

[HSienzant]

Depends on how your hair is. Bald spots can be on the top of the head. As in, what you might see if you someone was aiming a rifle from that window.

You can see the top of the head, while you're looking up from 60+ feet below that person?

Neat trick.

On the other hand, the shooter was said by Euins (and others) to be shooting down Elm Street, which would mean his anatomical left side would be visible to those below, and the chief suspect (who, I remind you, was implicated by a rifle traceable to him left on the same floor of the same building where this shooter was seen) was clearly balding on the left side of his head.

Your reasons for removing Oswald from this equation and suggesting someone other than Oswald may have been the shooter remain unclear.

Perhaps you could expand on your argument and list all the reasons you find to suggest someone other than Oswald was the shooter?

Thanks a bunch.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

All three shots, at that range, with that rifle, would not require any special training. Oswald got plenty of range time, and in addition he spent evenings shooting bottles he'd toss into the river. The assassination did not require Superman, just an ex-Marine.

I'm reminded of the movie (Full Metal Jacket?) where the drill sergeant is lecturing the recruits and names Charles Whitman and asks who was. Blank stares abound.

Then he asks who Lee Harvey Oswald was. One recruit volunteers, "He shot the President from that Suppository building, sir!"

The sergeant points out Whitman killed a lot of people from the Texas Tower, shooting from the 28th floor observation deck. He points out Whitman and Oswald had one thing in common: They were both Marines.

A couple of things he didn't point out: Whitman's shots were harder than Oswald's, because he was higher up, and thus farther away, from his targets. Both men were shooting down, yet nobody doubts Whitman had the capability to shoot people at a downward angle (because he did just that). And the best scores both men got were a couple of points apart (212 vs 210). With those scores, each earned a Sharpshooter medal in the Marines.

Why all this nonsense about training at a downward angle when the victim is the President, and the accused is Oswald?

Mostly because they simply don't want to believe a nobody like Oswald could bring down the President of the U.S.

William Manchester said it best:

Those who desperately want to believe that President Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy have my sympathy. I share their yearning. To employ what may seem an odd metaphor, there is an esthetic principle here. If you put six million dead Jews on one side of a scale and on the other side put the Nazi regime — the greatest gang of criminals ever to seize control of a modern state — you have a rough balance: greatest crime, greatest criminals.
But if you put the murdered President of the United States on one side of a scale and that wretched waif Oswald on the other side, it doesn't balance. You want to add something weightier to Oswald. It would invest the President's death with meaning, endowing him with martyrdom. He would have died for something.

So even 53 years after the fact, we get these silly arguments that it couldn't be Oswald because a witness described the shooter as having a bald spot (despite the fact that Oswald was obviously balding) and perhaps it couldn't be Oswald because nobody has established Oswald ever trained at shooting downward (despite the fact they haven't established that shooting downward would change anything).

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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?

If you're not sure of the meaning of Euins testimony, why'd you bring up to start with?

What point were you trying to make, and what point are you making above?

Hank

 

[pgwenthold]

No, I had a dozen books on the JFK Assassination written by guys like Jim Mars and Mark Lane. I was a JFK Assassination CT nut job too back then. I bought into it all.

The problem was that everything that I read was an obvious lie.

It was obvious from just standing on the sidewalk.

The CTers tell everyone that the shots from the Depository were impossible, that Oswald was a lousy shot, and the Carcano was a crappy weapon. These are all lies.

There was no way for me to come away from Dallas still believing any of the CTs after I'd see the area in person.



Oswald had been a member of a little-known fraternal organization called the United States Marine Corps. Shooting is their religion, their rifles are their deity of choice.

As a boy living with his mother in NYC, Oswald used to shoot a corner market fruitstand with a pellet gun from his apartment window.

All three shots, at that range, with that rifle, would not require any special training. Oswald got plenty of range time, and in addition he spent evenings shooting bottles he'd toss into the river. The assassination did not require Superman, just an ex-Marine.

BTW, he still missed twice before hitting the target.

A little quiz:
Q: Why did Oswald take three shots?
A: Because the first two missed.

CTers claim it was such an amazing feat. But they don't grasp the fact that he wasn't aiming at JFK's back, he was aiming at his head, so why consider the second shot a success? It wasn't. He was going to keep shooting until he hit the target or ran out of bullets.

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Of course, that assumes the shooter(s) on the knoll were

(a) actually there
(b) such crack shots they couldn't miss the president's head by an inch or two and hit Jackie instead
(c) confident that they wouldn't be captured
(d) confident that a shot from a right-front would be covered up

Arguing from what "Some have even speculated..." isn't a great approach. Some have even speculated that this approach allows one to introduce all kinds of accusations into the record with no evidence, and with no need to defend said speculations.

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?

Who said it was from a missed shot?

Conspiracy theorist Josiah Thompson in his 1967 book, SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS, thought he had answered this question for all time with his pointing out some of the facts:

(a) The metallic smear on the curb near Tague was found to be lead with a trace of antimony when analyzed by the FBI.
(b) Oswald's bullets were copper-jacketed, but the internal portion was comprised of lead with a trace of antimony.
(c) The bullet that struck the president in the head from behind broke apart. Two portions of the copper jacket were found in the limo after the assassination, and these fragments were traceable to Oswald's weapon, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. Most of the lead portion was not accounted for.
(d) It's nearly a straight line from Oswald's window to the President's head at Zapruder frame 313 to the curb at the spot it was struck.

All those facts - and they are facts - taken together appear to indicate that the missile that struck Tague was a lead fragment that escaped the limo. The Harper fragment (a portion of the President's brain) was found after the assassination forward of the limo as well. That would tend to show a bullet fragment could, would, and did travel in that same direction from that same hit.

I'm not certain Thompson pointed it out, but on the day of the assassination, Tague and one law enforcement officer lined up the curb mark with where Tague was standing, and determined the source of the shot had to be one of the buildings at the corner of Elm and Houston.

Buddy Walthers testified to all that. Maybe that's part of the reason he's "a person of interest" to conspiracy theorists.

Mr. WALTHERS. That's right--in this lane here and his car was just partially sticking out parked there and he came up to me and asked me, he said, "Are you looking to see where some bullets may have struck?" And I said, "Yes." He says, "I was standing over by the bank here, right there where my car is parked when those shots happened," and he said, "I don't know where they came from, or if they were shots, but something struck me on the face," and he said, "It didn't make any scratch or cut and it just was a sting," and so I had him show me right where he was standing and I started to search in that immediate area and found a place on the curb there in the Main Street lane there close to the underpass where a projectile had struck that curb.
Mr. LIEBELER. Would you remember that man's name if I told you or if I reminded you of it?
Mr. WALTHERS. I'm sorry--I don't know if I would remember it or not.
Mr. LIEBELER. There is a man by the name of Jim Tague [spelling], T-a-g-u-e, who works as an automobile salesman.
Mr. WALTHERS. I remember he had a gray automobile---I remember that very well.
Mr. LIEBELER. I think it must have been Mr. Tague because he was in here this afternoon and he told me his car was parked right there at No. 9 and that's when I put the mark on the exhibit and he walked up there and talked to a deputy sheriff and he looked at the curb.
Mr. WALTHERS. Yes; this was pure ignorance on my part in not getting his name---I don't know---but I didn't.
Mr. LIEBELER. I think it is pretty clear it was Mr. Tague, because his testimony he gave today jibed with yours and it couldn't have been anybody else and he had a cut and some blood on his face.
Mr. WALTHERS. Well, at the time I wasn't interested in whether he was cut
or what, I just said, "Where were you standing?" In an effort to prove there was some shots fired, and after seeing the way it struck the curb at an angle---which it came down on the curb---it was almost obvious that it either came from this building or this building [indicating] the angle it struck the curb at.
Mr. LIEBELER. When you say this building or this building you are talking about the School Book Depository Building or the building immediately east thereof, across Houston Street?
Mr. WALTHERS. Yes; and I ran right then back up along in here and that would be right at the corner of Elm and Houston, where I ran into one of our deputies, Allan Sweatt, and told him. everybody still at this time was just--I don't know what you would call it--just running around in circles you might say, and I told him, I said, "A bullet struck that curb. It's fresh---you can see a fresh ricochet where it had struck," and I said, "From the looks of it, it's probably going to be in this School Book Building"...

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/walthers.htm

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

No, I had a dozen books on the JFK Assassination written by guys like Jim Mars and Mark Lane. I was a JFK Assassination CT nut job too back then. I bought into it all.

The problem was that everything that I read was an obvious lie.

It was obvious from just standing on the sidewalk.

The CTers tell everyone that the shots from the Depository were impossible, that Oswald was a lousy shot, and the Carcano was a crappy weapon. These are all lies.

There was no way for me to come away from Dallas still believing any of the CTs after I'd see the area in person.

Except a number of people who were in Deadly Plaza that day have advocated multiple shooters. In 1989, there was no easy access to the endless supply of JFK-related documents and eyewitness statements like is today. It looks like all of the well-known conspiracy authors have visited Dealey plaza and most JFK authors and researchers advocate conspiracy.

BTW, what is your favorite analysis of the foliage around the picket fence? An advantage of multiple shooters would be that almost everyone is looking at the President.

Oswald had been a member of a little-known fraternal organization called the United States Marine Corps. Shooting is their religion, their rifles are their deity of choice.

Is there evidence that the Marine Corps trains soldiers to shoot rifles at a moving target at a downward angle?

As a boy living with his mother in NYC, Oswald used to shoot a corner market fruitstand with a pellet gun from his apartment window.

Where does it say this? I've searched Reclaiming History, I've tried Googling, and the only person who says this seems to be you.

All three shots, at that range, with that rifle, would not require any special training. Oswald got plenty of range time, and in addition he spent evenings shooting bottles he'd toss into the river. The assassination did not require Superman, just an ex-Marine.

Except the superhuman speed. Almost all witnesses heard the last two shots bunched together, and Robert Harris has made his case for the loud and startling gunshot at 285. Everyone trying to refute him cannot come up with a more reasonable alternative to what happened at 285. Luis Alferez, with his experience in filmmaking, was pretty certain of a loud and startling noise at 285 just by Zapruder's hand motions alone!

 

[MicahJava]

YSo you've never actually readr about this case, then?

You've never actually read the definition of "skeptic" then?

I am not convinced of the first shot being before or during 190-224, but Pat Speer presents a very generous sampling of eyewitnesses who seem to be saying that the first shot they heard was at 190-224. If the first shot missed, then it seems like an oddly large number of witnesses didn't hear or perceive it.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter5:thejigsawpuzzle

 

[MicahJava]

If you're not sure of the meaning of Euins testimony, why'd you bring up to start with?

What point were you trying to make, and what point are you making above?

Hank

Because the subject naturally arouse from the mention of the National Geographic documentary JFK: The Lost Bullet.

 

[Tolls]

Depends on how your hair is. Bald spots can be on the top of the head. As in, what you might see if you someone was aiming a rifle from that window.

Yes, because Oswald was clearly looking at his own feet rather than along the rifle...
That would explain him missing with that first shot completely.

 

[HSienzant]

BTW, he still missed twice before hitting the target.

A little quiz:
Q: Why did Oswald take three shots?
A: Because the first two missed.

CTers claim it was such an amazing feat. But they don't grasp the fact that he wasn't aiming at JFK's back, he was aiming at his head...

You aim for the center of mass, don't you? Why aim for the relatively small head, when you can aim for the middle of the back?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUtJos-wZXI
(Starting about 10:06)

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0063b.htm
(showing the view from the window)

... so why consider the second shot a success? It wasn't. He was going to keep shooting until he hit the target or ran out of bullets.

... Or until the target (JFK) was out of range. Which he was about to become because the car was about to curve to the right to follow Elm Street's path, because the car was about to speed up, and JFK was about to be out of sight.

It's ironic, but the first time JFK was struck (in the back exiting the throat) was actually the shot that almost guaranteed the subsequent head shot would be successful. Because it struck so close to the spine, it essentially caused a temporary paralysis, causing JFK's arms to splay out at the elbow (Thornburn position) and kept him upright and relatively still within the car for the subsequent shot that struck his head. If that first strike had hit his shoulder, for example, and not caused the temporary paralysis, he had plenty of time to duck down before the head shot.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

Because the subject naturally arouse from the mention of the National Geographic documentary JFK: The Lost Bullet.

Did you pay attention to the bit where we now know how the guy was standing, because of filmed footage? Kind of clarifies where a bald spot might be, now we can see how much of him of was visible.

See... This is why we look fir objective evidence instead of trying to smear a witness or put him on a pedestal...

 

[pgwenthold]

You aim for the center of mass, don't you? Why aim for the relatively small head, when you can aim for the middle of the back?

Because you are trying to kill the SOB, not stop him from escaping.

 

[Axxman300]

Except a number of people who were in Deadly Plaza that day have advocated multiple shooters.

They're wrong.

Their impressions are based on sound, and the echo in Dealey Plaza has been discussed at length in this thread. The farther away from the 6th Floor window the harder it was to determine the direction of the gunfire. Oliver Stone's sound guy complained about the echo while they were filming "JFK" on location.

Couple that with the simple lack of evidence of a second shooter and you see the problem.



In 1989, there was no easy access to the endless supply of JFK-related documents and eyewitness statements like is today. It looks like all of the well-known conspiracy authors have visited Dealey plaza and most JFK authors and researchers advocate conspiracy.

BTW, what is your favorite analysis of the foliage around the picket fence? An advantage of multiple shooters would be that almost everyone is looking at the President.

Honestly, a shooter behind the fence couldn't have stood out any more had they brought a 60-piece marching band with them.

Is there evidence that the Marine Corps trains soldiers to shoot rifles at a moving target at a downward angle?

The downward angle this is nonsense, especially at that short of a range. In the mountains of Afghanistan? Sure, but not Dealey Plaza, and not with that rifle. The down-angle is a non-factor in the shooting.

And the evidence of the quality of USMC marksmanship is the stacks of dead bodies in places like the South Pacific, Vietnam, Fallujah, Helmland Province.

Where does it say this? I've searched Reclaiming History, I've tried Googling, and the only person who says this seems to be you.

One of the reasons you fail is that Reclaiming History is a Woo-site, dedicated to spreading skewed information about the JFK Assassination.

As for Google, it took me 10 seconds:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/21/n...the-kennedy-assassination.html?pagewanted=all

Except the superhuman speed.

Nope. Plenty of time to cycle the bolt and reacquire the target between the throat shot and the head shot.

Almost all witnesses heard the last two shots bunched together

Echo...echo...echo...echo...

... and Robert Harris has made his case for the loud and startling gunshot at 285. Everyone trying to refute him cannot come up with a more reasonable alternative to what happened at 285. Luis Alferez, with his experience in filmmaking, was pretty certain of a loud and startling noise at 285 just by Zapruder's hand motions alone!

This is all irrelevant.

Harris's lack of ballistic knowledge is dwarfed by his inability to appreciate human nature. He advocates that we're all inclined to preform the exact same robotic actions to the same stimuli, even though this has never been the case in 100,000 years of human evolution. Harris sees what he wants to see because he needs it to be true.

I understand him completely because I felt like an ass for a long time after my visit to Dallas. Nobody wants to admit they've been foolish and stupid, but I was.

Look, I'm happy to keep the door open to some aspects of conspiracy with this case. I suspect one other person knew what he was planning, but at the end of the day this was an act initiated by Lee Harvey Oswald.