JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[MicahJava]

All you need is evidence that such a weapon existed, and was used in the assassination.

Such weapons have been used since World War II. Next.

 

[JayUtah]

I've been to Dealey Plaza on Google Maps.

A simple "no" would have been more honest and informative. So it's fair to say you've never seen the fence, lined up the imaginary shot, climbed behind the fence, etc. Whereas I have. Now, as I said, I made no representations about the effect of the speed of limousine. Would you please address the representations I did make?

 

[JayUtah]

Such weapons have been used since World War II. Next.

Have you ever fired a suppressed weapon? Have you ever fired one for competitive scoring at ranges relevant to this discussion?

 

[Tomtomkent]

.

So... you're not as creeped out as I am about this? There's physical evidence of a bullet, or a piece of a bullet, striking the curb in Dealey Plaza; someone, probably from the government, looks and that and goes "Well, that doesn't fit with our story", so they take time out of their day to obtain some kind of cement filler-substance, and they pave over the bullet mark while nobody's looking. That's some heavy stuff. That's like something out of the X-Files. How can anybody say that there was no cover up?

No.
Because if they were trying to cover it up, you would not have produced a photograph of it.

I think the cover up is entirely in the fevered imagination of the CT authors.

What has been produced by you is a photograph of a kerb in situ, and the out of situ, with the same mark visible, and a lot of supposition.

 

[Border Reiver]

Such weapons have been used since World War II. Next.

Not in the only caliber of bullet that was found at the Plaza that day. Next.

 

[Axxman300]

This again? Read about the crazy ideas the CIA thought up to kill Castro and tell me that a decently suppressed rifle in 1963 was impossible. It's ridiculous. Even in your lame exaggerations, there is nothing infeasible about what you're saying at all for the purposes of an assassination.

Those crazy ideas were conceived during the Kennedy Administration with JFK's blessings.

You, like all CTists, love to embrace remote possibilities instead of what would be realistic. Real assassinations succeed because they are simple in every aspect, which is why those hair-brained assassination ideas of the CIA's failed. Worse, you're trying to marry a concept to fit a theory that easily disproved.

In The Last Investigation by Gaeton Fonzi, who interviewed Werbell, we read: Mitch Werbell had admitted that he was in business there with two former CIA men manufacturing ultrasophisticated assassination devices.

Good for him, I hope they were valuable additions to our clandestine arsenal. Most all of them are now in museums. MACV-SOG used some of his designs, and I've seen most of them. WerBell had the most success with his design of a suppressor for the M-16.

None of this has anything to do with the JFK Assassination.

In the book, he explicitly denied having any involvement in the Kennedy murder, but really, he's just one of many examples of people who could make firearms ahead of their time for special purposes.

Not one having anything to do with killing Kennedy.

And we don't even need all of that! We just need a rifle that's not very loud compared to something like the extremely loud Carcano!

Uh huh, and the drop-off in Dbs with a 6.5 would make suppression a huge waste of time. And the Carcano isn't louder than other high powered rifles, not in a way that the human ear can tell. Then there's the problem of no other bullets found in Dealey Plaza since 1963.

As a former JFK CT loon I have to advise you that arguing ballistics is a dead-end street every time. The better JFK CTs allow for Oswald to be the lone assassin, and then link him to the bogey man of your choice. More running (re: BS) room this way, and plenty of dead former CIA, mafia, and anti-Castro Cubans to falsely accuse.

 

[MicahJava]

A simple "no" would have been more honest and informative. So it's fair to say you've never seen the fence, lined up the imaginary shot, climbed behind the fence, etc. Whereas I have. Now, as I said, I made no representations about the effect of the speed of limousine. Would you please address the representations I did make?

You said that at the time you were there, the street signs and foliage would get in the way. DP has changed a lot since then, and a lot of people seem pretty keen on a shot from near that storm drain.

 

[MicahJava]

No.
Because if they were trying to cover it up, you would not have produced a photograph of it.

I think the cover up is entirely in the fevered imagination of the CT authors.

What has been produced by you is a photograph of a kerb in situ, and the out of situ, with the same mark visible, and a lot of supposition.

You're a miracle! Some spook literally covered up evidence of a bullet hitting the curb and you think nothing of it? Why should anybody take you seriously?

There ARE examples of shell casings and other pieces found around the Plaza, but if they were all proven hoaxes and it wouldn't matter because nobody can seriously argue that any physical evidence of multiple firearms couldn't just be disappeared. They tried to make the curb shot disappear even when it didn't technically need to be an issue with the official story.

 

[JayUtah]

You said that at the time you were there, the street signs and foliage would get in the way. DP has changed a lot since then...

...says the guy who has never been there, either now or then. Describe in detail what would be different from the vantage point of the fence at the top of the grassy knoll. Be specific.

...and a lot of people seem pretty keen on a shot from near that storm drain.

Changing horses. Are you retracting the theory from a shot from behind the fence?

 

[Tomtomkent]

You're a miracle! Some spook literally covered up evidence of a bullet hitting the curb and you think nothing of it? Why should anybody take you seriously?

You keep asserting that, but you haven't shown it.

Photographs you posted suggest otherwise. What with the mark still visible and all...

You read in a CT book that some people thought it was repaired, and this was an attempt to hide evidence. That claim is unfounded.

You stretch your conclusion to a bullet causing the strike, and imagine proof of another weapon.

But you offer no reason to believe that.

 

[Axxman300]

I've been to Dealey Plaza on Google Maps.

So no, you have not.

I went to Dealey Plaza, I walked all of it, and went to the 6th Floor Museum. I arrived a long-time JFK CT-Loon, and left a reformed skeptic. I stood on the sidewalk where the fatal headshot struck, and across Elm Street where the classic Polaroid photo was taken. Even with the poor quality of the shot a shooter would have been clear as day in the picture, and everyone on that side of the street would have seen him. The cops in the motorcade would have seen him. The Secret Service would have seen him.

All of those "experts" who've "researched" all of those books on the assassination are either blind, gullible, stupid, or lying. I felt like a huge idiot for believing them - because I was an idiot for believing them.

Upstairs in the museum the sniper's nest is behind glass, but looking out of the window next to it I realized that almost anybody could have made the shots Oswald did, and the only better location was the window where the shots came from.

You should go to Dallas. Every JFK Assassination buff should.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Let's remind ourselves of the basics: MJ is making a claim. It his job to provide enough evidence to convince others. I don't care if "nobody takes me seriously". I am an idiot. If his evidence is not good enough to convince me, it does not bode well.

Saying "there are examples of shell cases all over the plaza" is nonsense. There are three shell cases that can be produced, and stories of others. Stories aren't evidence. Producing examples of shell casings, and evidence to show when and how they were found (crime scene photos etc) would count as evidence.

If you are then saying "nobody expects that", then you wont convince people. You are making a special pleading to allow you to base fairytales on a lack of evidence.

There is no point getting stroppy just because you cant convince people. Especially when they keep making it clear why they are not convinced. Offer something that can be concluded from the evidence, or offer better evidence.

 

[JayUtah]

I arrived a long-time JFK CT-Loon, and left a reformed skeptic.

I arrived with an open mind and left utterly convinced no shot was practical from the knoll. Most people are surprised at how confined Dealey Plaza is. It's much smaller than it appears in photographs.

All of those "experts" who've "researched" all of those books on the assassination are either blind, gullible, stupid, or lying.

They're opportunists, at the very least. And I'm convinced they intend their books and videos for people who've never been to the site.

 

[MicahJava]

The Winchester 74 sniper rifle with silencer pre-dates the assassination, and was used by the CIA. It is also automatic.

 

[Tomtomkent]

And the calibre?

 

[Tomtomkent]

What evidence is there that proves any .22LR ammunition was fired that day?


Oh. Right. None.

 

[MicahJava]

You keep asserting that, but you haven't shown it.

Photographs you posted suggest otherwise. What with the mark still visible and all...

You read in a CT book that some people thought it was repaired, and this was an attempt to hide evidence. That claim is unfounded.

You stretch your conclusion to a bullet causing the strike, and imagine proof of another weapon.

But you offer no reason to believe that.

The bullet mark on the curb was paved over intentionally and I can see you have a hard time accepting that.

 

[JayUtah]

What evidence is there that proves any .22LR ammunition was fired that day?

It's also worth noting how much cavitation one could expect from a suppressed .22 cal round.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The bullet mark on the curb was paved over intentionally and I can see you have a hard time accepting that.

Only because you have not shown it was "paved over" (or filled), that it was a bullet mark,and that the intention of filling it was to deliberately obscure evidence. (And er... Because it is still visible in the photos you placed here. You understand that right? It is in a photo, in the colour we would expect it to be. The colour of the rest of the kerb.)

Your photos don't even show the additional mass that you deride the WC for ignoring...

 

[Axxman300]

The Winchester 74 sniper rifle with silencer pre-dates the assassination, and was used by the CIA. It is also automatic.

You're not helping your argument.

You need a photo of a 6.5 with a functional suppressor taken by 1963. Good luck with that.