JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[JayUtah]

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

I do indeed have a hard time accepting speculation as evidence. And I don't apologize.

You haven't told me whether you have retracted your suggestion of a second shot from behind the fence (i.e., through the pickets). And if not, what's specifically different about the effective field of fire from that vantage point between 1963 and now.

 

[MicahJava]

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.

If any lurkers want to check out the details behind the shell casings and bullets found in various locations around DP, they are free to do so. The curb mark issue is a clear example why you can't trust the sensibilities of the people here.

Some of them are examined in this book: http://krusch.com/books/Impossible_Case_Against_Lee_Harvey_Oswald.pdf, page 354

Otherwise, I'm more in to the eyewitness aspect at this point.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Ok... So there was a .22 rifle, behind the grassy knoll. Is there any evidence at all for something a .22 in a bad shooting position hit? Is there any impact mark on the body, the car, even our "paved over" kerb stone, that points towards a smaller round at the exclusion of the three bullets fire by Oswald?

Or are we supposed to believe there are bullets that left no trace other than sounding like echoes? In a plaza notorious for echoes.

Please tell me there is something more substansive to this their than wishful thinking and an unfamiliarity with the tricks sound can play when the waves bounce off stuff.

 

[MicahJava]

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...

Oh honey, the dark-colored part of the curb that your circled is the filled-in area. The bullet mark began as a white chip on the curb, and the chip was paved over with concrete paste filler.

Remember?

When Henry Hurt, a roving editor for Reader's Digest, was working on his book, Reasonable Doubt, I helped him all I could, mainly with its first half, a recap of known facts about the JFK assassination. I asked him, for his purposes and mine, the Digest having resources I lacked and lack, to have an expert on concrete examine that curbstone. They engaged Construction Environment, Inc., of Alexandrea, Virginia. It's chief engineer, Jose T. Fernandez, made an examination on March 10, 1983. He reported it March 17. He found the "dark gray spot" readily, "at the center of the concrete section, on the vertical face, just below the curbed transition between the horizontal ad vertical surfaces... The dark spot had fairly well-defined boundaries, as it stood out visually from the surrounding concrete surface... elliptical in shape approximately 1/2 in. by 3/4 in. in principle dimension. He found no other such areas on the curbstone and regarded that as "significant."

The spot also had different characteristics. He attributed the "difference in color" to "the cement paste" that was used. He found a difference in the sand grains because, unlike the rest, the "dark spot" contained only semi-translucent light gray sand grains. He found a flaw on the upper edge of the patch "consistent with the relatively weaker zones that normally occurs in the thin, or feathered edges of surface patch." His summary is: that it was a surface patch.

(source)

It just breaks my dear old heart you can't acknowledge a cover-up when there is one, even when you are provided with the clearest example. It was literally a cover-up. Literally.

EDIT: also, James Tague himself examined the curbstone in evidence and said that the bullet mark was filled over.

 

[Tomtomkent]

If any lurkers want to check out the details behind the shell casings and bullets found in various locations around DP, they are free to do so. The curb mark issue is a clear example why you can't trust the sensibilities of the people here.

Some of them are examined in this book: http://krusch.com/books/Impossible_Case_Against_Lee_Harvey_Oswald.pdf, page 354

Otherwise, I'm more in to the eyewitness aspect at this point.

So instead of substantiating eye witness evidence with physical evidence, you want to rely on the confliction and confusion of testimony.

What was that you asked about me being taken seriously?

People are telling you what it takes to convince them. You are ignoring it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

If any lurkers want to check out the details behind the shell casings and bullets found in various locations around DP, they are free to do so. The curb mark issue is a clear example why you can't trust the sensibilities of the people here.

Some of them are examined in this book: http://krusch.com/books/Impossible_Case_Against_Lee_Harvey_Oswald.pdf, page 354

Otherwise, I'm more in to the eyewitness aspect at this point.

Oh honey, the dark-colored part of the curb that your circled is the filled-in area. The bullet mark began as a white chip on the curb, and the chip was paved over with concrete paste filler.

Remember?

When Henry Hurt, a roving editor for Reader's Digest, was working on his book, Reasonable Doubt, I helped him all I could, mainly with its first half, a recap of known facts about the JFK assassination. I asked him, for his purposes and mine, the Digest having resources I lacked and lack, to have an expert on concrete examine that curbstone. They engaged Construction Environment, Inc., of Alexandrea, Virginia. It's chief engineer, Jose T. Fernandez, made an examination on March 10, 1983. He reported it March 17. He found the "dark gray spot" readily, "at the center of the concrete section, on the vertical face, just below the curbed transition between the horizontal ad vertical surfaces... The dark spot had fairly well-defined boundaries, as it stood out visually from the surrounding concrete surface... elliptical in shape approximately 1/2 in. by 3/4 in. in principle dimension. He found no other such areas on the curbstone and regarded that as "significant."

The spot also had different characteristics. He attributed the "difference in color" to "the cement paste" that was used. He found a difference in the sand grains because, unlike the rest, the "dark spot" contained only semi-translucent light gray sand grains. He found a flaw on the upper edge of the patch "consistent with the relatively weaker zones that normally occurs in the thin, or feathered edges of surface patch." His summary is: that it was a surface patch.

(source)

It just breaks my dear old heart you can't acknowledge a cover-up when there is one, even when you are provided with the clearest example. It was literally a cover-up. Literally.

Yeah. Remember when I asked before if you could spot why that might not be conclusive? Look again at the photo. Show me how you conclude it is filled in. Explain why it is still visible. Think about why freshly broken stone or cement darkens over time...

I think you are seeing what you want to see in your photos. I think you may not notice something about the angles of the photos.... And even in a black and white photo, the shade of the mark...


Want to try again?

 

[JayUtah]

If any lurkers want to check out the details behind the shell casings and bullets found in various locations around DP, they are free to do so.

Given that we're on chapter IV of this thread, and that most of the people you're talking to have been around since I, don't assume your critics are uninformed. This is a common schtick among JFK conspiracists: they wrongly assume their critics are ignorant.

 

[MicahJava]

So instead of substantiating eye witness evidence with physical evidence, you want to rely on the confliction and confusion of testimony.

What was that you asked about me being taken seriously?

People are telling you what it takes to convince them. You are ignoring it.

Gee, I wonder why you're so quick to dismiss the combined statements of about 300 witnesses.

Edit: Oddly enough, I can't even see any reason why the sequence of loud shots I'm arguing couldn't fit with the OS. Step 1: Shot at Z224, SBT happens. Step 2: Head shot at 313. Step 3: In Oswald's haste as the limo beings accelerating, he rapidly cycles his MC, shoots without aiming, and misses far-off at the curb.

 

[MicahJava]

Yeah. Remember when I asked before if you could spot why that might not be conclusive? Look again at the photo. Show me how you conclude it is filled in. Explain why it is still visible. Think about why freshly broken stone or cement darkens over time...

I think you are seeing what you want to see in your photos. I think you may not notice something about the angles of the photos.... And even in a black and white photo, the shade of the mark...


Want to try again?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Gee, I wonder why you're so quick to dismiss the combined statements of about 300 witnesses.

I haven't dismissed them. I am wondering why you won't substantiate that evidence with other evidence, given the conflicts and contradictions.

Do you understand the limitations of witness statements?
Do you understand why they may not be convincing without supporting evidence?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Ok... Show me how you calculated the depth of height of the mark I identified in the colour picture.

 

[MicahJava]

I haven't dismissed them. I am wondering why you won't substantiate that evidence with other evidence, given the conflicts and contradictions.

Do you understand the limitations of witness statements?
Do you understand why they may not be convincing without supporting evidence?

Well, it is important to look at when there's a consensus among the majority of witnesses, or at least when there seems to be.

Then there are some very strong examples of eyewitness statements, like Phillip Willis who snapped a photograph at the equivalent of Zapruder frame 202, and swore that the picture was snapped because of a startle reaction to the first shot he heard (causing him to involuntarily click the shutter button). Of course, a shot at 202 had to happen a moment before the photographic evidence of Connolly being hit at Z224.

Willis slide 5

Clicking the shutter button as a reaction to hearing a loud gunshot in the most important assassination ever is the kind of thing that would make a distinct impression on a witnesses mind. I'm sure you think he was somehow mistaken?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Well, it is important to look at when there's a consensus among the majority of witnesses, or at least when there seems to be.

Then there are some very strong examples of eyewitness statements, like Phillip Willis who snapped a photograph at the equivalent of Zapruder frame 202, and swore that the picture was snapped because of a startle reaction to the first shot he heard (causing him to involuntarily click the shutter button). Of course, a shot at 202 had to happen a moment before the photographic evidence of Connolly being hit at Z224.

Willis slide 5

Clicking the shutter button as a reaction to hearing a loud gunshot in the most important assassination ever is the kind of thing that would make a distinct impression on a witnesses mind. I'm sure you think he was somehow mistaken?

But any witness can only be as accurate as a human.

Hence why we look for objective evidence.

Witness evidence is supported or contradicted by objective evidence. Not vice versa.

 

[MicahJava]

But any witness can only be as accurate as a human.

Hence why we look for objective evidence.

Witness evidence is supported or contradicted by objective evidence. Not vice versa.

What do you think about the Willis photograph?

 

[Tomtomkent]

What do you think about the Willis photograph?

Tell you what, rather than reading this thread, and the three previous threads to find out, why not just show us what, in that photograph, you think is evidence of a silenced .22 rifle behind the grassy knoll.

 

[MicahJava]

Tell you what, rather than reading this thread, and the three previous threads to find out, why not just show us what, in that photograph, you think is evidence of a silenced .22 rifle behind the grassy knoll.

Lol.

I think the Willis photograph is evidence of a loud shot before Z224. I think the Willis photograph is perfectly compatible with a shot at around Z190, which the HSCA photographic panel said was evidenced by Kennedy's actions at that time in the Z film.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Lol.

I think the Willis photograph is evidence of a loud shot before Z224. I think the Willis photograph is perfectly compatible with a shot at around Z190, which the HSCA photographic panel said was evidenced by Kennedy's actions at that time in the Z film.

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear:

What in the photograph supports your specific claims of a silenced .22 rifle behind the grassy knoll?

 

[MicahJava]

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear:

What in the photograph supports your specific claims of a silenced .22 rifle behind the grassy knoll?

We all know about the classic tactics here. I just speculated that some kind of silenced shot could come from the grassy knoll, near the storm drain by the overpass, and that the loud noise and puff of smoke behind the fence near the pergola could be a firecracker. Trying to reconstruct the situation in Dealey Plaza using basic facts is different.

We know that the Willis photograph was taken at the equivalent of Z202 (I've seen somebody saying that it was actually taken in the Z10's, but most sources say Z202).

We know that Phillip Willis always swore that the photograph was snapped as a result of him clicking the shutter button in response to the first loud noise he heard.

Considering the photographic evidence of Conolly being struck at Z224, the Willis photograph can not live in harmony with the official story.

 

[BStrong]

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.

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.

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.

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!

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I haven't read a post that asserted that suppressed rifles didn't exist.

What is rejected is your (and others) assertion that there was a suppressed rifle in play in Dallas. So far you haven't made any more headway on this issue than anyone else has, and for good reason.

No evidence other than popular fiction fantasy conjecture.

And before you hang your hat on Werbell as co-conspirator, the guy was a great promoter of his company and himself, but was more carny than BlackOpsWarrior extraordinaire. His post war military rank was self bestowed, and although he was an ex-OSS troop he is more a creation of PR and ******** than actual covert war operator.

He's best noted in the RW for running SIONICS into the ground and providing interested licensees to purchase the whole stock of inventory and tooling from SIONICS at pennies on the dollar at the bankruptcy auction.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Considering the photographic evidence of Conolly being struck at Z224, the Willis photograph can not live in harmony with the official story.

You are mistaking the photograph for a story about the taking of the photograph.

The photograph itself fits quite nicely with the "official story". What does not fit is the story told of the taking.

You also seem to be straying away from actually supporting your previous claims. Is this going to be a Gish Gallop, or do you ever intend to provide any evidence to support your claims of silenced rifles being in the plaza?