JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[MicahJava]

He's an amateur small-bore range shooter. He is not a military shooter or a sniper, nor can claim any experience in shooting at moving targets in the field.

So you're saying that he only has experience in less strenuous shooting than something similar to the conditions in the Sniper's nest. Your point? If anything, that only means that the first should really should have missed, despite evidence that it didn't.

He can be as adamant as he wants. It's still just one opinion among a zillion armchair investigators.

I don't own his book, but his book does advertise the professional opinions of seventeen firearm experts and manufacturers. It makes sense to me. If you assemble a rifle, especially an old one, would you expect the first shot to be totally accurate or does it need to be "broken in"?

 

[traxy]

That's her, at age 26, recalling what happened when she was ten years old a journalist sixteen years after it happened. I think I'd rather trust Phillip.

Of course you would, because it reinforces your chosen conclusion.

Why on earth would her father know better than her what she was reacting to? When she stops running her gaze snaps from the motorcade directly to the book depository.

No, he himself confirmed that his recollections fit the time when they were near the freeway sign in the Z film.

Z160 isn't near the freeway sign?

OK, so then there must be a THIRD turn to the right, located between Z160 and Z240. Can you pinpoint it for me, because I sure as hell don't see it.

Connally always thought that he was hit by a second shot.

He's absolutely correct. The first shot hit nothing, the second shot hit Kennedy and Connally.

 

[MicahJava]

Of course you would, because it reinforces your chosen conclusion.

Why on earth would her father know better than her what she was reacting to? When she stops running her gaze snaps from the motorcade directly to the book depository.

I wouldn't trust any memory from sixteen years ago. Rosemary Willis herself would probably tell you that you're over-analyzing. The point is that Rosemary Willis stopping on the Z film could be unrelated to any loud gunshots. Where are all of the other witnesses reacting? Why has no Dealey Plaza witness ever stated "I heard the first loud shot, and the President just continued smiling and waving"?

EDIT: Also, one could make the argument that she is actually looking more towards the direction of the Dal-Tex.

Z160 isn't near the freeway sign?

OK, so then there must be a THIRD turn to the right, located between Z160 and Z240. Can you pinpoint it for me, because I sure as hell don't see it.

Connolly turns his head (and perhaps some of his body) to the right after Z160, then turns his head to the right again after Z224. When I raise the fact that the entirety of the witness statements support the first loud shot being after Z190, it always starts as a game of "when what witness said their head turned". I'm still saying that Conolly's statements are more consistent with the first loud shot being after Z190, but still, who cares when somebody thought they turned their head?

He's absolutely correct. The first shot hit nothing, the second shot hit Kennedy and Connally.

Well that's just your opinion, man. It's also my opinion that a shot that missed and struck the ground near a manhole cover, and that the existence of a bullet found in that location was covered up by Buddy Walthers and others. You can still kind of see the mark on the concrete (on the upper-right corner of the square surrounding the manhole cover) on Google Maps today: https://i.imgur.com/asGvPAv.png

 

[BStrong]

I wouldn't trust any memory from sixteen years ago. Rosemary Willis herself would probably tell you that you're over-analyzing. The point is that Rosemary Willis stopping on the Z film could be unrelated to any loud gunshots. Where are all of the other witnesses reacting? Why has no Dealey Plaza witness ever stated "I heard the first loud shot, and the President just continued smiling and waving"?

EDIT: Also, one could make the argument that she is actually looking more towards the direction of the Dal-Tex.




Connolly turns his head (and perhaps some of his body) to the right after Z160, then turns his head to the right again after Z224. When I raise the fact that the entirety of the witness statements support the first loud shot being after Z190, it always starts as a game of "when what witness said their head turned". I'm still saying that Conolly's statements are more consistent with the first loud shot being after Z190, but still, who cares when somebody thought they turned their head?



Well that's just your opinion, man. It's also my opinion that a shot that missed and struck the ground near a manhole cover, and that the existence of a bullet found in that location was covered up by Buddy Walthers and others. You can still kind of see the mark on the concrete (on the upper-right corner of the square surrounding the manhole cover) on Google Maps today: https://i.imgur.com/asGvPAv.png

When are you going to get around to providing proof of your earlier assertions?

Where is your evidence for what "the best snipers in the world" have to say about LHO's marksmanship?

 

[MicahJava]

When are you going to get around to providing proof of your earlier assertions?

The early reports of a bullet found in the grass were an early assertion of mine. I think that a missed bullet most likely struck the very upper corner of the concrete square around manhole cover where the grass had slightly grown over. There are photographs of Buddy Walthers and an unidentified officially-dressed blond man poking around that area, even putting something in their pocket. Newspaper reports, sworn testimony, how Walthers can't seem to keep his story straight about it, and the fact there there is an actual chip in the concrete there. I don't know the trajectory required, but a fragment of this may have been responsible for the other mark in the concrete near James Tague.

Where is your evidence for what "the best snipers in the world" have to say about LHO's marksmanship?

If the people here are half as familiar with the case as they claim to be, they should know that many relevant experts have come out and said that even having such accuracy with a time spacing of 2.3 seconds would be very unlikely, even for them considering everything. So far, nobody has provided anything but experiments designed to cycle and fire a MC as fast as possible. Has anybody actually gotten two accurate shots in 2.3 seconds with an identical Carcano when the exact circumstances are recreated, including moving targets? Has no Television hitpiece successfully done that? I know Jesse Ventura attempted it, but he failed.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Ah we are caught in a familiar CT loop.

Read something in CT book A that takes a fact for granted.
Read a second book that cites book A. And you assume it is well established and true.
You never check the facts, because you assume Book A is correct.

The 2.3 seconds is "well known" for all the same reason as any other myth.

 

[JayUtah]

So you're saying...

There you go again. You might want to look to that.

I don't own his book, but his book does advertise the professional opinions of seventeen firearm experts and manufacturers.

Or so you've been told. Again, hearsay-so isn't evidence. You keep making points on the backs of people you can't name and whose background you know nothing about in books you haven't read. And you wonder why you don't have any credibility.

 

[MicahJava]

Ah we are caught in a familiar CT loop.

Read something in CT book A that takes a fact for granted.
Read a second book that cites book A. And you assume it is well established and true.
You never check the facts, because you assume Book A is correct.

The 2.3 seconds is "well known" for all the same reason as any other myth.

Allow me to present a familiar LN loop:

1. Try to prove something with an experiment.

2. Ignore or undermine the fact that the experiment or results were flawed in some obvious way.

3. Make some excuse that sounds scientific.

4. Appeal to those with no sense of nuance.

 

[Ranb]

So you're saying that the MC should have been accurate enough when freshly assembled?

If the reason for disassembling the rifle was to make it fit into a shorter package, then all a person need do is remove the barreled action from the stock. This does nothing to reduce accuracy when reassembled. The scope would remain on the action.

For example if I disassembled a glass bedded bolt action rifle and then failed to ensure the bolts were properly torqued after re-assembly, this could affect accuracy. The Carcano Oswald allegedly used lacked any precision bed. If he left the scope in place and simply removed the action from the stock, then it would perform with the same accuracy as it did before. What reason do you have to believe taking the rifle apart would affect accuracy?

You gave no point besides accusing the author of lying and cherry-picking to make a quick buck. I've seen him on the jfkassasinationforum, he's very experienced with firearms and he's very adamant about believing that the first loud shot intentionally missed because the shooter would have to zero-in.

What do you mean by "zero-in"?

I don't own his book, but his book does advertise the professional opinions of seventeen firearm experts and manufacturers. It makes sense to me. If you assemble a rifle, especially an old one, would you expect the first shot to be totally accurate or does it need to be "broken in"?

What do you mean by "broken in"?

Your statements seem to be those of a person who is not familiar with firearms or the terminology associated with them. For example, to zero a firearm means to adjust the sighting system (scope or sights) to ensure the bullet impacts at the same place the scope crosshairs or the sights rest on the target. Break in is associated with the functioning of new machinery. As it applies to rifles it means that the bolt is worn a bit to ensure it operates smoothing or the barrel is conditioned (fouled slightly) to ensure top accuracy.

Ranb

 

[BStrong]

The early reports of a bullet found in the grass were an early assertion of mine. I think that a missed bullet most likely struck the very upper corner of the concrete square around manhole cover where the grass had slightly grown over. There are photographs of Buddy Walthers and an unidentified officially-dressed blond man poking around that area, even putting something in their pocket. Newspaper reports, sworn testimony, how Walthers can't seem to keep his story straight about it, and the fact there there is an actual chip in the concrete there. I don't know the trajectory required, but a fragment of this may have been responsible for the other mark in the concrete near James Tague.



If the people here are half as familiar with the case as they claim to be, they should know that many relevant experts have come out and said that even having such accuracy with a time spacing of 2.3 seconds would be very unlikely, even for them considering everything. So far, nobody has provided anything but experiments designed to cycle and fire a MC as fast as possible. Has anybody actually gotten two accurate shots in 2.3 seconds with an identical Carcano when the exact circumstances are recreated, including moving targets? Has no Television hitpiece successfully done that? I know Jesse Ventura attempted it, but he failed.

I'm very familiar with the case and remember the day vividly, but more than that I've spent a lifetime behind a rifle.

I've posted it before, but I'll do so again here.

Every single "fact" cited by CTists wrt the rifle, the mechanical aspects of the shooting and the terminal ballistics effect of the 6.5 x 52 round are flat out ********.

Your post here is no exception:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11456479&postcount=1106

"Lol. Some of the best snipers in the world have said that they could not replicate those shots, and they were alledgedly made with a dollar store with the most defective scope ever. I'm not aware anybody replicating the shots. I know of one experiment in which an olympic sniper accomplished something similar... from a height of the third floor of the school book depository.

"Recreations" of various feats of marksmanship mean absolutely -0-.

I shoot at 1000 yds fairly regularly, not as much as I used to, but a good day is where I shoot slightly under the magic number of minute-of-angle, which works out to 10" at 1000 yds - meaning I can accurately place a number of shots (3 or 5, depending on the type of rifle/caliber I'm shooting) in that 10 " diameter circle.

This guy is a little better than I am:

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2007/07/sarver-shoots-1403-group-at-1000-yards/

"Tom Sarver has entered the ranks of the Immortals. Shooting at the Thunder Valley (Ohio) Range on July 7th, Tom nailed a truly spectacular 1.403″ 5-shot group at 1000 yards.

This represents a new IBS Light Gun group-size record that edges Rich DeSimone’s 1.564″, previously thought “untouchable.” What is even more amazing is that the group was centered, producing a 50-score with 5 Xs. That will be a new IBS Score record as well.

The fact that I can't replicate Sarver's .14 MOA group has no bearing on his (or anyone else's) ability to do so, and before you get to the huminah huminah he's an expert and LHO wasn't, LHO was shooting at under 100 yds, which doesn't take any type of specialized high-speed low drag experience to pull off.

Facts in evidence:

The love of my life on a Mk12 Mod 0 clone I assembled, on the 100 yd range.

Second time firing an AR platform rifle and had never even seen a Trijicon ACOG optic before.

The target:

Shooting 5 shot groups, her two groups in this pic are at 12:00 and 1:00 high, and the group at 1:00 is just at 1 minute of angle. The optic used is in no way a precision scope. It uses a tritium illumination red circle reticle for quick target acquisition.

She has had no formal training other than basic safety instruction and the hunter's safety course required to obtain a hunting license in California.

My groups consist of the 10 ring and X hits, 5 shot groups under .5 MOA.

 

[MicahJava]

There you go again. You might want to look to that.

Or so you've been told. Again, hearsay-so isn't evidence. You keep making points on the backs of people you can't name and whose background you know nothing about in books you haven't read. And you wonder why you don't have any credibility.

This is getting boring. Please make some solid assertions for how you think it happened. An even better option could be to provide some actual refutation. Even if I don't copy and paste entire chapters of a book, we can know that there is a significant argument, using expert opinion and some experimental evidence, that the first shot from a newly-assembled MC would be very inaccurate. If you think it's hearsay, then provide a hearsay argument and I won't complain.

 

[MicahJava]

I'm very familiar with the case and remember the day vividly, but more than that I've spent a lifetime behind a rifle.

I've posted it before, but I'll do so again here.

Every single "fact" cited by CTists wrt the rifle, the mechanical aspects of the shooting and the terminal ballistics effect of the 6.5 x 52 round are flat out ********.

Your post here is no exception:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11456479&postcount=1106

"Lol. Some of the best snipers in the world have said that they could not replicate those shots, and they were alledgedly made with a dollar store with the most defective scope ever. I'm not aware anybody replicating the shots. I know of one experiment in which an olympic sniper accomplished something similar... from a height of the third floor of the school book depository.

"Recreations" of various feats of marksmanship mean absolutely -0-.

I shoot at 1000 yds fairly regularly, not as much as I used to, but a good day is where I shoot slightly under the magic number of minute-of-angle, which works out to 10" at 1000 yds - meaning I can accurately place a number of shots (3 or 5, depending on the type of rifle/caliber I'm shooting) in that 10 " diameter circle.

This guy is a little better than I am:

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2007/07/sarver-shoots-1403-group-at-1000-yards/

"Tom Sarver has entered the ranks of the Immortals. Shooting at the Thunder Valley (Ohio) Range on July 7th, Tom nailed a truly spectacular 1.403″ 5-shot group at 1000 yards.

This represents a new IBS Light Gun group-size record that edges Rich DeSimone’s 1.564″, previously thought “untouchable.” What is even more amazing is that the group was centered, producing a 50-score with 5 Xs. That will be a new IBS Score record as well.

The fact that I can't replicate Sarver's .14 MOA group has no bearing on his (or anyone else's) ability to do so, and before you get to the huminah huminah he's an expert and LHO wasn't, LHO was shooting at under 100 yds, which doesn't take any type of specialized high-speed low drag experience to pull off.

Facts in evidence:

[qimg]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/924/H3GPnt.jpg[/qimg]

The love of my life on a Mk12 Mod 0 clone I assembled, on the 100 yd range.

Second time firing an AR platform rifle and had never even seen a Trijicon ACOG optic before.

The target:

[qimg]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/922/xUZdsh.jpg[/qimg]

Shooting 5 shot groups, her two groups in this pic are at 12:00 and 1:00 high, and the group at 1:00 is just at 1 minute of angle. The optic used is in no way a precision scope. It uses a tritium illumination red circle reticle for quick target acquisition.

She has had no formal training other than basic safety instruction and the hunter's safety course required to obtain a hunting license in California.

My groups consist of the 10 ring and X hits, 5 shot groups under .5 MOA.

I acknowledge your comment but don't feel the need to respond to it.

 

[JayUtah]

This is getting boring.

Entertainment is not a factor.

Please make...

Shifting the burden of proof. I don't need to make a lengthy production in order to dispute claims you're making admittedly either from your own limited study and non-existent authority or from materials you admit you haven't read.

Even if I don't copy and paste entire chapters of a book...

Straw man. No one has asked you to do that.

...we can know that there is a significant argument...

No, we cannot unless you can actually back up your statements. You apparently want your paltry efforts at research to carry some disproportionate weight.

 

[MicahJava]

If the reason for disassembling the rifle was to make it fit into a shorter package, then all a person need do is remove the barreled action from the stock. This does nothing to reduce accuracy when reassembled. The scope would remain on the action.

What reason do you have to believe taking the rifle apart would affect accuracy?



What do you mean by "zero-in"?

Ranb

Just google "zero-in rifle". This isn't some pet theory of some random person. It's a well-documented phenomenon that the first shot of many newly-assembled rifles will always be very inaccurate if aiming through the scope.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwD5zu7yTeI

Are you gravitating towards a theory that Oswald used the iron sights? Bugliosi seems to go that direction, because he knows how truly terrible the scope is. I'm just wondering how Oswald could use the iron sights with the world's worst scope mounted to it. Or maybe the first shot(s) were from a more sophisticated weapon.

 

[JayUtah]

It's a well-documented phenomenon that the first shot of many newly-assembled rifles will always be very inaccurate if aiming through the scope.

Your only documentation for this appears to be Bauer, which you have not read. Do you have other sources in substantiation of the claim of this being "well-documented?"

Or maybe the first shot(s) were from a more sophisticated weapon.

Are you advancing this as a serious hypothesis?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Allow me to present a familiar LN loop:

1. Try to prove something with an experiment.

2. Ignore or undermine the fact that the experiment or results were flawed in some obvious way.

3. Make some excuse that sounds scientific.

4. Appeal to those with no sense of nuance.

Yep. You have done that too.

I pointed out exactly why experiments you cited were not only flawed, but asking the wrong question. You embarked on that loop, and tried to project it onto others.

Laughably you go sat far down the loop you openly stated you would assume the PennJillette experiment was a farce, and suspicious, while failing to acknowledge how that lesson should apply to your own claims.

Try again now. Consider those attempts to replicate LHOs shots and you "Olympic snipers". See if you can spot why your claims fail to convince.

 

[BStrong]

I acknowledge your comment but don't feel the need to respond to it.

Said with a wave of the hand, no doubt.

The fact that you have no idea what you're posting about isn't a virtue.

 

[Ranb]

Has no Television hitpiece successfully done that? I know Jesse Ventura attempted it, but he failed.

Is shooting at stationary targets enough to "duplicate" the shots from the TSBD?

I found this video; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSWSgcuYqDo

In it Ventura claims he was an expert in the past. In this video he fumbles around with the rifle like a person who has never handled a bolt gun before. There is no excuse for that. He could have made himself familiar with the rifle by dry firing or some limited target practice like Oswald allegedly did. Instead he choose to pass himself off as a fumble fingered bumpkin with a gun he barely knows how to handle.

I suspect that Ventura is prostituting himself to promote theory that he has no rational reason to believe.

 

[abaddon]

This is getting boring. Please make some solid assertions for how you think it happened. An even better option could be to provide some actual refutation. Even if I don't copy and paste entire chapters of a book, we can know that there is a significant argument, using expert opinion and some experimental evidence, that the first shot from a newly-assembled MC would be very inaccurate. If you think it's hearsay, then provide a hearsay argument and I won't complain.

Just like LHO's first shot was a miss.


Colour me surprised.

 

[Ranb]

Just google "zero-in rifle". This isn't some pet theory of some random person.

A Google search doesn't tell me what you think zeroing a rifle means. I'm claiming that your use of terminology seems to show you know little about ballistics. No one calls it zero-in, it is zeroing or zero.

It's a well-documented phenomenon that the first shot of many newly-assembled rifles will always be very inaccurate if aiming through the scope.

I don't believe you. Can you provide a single "document" that shows removing then re-inserting an action into the stock will have any significant effect on the accuracy of a rifle at short range?

Are you gravitating towards a theory that Oswald used the iron sights? Bugliosi seems to go that direction, because he knows how truly terrible the scope is. I'm just wondering how Oswald could use the iron sights with the world's worst scope mounted to it. Or maybe the first shot(s) were from a more sophisticated weapon.

No. I'm gravitating towards the theory that you know too little about firearms to have an opinion on how they function in the real world.

Why do you think the scope he had was the world's worst? I also don't see why you think it would be a problem to use the sights on that rifle with the scope mount on the side which is typical for Carcanos.