JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[MicahJava]

http://www.patspeer.com/_/rsrc/1440...8morphlastoneIhopeedit.gif?attredirects=0&d=1

 

[traxy]

Oh, excuse my manners. Let's go back to endless speculation about whether or not a sniper could hide behind the grassy knoll and unsourced claims of how easy Lee Harvey Oswald's alleged accomplishments were. Nobody here cares to give any legitimate critique of the interpretation of the F8 autopsy photos that has the EOP wound clearly visible (which was the original interpretation, by people who actually saw the body). You can see that EOP hole much better than any cowlick evidence - a slight fracture on the skull X-rays or the dry drop of blood on the BOH photo. I think I'm gonna sign off for the third time now.

Actually both of the Marine Corps marksmanship experts interviewed by the Warren Commission testified that the shooting feat attributed to Oswald was easy. James Zahm and Eugene Anderson.

First 2 that came to mind. I know there are more. So now the ease of Oswald's shooting is properly sourced.

 

[traxy]

Nobody here cares to give any legitimate critique of the interpretation of the F8 autopsy photos that has the EOP wound clearly visible (which was the original interpretation, by people who actually saw the body).

Actually that's precisely what the HSCA, and the Rockefeller Commission, and the Clark Panel, and the Justice Department autopsy investigation, and the AARB interviews have done. Legitimately critique the autopsy evidence. All of them came to the same conclusion, entry wound in the back of the skull from a shot above and to the rear.

Quibbling over an inch or two here or there is picking gnat **** out of pepper.

 

[BStrong]

Oh, excuse my manners. Let's go back to endless speculation about whether or not a sniper could hide behind the grassy knoll and unsourced claims of how easy Lee Harvey Oswald's alleged accomplishments were. Nobody here cares to give any legitimate critique of the interpretation of the F8 autopsy photos that has the EOP wound clearly visible (which was the original interpretation, by people who actually saw the body). You can see that EOP hole much better than any cowlick evidence - a slight fracture on the skull X-rays or the dry drop of blood on the BOH photo. I think I'm gonna sign off for the third time now.

How can we miss you if you won't leave?

 

[BStrong]

Actually both of the Marine Corps marksmanship experts interviewed by the Warren Commission testified that the shooting feat attributed to Oswald was easy. James Zahm and Eugene Anderson.

First 2 that came to mind. I know there are more. So now the ease of Oswald's shooting is properly sourced.

It's amusing to see someone who knows absolutely nothing about a given subject wave the flag of ignorance in the support of their assertion.

In a post a few pages back I posted a photo of an completely untrained person shooting a rifle she wasn't trained on with a type of optic she had never seen before.

The shooter bested the standard of marksmanship - 1 minute of angle, 1 inch of dispersion per 100 yds (or meters if you prefer) in that session with little difficulty - 5 shots into a group with less than 1" of dispersion -and again, she had only fired a similar type of rifle once before and had never even seen the type of optic on the rifle she fired.

I'd like to hear again about the impossibility of a trained Marine shooting what is referred to as "minute-of-man" at 88 yards when a completely untrained civilian female can best minute-of-angle at 100 yds.

If you go back to the post I referenced above, my groups on the same target at the same distance with the same rifle were centered in the X and 10 rings, at or under .5 minutes of angle.

 

[No Other]

The scope issue is a bit of a red herring.

First, the misalignment has several possible explanations, which could have occurred after the shooting. These include: the previously mentioned dropping of the rifle. It is not unreasonable to assume that the shooter was anxious to leave the location, and may not have taken great care in setting the rifle down carefully. In addition, it's location between two crates, which would have made it difficult to set down, argues in favor of a drop. The handling of the rifle between it's recovery and the test firing is another possibility. The partial palm print found on the barrel under the fore-end indicates that the rifle was disassembled, and then reassembled before test firing. Also, handling of the weapon while being transported to DPD is an open question.

This is not a red herring and all of your points are speculation. There is not one point that you mentioned, which you would accept from anyone else except for those who you wish to believe.

Second, it's not clear that the scope was used in the shooting. At the short range in question, the scope was not necessary, nor desirable. A "see-under" mount was used, attached to the left side of the receiver, it held the scope high enough that the factory sights, which were still installed, could be used. For a moving target, at that range, I would have used the iron sights.

In regards to the "see-under" mount,please provide me the link, book, or anything that says this particular rifle was set up this way. The obvious question is why was it there if it was not used?

 

[No Other]

R U 4 real?

What, you mean, ask for proof of a claim made by a Poster? I am sure he will come up with evidence as solid as his claim of the rifle being dropped.

 

[abaddon]

This is not a red herring and all of your points are speculation. There is not one point that you mentioned, which you would accept from anyone else except for those who you wish to believe.

In regards to the "see-under" mount,please provide me the link, book, or anything that says this particular rifle was set up this way. The obvious question is why was it there if it was not used?

The scope was a 4x18 Ordnance Optics Inc. Scope here is a picture of that model scope mounted to that model Carcano. (Not LHO's one).

It's pretty obviously a left mounting see-under scope arrangement. and it exactly matches LHO's weapon.

If you had bothered, you could have googled that yourself.

 

[BStrong]

This is not a red herring and all of your points are speculation. There is not one point that you mentioned, which you would accept from anyone else except for those who you wish to believe.

In regards to the "see-under" mount,please provide me the link, book, or anything that says this particular rifle was set up this way. The obvious question is why was it there if it was not used?

Here again, experience counts.

The scope mount on LHO's Carcano was mounted by drilling and tapping into the left side of the receiver wall, in much the same way many military rifles of the era had mounted optics, to allow the loading of the rifle w/ the scope mounted.

As opposed to a more modern type of receiver top installation using a single flat plane (or sometimes two) mounting base for the optic used, the receiver wall offset install allows the original iron sights to be used by the shooter.

To your question of why would someone do so, at reduced distances, magnified optics (LHO's was a 4 x power scope) are not a benefit. Simply speaking, a 4x scope will give the shooter a view of the target 4 x closer than the target actually is, and at ranges under 100 yds scopes of the era with small objective lenses (as LHO's was) also give a limited field of view - if you look at modern scopes intended for general use, many of the variable power scopes now start at 2.5 x or 3.5 x to make them somewhat usable at close range.

Modern military use scopes usually start out at 1.5 x, the scope pictured on the rifle in my earlier post is 4x, but the issued scope on that particular rifle is a 3 x to 9 x power variable that unfortunately isn't available from the manufacturer and the existing examples in civilian hands are too expensive for my blood - it's worth noting that the replacement scope starts out at 2.5 x.

Simplified answer - iron sights work fine at under 100 yds.

 

[Ranb]

In regards to the "see-under" mount,please provide me the link, book, or anything that says this particular rifle was set up this way. The obvious question is why was it there if it was not used?

The rifle was shipped to Oswald with the scope mounted. Whether or not he used it doesn't really matter.

 

[HSienzant]

Please name one person who handled the body who agrees with the cowlick entrance wound. The BOH photo looks like a drop of blood and the x-rays look like a fracture. Do any of your citations attempt to explain why the X-ray looks like a skull fracture and not a bullet hole? I didn't consider that the doctors could have parted his hair out of the way to make a wound visible (it looks like the spot where the hair naturally parts), but like I said, what doctor said that happened?

First establish there was a wound in the cowlick area. Then we can talk about how saw it there. You ignored my point entirely about your presumption the wound was in the cowlick area because the hair was parted there, and avoided documenting how you knew it wasn't parted there after the assassination to make a better photographic record.

So you can call it "the cowlick area" all you want, but until you document how you know the wound was in the cowlick, you're just assuming what you need to prove.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

How would anybody know if LHO dropped the rifle? Or does "dropped" mean "I dropped my kid off at school". Please provide proof that the rifle was dropped. thx

(a) Straw man argument. I didn't say LHO dropped the rifle, I said the rifle was dropped between some boxes. I never specified by whom.

(b) The weapon wasn't exactly well-hidden. Oswald (or whomever) could have put it in an outgoing box destined for shipment to himself and it would never have been found in the Depository, correct? Instead it was found on the northwest side of the building immediately next to the stairwell that leads to an escape. Oswald (or whomever used it, but most likely Oswald) would have carried the weapon to the stairwell to facilitate his escape (he didn't know how quickly the cops would respond, and indeed, one of them [Officer Baker] was inside the building within about 40-60 seconds of the assassination). Once he reached the stairwell, the rifle (which could have been used to shoot one officer) was abandoned amongst some boxes. Having served its purpose, there was no need to take care of it any longer. The shooter would have simply dropped it amongst some boxes with one and shoved another box over it with the other. He would not have taken care to place it gingerly anywhere -- the goal at that point (whether the shooter is Oswald or someone else intent on framing Oswald) is to get out of the building as quickly as possible. Every second of delay adds to his chance of discovery. So I don't need to show proof the rifle was dropped. You would need to show evidence it wasn't, contrary to all the reasonable reconstructions of the event.

(c) The weapon had an out of alignment telescopic sight. That is consistent with it being dropped. It is inconsistent with it being handled carefully.

The reasonable conclusion is the weapon was dropped - mostly likely when it was hidden. Ball in your court.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Please name one person who handled the body who agrees with the cowlick entrance wound. The BOH photo looks like a drop of blood and the x-rays look like a fracture. Do any of your citations attempt to explain why the X-ray looks like a skull fracture and not a bullet hole? I didn't consider that the doctors could have parted his hair out of the way to make a wound visible (it looks like the spot where the hair naturally parts), but like I said, what doctor said that happened?

Bolded: To you. As far as I know, your opinion on this means nothing.

Highlighted: Now, since you didn't consider the hair would be parted as part of a routine autopsy to facilitate photographs showing a wound in the hair line, are you considering it now?

You are presuming what you need to prove (that the autopsy photos show the natural part) and then asking me to disprove your presumption.

Nope. Not my job. You're attempting to shift the burden of proof here by asking me to disprove your presumption. That won't fly. You need to prove your presumption instead of asking others to disprove it.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

It's a simple matter of perspective with these two photographs. You can recreate the photos with a skull and a circular object representing the autopsy table drainage holes. The small hole in the back of the head is also plainly visible, you can actually see the light reflecting off the edge of the bone so it can't be an optical illusion from a bit of tissue or something like that.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. Please provide links to the two photos with sufficient detail and markings to delineate what you think you're seeing.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Oh please, spare us the details. What are you talking about? The photographs do not show the neck, therefore they portray the skull from more above.

According to you. Right? Please quote your qualifications to render that judgment.

And it's curious that now you want to skip over the details, but less than a month ago, you were telling us how terribly important getting the details right were. Do you remember writing this:

Experiments like the discovery channel and computer models like from Dale Myers would be a great place to start any new investigation, however the ones shown in your link does not live up to the standards of people who rightfully pay attention to details.

What happened between August and September?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

If the photos show the top of the head, with no neck in sight, how can they show anywhere below what could be considered the EOP?

Who said they show the top of the head? Or is that just another presumption of yours? The top of the head was missing.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

That photo really looks like a model train layout. Somewhere in America I suspect that there's a model train enthusiast/CT loon that has a miniature Dealey Plaze set up, complete with a little mini figure of a riflemen behind the fence on the other side of the grassy knoll, and a guy with a black umbrella standing next to the motorcade route.

As shown in Oliver Stone's movie, JFK:
http://bad.eserver.org/issues/2013/85/cox-dealey.htm

The FBI did it first:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7dVRwkpmGs (30seconds in).

I can't vouch for the guy behind the fence in the second model.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The scope issue is a bit of a red herring.

First, the misalignment has several possible explanations, which could have occurred after the shooting. These include: the previously mentioned dropping of the rifle. It is not unreasonable to assume that the shooter was anxious to leave the location, and may not have taken great care in setting the rifle down carefully. In addition, it's location between two crates, which would have made it difficult to set down, argues in favor of a drop. The handling of the rifle between it's recovery and the test firing is another possibility. The partial palm print found on the barrel under the fore-end indicates that the rifle was disassembled, and then reassembled before test firing. Also, handling of the weapon while being transported to DPD is an open question.

Second, it's not clear that the scope was used in the shooting. At the short range in question, the scope was not necessary, nor desirable. A "see-under" mount was used, attached to the left side of the receiver, it held the scope high enough that the factory sights, which were still installed, could be used. For a moving target, at that range, I would have used the iron sights.

Two Thumbs Up!

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The scope was a 4x18 Ordnance Optics Inc. Scope here is a picture of that model scope mounted to that model Carcano. (Not LHO's one).

It's pretty obviously a left mounting see-under scope arrangement. and it exactly matches LHO's weapon.

If you had bothered, you could have googled that yourself.

And that's where the conspiracy claim that the scope was mounted for a left-handed shooter comes from. The truth of the matter is you can't mount it on the right side, because the bolt is there, and mounting it anywhere but on the left side would interfere with the bolt-action of the rifle. You wouldn't be able to recycle the weapon, rendering it useless.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

This is not a red herring and all of your points are speculation. There is not one point that you mentioned, which you would accept from anyone else except for those who you wish to believe.

In regards to the "see-under" mount,please provide me the link, book, or anything that says this particular rifle was set up this way. The obvious question is why was it there if it was not used?

It was there because Oswald ordered it that way:

Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show arts' serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a price shown for that?
Mr. WALDMAN. Price is $19.95, plus $1.50 postage and handling, or a total of $21.45.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I see another number off to the left. What is this number?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number that you referred to, C20-T750 is a catalog number.
Mr. BELIN. And after that, there appears some words of identification or description. Can you state what that is?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number designates an item which we sell, namely, an Italian carbine, 6.5 caliber rifle with the 4X scope.

It can be used or ignored, depending on the preference of the shooter. The iron sights are always available. So we just don't know if the shooter used the scope or the iron sights, and we just don't know if the scope was in the same condition during the shooting as it was found after the shooting.

All complaints about the scope are meaningless, because there's no evidence that scope was necessary to the commission of the assassination.

Your question reduces to railing against the darkness, instead of just clapping your hands together and turning on the light.

Hank