JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[HSienzant]

Now that you brought up the ability to SEE if a gun had been fired... did the FBI and/or Dallas Police SEE if the rifle had been fired?

You already admitted it was.

Do you remember writing this?

You are only offering evidence that the bullets recovered came from the rifle.

The six pieces of evidence (three shells, two large fragments, and one nearly whole bullet) came from that rifle. The only time the limo (where the two fragments were recovered) was in the vicinity of the rifle was during the assassination. Thus, the rifle was used during the assassination, and is shown to be 'recently fired'. Q.E.D.

Hank

 

[No Other]

See, the earth has this thing called mass, and mass has an attractive force called gravity. Objects with mass will be pulled toward the earth's center of mass, meaning they will drop if not suspended by a force greater than the force of gravity. Let me know if you need more details.

If you care to get scientific, then explain how Newton's First Law went into effect which allowed gravity to put it's full destructive force upon the weapon?

So don't be too quick to disregard that evidence that those six pieces of evidence were fired from the rifle. It's ALSO the evidence that establishes the rifle was used that day -- i.e., recently fired.

Explain what you mean. The bullets only prove that they were fired from the rifle, there is nothing in the bullets that provides a time frame.

And you ignored this point: Are you suggesting it was planted with a defective scope? If not, what exactly are you suggesting?

This is classic Hank, when you are painted into a corner you start attributing thoughts that were never expressed and you then wish for me to respond. I will treat your question as rhetoric.

 

[HSienzant]

Again, I am not doubting or questioning if the bullets came from the rifle, I am discussing the time frame.

Then discuss the time frame. The fragments were recovered by the Secret Service. The bullet was found by a custodian, and was given to the Secret Service, who gave it to the FBI. The three shells were found by Sheriff's deputies, and recovered by the Dallas Police. All that evidence was in the collected on the day of the assassination. That's the time frame in question.

All those have a legitimate evidence trail, all are entered into evidence. All point to the rifle being used in the assassination.

Spell out your version of events. Cite the evidence for your version of events. Name the test you say should have been utilized, but wasn't.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

If you care to get scientific, then explain how Newton's First Law went into effect which allowed gravity to put it's full destructive force upon the weapon?

Newton's first law has exactly what to do with the evidence of the rifle being found with a defective scope?

Newton's first law of motion - An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

The rifle was found at rest. With a defective scope. You brought up the issue of the defective scope. You tell us how it's pertinent to the assassination, without assuming what you need to prove.

Explain what you mean.

Already did. You snipped it.

The bullets only prove that they were fired from the rifle, there is nothing in the bullets that provides a time frame.

Au contraire. Here's the explanation again:

The evidence those six pieces of evidence came from that rifle is the evidence the rifle was recently fired.

First off, It's not bullets, plural. It's one nearly whole bullet, two large bullet fragments, and three spent shells.

One bullet was found in Parkland and two large bullet fragments were found *in the limo* the evening of the assassination. Clearly, those two bullet fragments and that one bullet got there only one way, via the assassination. It's the only time the limo was in the vicinity of the rifle, which was recovered from the Depository building the shooter was seen in by numerous witnesses. The limo went by the Depository at 12:30 on 11/22/63. Three shots were heard by a majority of the witnesses, and two victims in the limo were struck by gunfire. The bullet then fell out of John Connally's pants leg in the hospital and was recovered from his stretcher, the two fragments were remnants of the shot that hit JFK in the head. All three pieces of evidence were ballistically traceable to the weapon recovered in the Depository. To the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

In addition, three shells were recovered at the sniper's nest window in the Depository (the southeast corner window on the sixth floor). All three of those shells were traceable to the same weapon as the bullet and the two fragments. To the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

So don't be too quick to disregard that evidence that those six pieces of evidence were fired from the rifle. It's ALSO the evidence that establishes the rifle was used that day -- i.e., recently fired.

Just because you snip something doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

So the time frame is 12:30 on 11/22/63. That's the intersection of the rifle, the three shells, the two large fragments, and the one nearly whole bullet. And the two victims of gunfire in the limo. Unless you care to introduce other evidence. Note I said *evidence*, not conjecture or speculation or innuendo.

This is classic Hank, when you are painted into a corner you start attributing thoughts that were never expressed and you then wish for me to respond. I will treat your question as rhetoric.

I'm not painted into a corner. I've backed up my claims by referencing the evidence I'm using to reach that conclusion. It's an entirely reasonable conclusion, supported by the evidence.

You brought up the defective scope. I've asked how it's pertinent to Oswald's capability to use the weapon to commit the assassination. You haven't told us.

I've asked what you're suggesting about the damage to the scope - as you're questioning if it was damaged between the time of the assassination and afterward when it was examined by the FBI - then you're suggesting it was damaged before the assassination. Aren't you? You haven't told us.

As you're questioning also whether Oswald committed the assassination, I asked if you're suggesting that the rifle was planted with a defective scope to frame Oswald. You haven't told us.

You haven't told us what exactly you're suggesting. We're all dying to know.

So, revisiting the damaged scope, why'd you bring it up, and what exactly are you suggesting?

We're still waiting for your reasonable conclusions, supported by the evidence.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

This is an easy and often performed test (at least by the Phoenix Police).

Taking you at your word, that's a test the Phoenix police are utilizing currently.

Was it a test they were utilizing in 1963?

Was anyone utilizing that test in 1963?

Was it a common and often utilized test in 1963?

Did any 1963 or prior criminology texts mention this test?

There are, for example, DNA tests available today that if the rifle was recently fired, we might be able to retrieve skin cells from the weapon and test those cells for DNA and determine if it was Oswald's DNA on the weapon.

But such DNA tests did not exist in 1963, and asking why these DNA tests weren't performed on the rifle in 1963 would be silly and pointless - as is your asking about this copper pitting test, unless and until you establish it was a common test in 1963.

Ball in your court.

Cite your evidence for circa 1963 testing of this nature.

See, the way it works, is, if you make a claim, it's your responsibility to back up your claim. No one has to disprove your claim, which is apparently what you're waiting for us to do. It doesn't work that way.

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

Read carefully what I wrote... snip... "Heck, we are talking about a rifle that was never even tested for recent firings when in the hands of the Dallas Police or FBI." The key component of the previous sentence was recent firings. Show me where the Dallas Police and/or the FBI checked the weapon for recent firings. You are only offering evidence that the bullets recovered came from the rifle.
... and who determines what is "reasonable"?

Hey, Sherlock, THERE IS NO TEST TO CHECK IF A WEAPON HAS BEEN RECENTLY FIRED.

Never was, and they can't even do it today with all of our high-tech goodies. The FBI lab doesn't even waste its time on GSR today.

So while you're all worked up about a non-existent test that cops and FBI didn't apply, because there wasn't one, you're ignoring the body of the evidence which is the bullets and the rifle.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Axxman300]

Good reading about GSR evidence collection and how good it is and is not:

http://www.forensicsciencesimplified.org/firearms/how.html

Not that any CTer will bother with facts.

 

[Axxman300]

If you care to get scientific, then explain how Newton's First Law went into effect which allowed gravity to put it's full destructive force upon the weapon?

There's an old saying: Never bring Newton to a gunfight.

The Carcano's greatest attribute is that it is rugged, just like any battle rifle made before 1964. Solid wood and metal construction with few moving parts. This is why you can still find it in use in Africa today, you can't break one easily. You can go to the National Archives, load Oswald's rifle today, and kill people with it. He could have tossed it out of the 6th floor window and they still could have fired it (maybe after gluing the stock).

The bullets only prove that they were fired from the rifle, there is nothing in the bullets that provides a time frame.

Other than they were pulled from the body and the car? Yeah, no time frame.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No Other... I gave you the standard reference book for forensic examinations at the time. It claims no test could determine how recently a gun had been fired. It directly quotes that the tests offer no time frame. Are you able to support any of that with citations? And I would find it incredibly odd if the tests used in firearms were uniquely accurate for the time compared to any other test available in industry.

And yes. I "just made a statement", because, well.... Test firsings in a factory fire the gun. With a cartridge. Which leaves residue. So...yeah... As far as the forensics at the time were concerned, proving a gun had been fired did nt prove it had been fired at any given time.

But again, these tests were redundant. Because there was evidence of cartridges being spent and bullets being fired from that rifle, to the exclusion of all others.

Care to offer a better explanation of the evidence?

Or is an argument that there was a supposed gap in evidence, that might somehow mean something different happened, all you have?

Because REALLY, even if a test was not carried out, given the only shells and bullet fragments recovered were from that rifle, what dreaded revelation are you hoping it will prove?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Just once, instead of trying to pluck holes in the WC, it would be nice if a conspiracy theorist just gave us their complete theory. Who shot JFK, how, and the cover up.

 

[No Other]

Hey, Sherlock, THERE IS NO TEST TO CHECK IF A WEAPON HAS BEEN RECENTLY FIRED.

Never was, and they can't even do it today with all of our high-tech goodies. The FBI lab doesn't even waste its time on GSR today.

So while you're all worked up about a non-existent test that cops and FBI didn't apply, because there wasn't one, you're ignoring the body of the evidence which is the bullets and the rifle.

Thanks for playing.

You need to speak from a position of knowledge and currently you do not possess this base. Metal fouling is accepted by any person who has handled a rifle as this is a "go no-go" gauge. It will eliminate a suspected weapon if there is evidence of it NOT being used. There is absolutely no evidence that this weapon was shot from the 6th floor conversely there is no evidence that it was not. I have never said that the bullets recovered were not shot from the rifle but you continue to express the non sequitur as if this proves that LHO shot that rifle from the 6th floor. If peeling back the onion is beyond your capacity, say so, but if it isn't then piece together the sequence of events. If you believe in the "magic bullet" then you will be able to put your mind around the ability to test for metal in the barrel of a rifle.

Question: If this is not a test then why did the McCloy of the WC ask FBI Agent Frazier if they tested for this?



A total lack of knowledge much less understanding are not credentials for being an expert but cute little tidbits like "thanks for playing" are nuggets that are the beginnings for a mountain of wisdom.

 

[JayUtah]

Just once, instead of trying to pluck holes in the WC, it would be nice if a conspiracy theorist just gave us their complete theory. Who shot JFK, how, and the cover up.

Yes, it would be nice. But the culture of that conspiracy genre has gone beyond even saying they can't do it to asserting that they don't need to. But as always with armchair detectives, it's so much easier to prove your genius by poking holes in other people's investigations that by, you know, investigating on your own.

 

[No Other]

See, the way it works, is, if you make a claim, it's your responsibility to back up your claim. No one has to disprove your claim, which is apparently what you're waiting for us to do. It doesn't work that way.

Hank

Expect your rules do not apply for you. You have yet to explain how you know the rifle was dropped. All you have provided is a guess but you passed it off as fact. I loved it when you said "gravity" as if gravity put the rifle in motion and the result was a scope that went out of alignment. Then after others said the fixed sights were sufficient you joined that bandwagon but you had no idea until it was brought to your attention. Give me your facts about the rifle dropping.

By the way, you have acknowledged that you do not know very much about weapons yet there is haranguing on the formality of the test. Testing for metal in the barrel is conducted by virtually every owner of rifles and handguns, to attempt that it is not used is futile especially from a person who admittedly is a novice when it comes to rifles.

 

[BStrong]

You need to speak from a position of knowledge and currently you do not possess this base. Metal fouling is accepted by any person who has handled a rifle as this is a "go no-go" gauge. It will eliminate a suspected weapon if there is evidence of it NOT being used. There is absolutely no evidence that this weapon was shot from the 6th floor conversely there is no evidence that it was not. I have never said that the bullets recovered were not shot from the rifle but you continue to express the non sequitur as if this proves that LHO shot that rifle from the 6th floor. If peeling back the onion is beyond your capacity, say so, but if it isn't then piece together the sequence of events. If you believe in the "magic bullet" then you will be able to put your mind around the ability to test for metal in the barrel of a rifle.

Question: If this is not a test then why did the McCloy of the WC ask FBI Agent Frazier if they tested for this?



A total lack of knowledge much less understanding are not credentials for being an expert but cute little tidbits like "thanks for playing" are nuggets that are the beginnings for a mountain of wisdom.

Better study up on a subject before you post.

There is one and only one "go-no-go" gauge wrt fireams, and here they are:

http://thecmp.org/training-tech/armorers-corner/headspace/


The “GO” gauge - is most commonly used when installing a new barrel and reaming the chamber to size. The bolt should fully close on the “GO” gauge, if it fully closes you can be sure you have enough room in the chamber to prevent the cartridge from being crushed during chambering. The “GO” gauge can also be thought of as a minimum safe headspace gauge and the rifle's bolt must be able to fully close with it in the chamber.

The “NO GO” gauge - is used to make sure a firearm does not have excessive headspace. The bolt should NOT fully close on the “NO GO” gauge, if the bolt cannot be closed on the “NO GO” gauge then you know your rifle does not have headspace that is excessive. The “NO GO” gauge can be thought of as a maximum headspace gauge and should not be able to fit in the rifle's chamber with the bolt fully closed. If the bolt DOES close on the “NO GO” gauge, it does not necessarily mean that the rifle is unsafe; it does however show that a further check with the “FIELD” gauge would be necessary to determine if it is safe to shoot.

The go-no-go gauge is used to check the headspace of a rifle to ensure it's safe to fire and nothing more. If you have evidence to the contrary, as in a technical description by a manufacturer, I'm very interested to see it.

 

[BStrong]

Expect your rules do not apply for you. You have yet to explain how you know the rifle was dropped. All you have provided is a guess but you passed it off as fact. I loved it when you said "gravity" as if gravity put the rifle in motion and the result was a scope that went out of alignment. Then after others said the fixed sights were sufficient you joined that bandwagon but you had no idea until it was brought to your attention. Give me your facts about the rifle dropping.

By the way, you have acknowledged that you do not know very much about weapons yet there is haranguing on the formality of the test. Testing for metal in the barrel is conducted by virtually every owner of rifles and handguns, to attempt that it is not used is futile especially from a person who admittedly is a novice when it comes to rifles.

It's entirely possible that I have more time involved in live firing than you do on this planet.

The bolded above is pure ********. You clean firearms after use. You're not "testing" for anything, and once a firearm has been fired more than 3 - 5 rounds there will be metal deposits in the barrel forever.

There is and has never been a forensic test that can determine when a specific firearm has been fired.

 

[Tomtomkent]

You need to speak from a position of knowledge and currently you do not possess this base.

The standard for forensic testing at the time was Frank Lundquist, Methods of Forensic Science, Volume I, (1962) Page 628 is the pertinent page. With the position of knowledge you possess, please could you indicate where the test you describe can be found.

Here:

When a firearm has been discharged, if its barrel is not carefully cleaned afterward, there will remain traces of sulfate and potassium salts in the case of a charge of black powder, and traces of nitrates and sulfates when the charge was smokeless. In addition, there will be traces of the primer

Sounds promising right?

However, it is practically impossible to say how long the residue left by firing of powders (or primers) has been in a barrel

Uhoh!

Therefore, if the firearm has not been carefully cleaned after firing, all that can be said is that it has been fired.

Well, there you go. From the handbook of the day. You are speaking nonsense and demanding a test that would be used. Did they look to see if the gun had EVER been fired, at any point since the test firing in the factory?

Who cares!

They know the gun must have been fired, because they had bullets and shells!

 

[Tomtomkent]

Expect your rules do not apply for you. You have yet to explain how you know the rifle was dropped.

Because he stated a reasonable conclusion and the means by which he reached it. How do you think the rifle came in contact with the floor?

All you have provided is a guess but you passed it off as fact.

No the one who seems to be calling it a "fact" is you.

I loved it when you said "gravity" as if gravity put the rifle in motion and the result was a scope that went out of alignment.

However, gravity is a reasonable enough basis to conclude the rifle was dropped from the evidence. You asked him how he knew it fell there, and he could have said "common sense" or "the most likely explanation for how it ended up behind the box". All are reasonable routes to his conclusion.
The F word was bandied around, best as I can see tracking back through the conversation, by you.

As far as I can see it should be abundantly clear by now, but for some reason you want to act like you are both stating things as fact. He isn't, you appear to be trying to. So...

Then after others said the fixed sights were sufficient you joined that bandwagon but you had no idea until it was brought to your attention. Give me your facts about the rifle dropping.

...please try to understand the difference between facts and conclusions.

By the way, you have acknowledged that you do not know very much about weapons yet there is haranguing on the formality of the test. Testing for metal in the barrel is conducted by virtually every owner of rifles and handguns, to attempt that it is not used is futile especially from a person who admittedly is a novice when it comes to rifles.

Great. Point to it in the text book used by forensic labs at the time, to show it would be EXPECTED from the FBI or Dallas police. Please. Prove us wrong.

 

[BStrong]

Even the most through cleaning will not remove all traces of chemical and metal fouling from a firearm's barrel.

Most high quality firearms are tested by the builder or manufacturer and when the end user runs a dry patch through the bore prior to the first use, you'll always get residue left over from the test firing - and the builder or manufacturer will have cleaned the piece before shipping.

I've handled out-of-the-crate issue weapons that have been test fired w/o the best scrub job, and that first dry patch will come out dark brown or black, even if they were using non-corrosive ammo for the test firing.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Even the most through cleaning will not remove all traces of chemical and metal fouling from a firearm's barrel.

Most high quality firearms are tested by the builder or manufacturer and when the end user runs a dry patch through the bore prior to the first use, you'll always get residue left over from the test firing - and the builder or manufacturer will have cleaned the piece before shipping.

I've handled out-of-the-crate issue weapons that have been test fired w/o the best scrub job, and that first dry patch will come out dark brown or black, even if they were using non-corrosive ammo for the test firing.

But I can find no evidence of a test used by the authorities at the time, that would suggest any way of determining WHEN a gun was fired. Or if it was recent. To my reading the text books available to the labs suggested that the residue could only suggest the gun was fired at some point.

But then, the spent bullets prove that, so... why test it?

 

[BStrong]

But I can find no evidence of a test used by the authorities at the time, that would suggest any way of determining WHEN a gun was fired. Or if it was recent. To my reading the text books available to the labs suggested that the residue could only suggest the gun was fired at some point.

But then, the spent bullets prove that, so... why test it?

You're 100% correct - chemical traces and projectile material in the bore will give evidence that a given weapon was fired, but there is no test that can determine when that firing took place. If there are other pieces of associated evidence in hand recovered concurrently or at some later time (brass casings, spent projectiles, powder traces on victims/objects, unfired cartridges from the same production lot) it may be determined that a particular weapon was used at a particular point, but without that additional evidence no determination can be made that the weapon in question was fired at a particular time and place.