JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is a similar M/C Carbine, with the same scope and mounts, seen from the shooters perspective. The iron sights are clearly usable.
 

Attachments

  • carcano-oswald-rifle-scope21.jpg
    carcano-oswald-rifle-scope21.jpg
    62.3 KB · Views: 5
MicahJava said:
If the trach incision was tampered with, this implies that somebody was probing the wound for some reason. If Lifton elaborates on this or releases these audio tapes with his upcoming book Final Charade, this may prove to be important evidence. Otherwise, it looks like the doctors investigated the throat wound as a bullet wound later in the autopsy.

Here is Doug Horne explaining some of the reasons to suspect a Friday night call to Dr. Perry, informing the doctors that the trach incision was originally a bullet wound: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svDEw3Jgkw8&t=231m8s
Click to expand...

That quote and the metal probe that is documented in writing along with the FBI report are damming evidence there was fiddling going on during the autopsy to prove a shot from the rear for the throat wound. Also, the two shot versus three shot testimony by Lipske is further evidence.

The casket switch as noted by Horne, however, sounds pretty contrived to me. I'm not at all convinced of that. It's like a lot of other things, very conflicting.
 
Reheat said:
The Warren Commission time calculated was 8.3". You're right, I've seen as little as 6.x". Note, the Italian team could not repeat the feat, however, a police team did duplicate the feat a little better. Note: Although Oswald was a Marine, he scored the lowest possible score to pass and that was likely at the peak of his proficiency.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-had-no-time-to-fire-all-Kennedy-bullets.html

I have a British Enfield, reputed to be the fastest bolt action rifle made for repeating shots and I seriously doubt I could recycle three rounds in that time and hit a moving target even at 50 yards, let along any further. An expert rifleman could fire 20-30 rounds in a minute using the Enfield. But, a Carcano is not an Enfield by any stretch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee–Enfield

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcano

BTW: I have no problem discussing this with you as you're a reasonable person.... I've gone the other way. I was just beginning University when this happened, so I didn't have a lot of time to keep up. I accepted the Warren Commission Report with doubt, but I've changed my mind over the years and seriously doubt Oswald did it alone. With all that was at stake for Johnson and his Texas cronies a lot was at stake for them. I don't speculate about who was involved, but I do believe Johnson was behind it....
Click to expand...

The reason I questioned the timing was that the thing that started me on the road to lone nut theory believer was when, after reading a few conspiracy books, I picked up a copy of the actual Warren Report. I was very surprised to see that figure of 8.3 seconds, because the books I read usually said less than 6. There is no book entitled "Eight Seconds in Dallas."

Similar things happened when I read about the "magic bullet".

The thing was that it didn't immediately make me believe the single bullet theory. It wasn't a case of "the Warren Commission said a single bullet caused multiple wounds, but that is impossible, due to X...." Rather, it was what the books said about the Warren Commission itself. In other words, the books said, "The Warren Commission said 'X'.", but when I read the Warren Report, the commission didn't actually say that. Specifically, in this case, I had read that the Warren Commission had said all the shots were fired in the space of 5.6 seconds, or lower. However, the commission didn't say that.

It is possible to dispute the correctness of the Warren Commission's conclusion, or even of it's data. However, one cannot reasonably dispute the existence of the report, and I found that many authors could not, or chose not to, accurately cite the contents of the report.

Fortunately, that's not the case here. You have cited a correct value.

I participate in speed shooting contests myself. The format is almost always the same. 30 seconds to fire as many shots as you can. I'm not very good at it myself. I never win the contests. Lots of people fire faster/more accurately than I can. I can almost always get six shots off. At least half the time I can get seven. On a really good round, I can get eight shots off, so I always bring eight arrows to the range. Yes, arrows. The weapon I use is a longbow. On those good days, I can get 8 shots off. If you assume the first is ready (we are allowed to knock, but not aim, before the command to fire) that means a rate of 1 every 4.3 seconds. That's slightly slower than Oswald would have required.

I don't know much about Mannlicher Carcanos, or Enfields, but I'll bet you can fire them a lot faster than you can fire a longbow.

The shot just isn't remarkable. A lot of people who have watched various documentaries have questioned the shooting, but guys who try to shoot rifles very fast don't seem to think it was all that difficult.

Try googling "bolt action speed shooting". There are plenty of videos. I saw one that had 15 shots in 12 seconds. No, it wasn't with a Mannlicher. It was a Winchester 72. I don't know if that's faster or slower, but it could be a whole heck of a lot slower before it got to 3 or 4 seconds between shots. No one would bother putting up a youtube video of hitting two out of three shots in a period of 8, or even 6, seconds.

Then we move onto another point of contention you brought up in the post, now a few pages ago, that I originally responded to. The "pristine bullet". No way could it do that much damage and be so little damaged itself.

I had read about "what the Warren Report said". It's in quotes, because when I read what it really said, it didn't match what the books said it said.

There was a lot of talk about pristine bullets. I learned, I believe in the report itself, but perhaps in some commentaries, that the phrase "pristine bullet" has a specific meaning in ballistics literature, and it doesn't mean "a bullet with very little damage". It means a bullet, fired from a barrel of a gun, before colliding with any object. A ricochet is not a pristine bullet, regardless of its condition.

Meanwhile, I also learned that the bullet that the Warren Commission concluded caused those multiple wounds, really wasn't all that "pristine", even using the non-technical meaning of the word. It had significant damage, but most of the damage was at the base of the bullet, not the tip.

How do you damage the base of a bullet? Especially without damaging the tip? Contemplating how that might happen would, all by itself, strongly lead one to something a lot like the single bullet theory.

Or...not? What says the conspiracy theories? I usually see them handwave it away, as if the question was not significant. Have you seen a good explanation? Let's review the claims of the Warren Report, and come up with an alternative explanation. We have a bullet, flattened at the base, with minor damage at the tip. We have Governor Connally's wrist, broken, but not shattered. We have a thigh wound where a bullet broke the skin, but fell out. How do those things happen?

I, personally, think there's an explanation that requires one bullet. Note I am not saying "only" one bullet. I'm not saying that one bullet is possible. I'm saying it's hard to put all of those pieces together and come up with two bullets, unless possibly one was a very small caliber bullet, from a handgun or a .22 rifle, but there is strong evidence that was not the case. What does the conspiracy theory say?
 
Last edited:
One more thing, regarding motive.

Presidents have enemies. Lots of people would like to see Presidents out of the way. We'll assume that a lot of them would be perfectly willing to see them dead, if that's the only way to get them out of the way.

I won't be discussing motive any farther, except possibly as it relates to some specific detail. Mostly, I will be focusing on the mainstream theory that Lee Oswald was the only person to fire shots in Dealey Plaza that day.
 
Reheat said:
I respect your opinion, but why did it take the Italian team 19 seconds to do the same thing? I know we don't know details. I've done a lot of precision shooting too, but with an expensive scope and lots of fiddling and practice. If I had known it was so easy, it would have saved me a lot of $$.
Click to expand...

Being of Sicilian heritage, I've heard every Italian joke there is, but one that I heard as a kid even before the assassination was this:

"Who put the six bullets in Mussolini's head?

Six thousand Italian marksman."

Take that for whatever it's worth, but wrt marksmanship:

H3GPnt.jpg


The above is the love of my life (The woman, not the rifle.) Shooting an SPR type AR platform rifle I assembled. She had limited experience with the platform, and had never even seen an ACOG type rifle sight in her life. She has hunting experience w/ a bolt action rifle in .300 WinMag on game in Alaska, and has extensive sporting clays shooting under her belt.

xUZdsh.jpg


The target, 100 yards. Her groups are at 1 O'clock high. 5 rounds under 1 minute of angle, the standard that precision shooting in competition or tactically is judged - this with an optic that wasn't designed with precision in mind using high quality (but not match quality) ammunition. This is a shooter with little formal training, far less than any Marine of LHO's day, using a rifle and optic she wasn't trained on or familiar with before this day.

My groups are clustered in the X and 10 rings, 5 shot strings one after another at and under 1/2 minute of angle.

The point is this: Marksmanship is a mystery to many folks w/o formal instruction. To individuals with formal training, especially folks that work at it, marksmanship becomes part of your muscle memory.

If a trained shooter goes into the zone when they shoot, what is amazing to the layman is par for the course for the trained shooter, which LHO was.

I'd like to reference something here I touched on earlier, but with a RL example:

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."

I shoot at extended ranges (over 600 yard/meters) less than I used to, and I've shot a bunch at 1000, but on my best day I'd be absolutely thrilled to shoot .7 minute of angle anywhere on the target at 1000.

The fact that I couldn't match Sarver's record with a year of live fire practice has no bearing on his ability to shoot that well

That's why your inability to match LHO's performance has no bearing on his ability to make those shots.
 
HSienzant said:
Nobody is disputing the throat wound was caused by a bullet. The only dispute is whether the throat wound was an entry wound or an exit wound. The Parkland doctors - only one or two actually got a look at it before it was transformed by the trache - thought it was an entrance. It was determined at the autopsy it was an exit. Otherwise, you have two magic bullets, remember (the one that hit him in the back, didn't exit the throat and wasn't found in the body, along with the one that hit him in the throat, didn't exit the back and wasn't found in the body).
Click to expand...

The fibers of JFK's jacket, shirt, and neck tie all indicate the bullet struck from behind and exited out the front.

The two Parkland doctors in that video I posted discussed the confusion of the wound.
 
I can respect all of you who have posted your experiences with bolt action rifles, speed competition, et al... I really do but what you all are familiar with is that one rifle is not the same as the another. There has not been one Rifleman who has taken the rifle that is suspected in the killing of JFK and shot it with the accuracy that is given to the person who shot Kennedy. Many have tried but none have been successful until that feat is accomplished, all that is being said is very interesting but it will not advance the case of a Lone Gunman.
 
No Other said:
I can respect all of you who have posted your experiences with bolt action rifles, speed competition, et al... I really do but what you all are familiar with is that one rifle is not the same as the another. There has not been one Rifleman who has taken the rifle that is suspected in the killing of JFK and shot it with the accuracy that is given to the person who shot Kennedy. Many have tried but none have been successful until that feat is accomplished, all that is being said is very interesting but it will not advance the case of a Lone Gunman.
Click to expand...

You're incorrect:

Howard Donahue:

Donahue first became interested in the story of the assassination of John F. Kennedy after being invited to participate in a re-creation of the shooting as one of eleven invited marksmen and sharpshooters.[2] He demonstrated that it would have been possible for Lee Harvey Oswald to have fired three shots in the time specified by the Warren Commission, and was the only one of the eleven to better the 5.6-second window. However the experience highlighted to Donahue other concerns regarding the Warren report, and in particular the fact that the testimony of ballistics experts seemed to have been completely omitted from the Commission's evidence gathering.[4

And as I note above, Because someone is unable to duplicate what someone else has done does not constitute evidence that the initial activity did not take place.

HD's completion backwards theory based on his own ability to actually duplicate LHO's performance is even worse in my POV than the "nobody can do it" side of the street.

I can't duplicate the shooting feats of Sarver.

Or Mcgivern:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_McGivern

Or Topperwein:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Topperwein

Or Miculek:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Miculek

or Munden:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Munden

Or Satterwhite:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Satterwhite

That in no way establishes that they didn't do what they're famous for.
 
No Other said:
I can respect all of you who have posted your experiences with bolt action rifles, speed competition, et al... I really do but what you all are familiar with is that one rifle is not the same as the another. There has not been one Rifleman who has taken the rifle that is suspected in the killing of JFK and shot it with the accuracy that is given to the person who shot Kennedy. Many have tried but none have been successful until that feat is accomplished, all that is being said is very interesting but it will not advance the case of a Lone Gunman.
Click to expand...

Based on everything I've read about it, the rifle is a POS.
 
No Other said:
I can respect all of you who have posted your experiences with bolt action rifles, speed competition, et al... I really do but what you all are familiar with is that one rifle is not the same as the another. There has not been one Rifleman who has taken the rifle that is suspected in the killing of JFK and shot it with the accuracy that is given to the person who shot Kennedy. Many have tried but none have been successful until that feat is accomplished, all that is being said is very interesting but it will not advance the case of a Lone Gunman.
Click to expand...

Not one?

The Carcano was the weapon of choice at the turn of the century for distance shooting competitions in Europe, and it is still used in Africa today.

Plus Youtube is full of guys shooting well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZLbaC3Gp-8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80pRECh4RCg

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

This one has targets at 650 yards:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy_T7D2-Y3o

These are from the guys at the NRA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ub3HT-lPJ0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIto9j0mxaE

Just shooting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-to90d1Uf8

So no, not one, many shooters.:thumbsup:
 
Reheat said:
Based on everything I've read about it, the rifle is a POS.
Click to expand...

But it's not. That's the problem, I read the same things back when I bought into the CT. The problem is that the Carcano was a functional rifle. The Italians wouldn't have wasted time producing it if the thing was crap, and it was not.

The Carcano was used by big game hunters in the 1920s to kill elephants because the 6.5x 52mm round could penetrate the skull with no problem, and this meant they didn't have to lug around the heavier elephant guns of the time.

More to the point, the Carcano was a rifle Oswald could afford. Even today they're available for under $1,000, which is good for an antique.

Again, look at this from the point of view of putting together a conspiracy...

Why a Carcano instead of a garden variety .306 hunting rifle? Why buy the one rifle that would have a unique ballistic signature? A .306 in Texas would be impossible to track down in 1963, they'd have to search almost every house and apartment in the entire state because they're just that common.

Then, like you said, the Carcano wasn't the greatest rifle out there, so why risk your operation with a $13 rifle? You're not robbing a liquor store, you are shooting the President of the United States, and you're only going to get one chance, so why take a chance on an unknown Italian rifle?

And yet there it was, killing JFK, and striking two men with a single bullet - just as advertised. If it was a conspiracy with two shooters whomever planned it was a moron.
 
Reheat said:
Based on everything I've read about it, the rifle is a POS.
Click to expand...



So you concede that the time window of the shots is possible, but you have read that the rifle stinks. What about the videos just posted? How do you plan to proceed here? Any specific point that would make or break the case?
 
Since there are several posters that are reviving the Lifton/Horne "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" theory of the assassination, I have a very simple question. Has anyone with any medical experience ever endorsed the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" theory? The reason I ask is that even conspiracy theorists with medical training don't seem to believe that any wounds made in JFK's body post-mortem would look at all similar to any wounds that actually happened at or just before his time of death. The only people I've ever heard of supporting the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" theory are people without any medical experience at all, so if anyone has any links I would appreciate it.

There's also the fact that the Lifton/Horne theory depends almost exclusively on the witness statements of people present at the autopsy and not on the medical evidence itself since according to the theory it's all fake. I think the biggest weakness of the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" theory is that in any conflict between witness testimony, no matter how long after the fact, and the physical evidence it's automatically assumed that the witness testimony is completely true and any physical evidence that contradicts it must therefore be faked. This, of course, reverses the normal procedure for historical studies where verified physical evidence is considered more reliable than testimony and statements given sometimes decades after the fact.

And as a final point, if we're to consider all witness testimony as one hundred percent reliable, there's this from James Sibert's ARRB testimony.

Q: Okay. Were you there when the door was opened to the ambulance?
A: The rear door, you mean?
Q: The rear door.
A: Yes.
Q: And who helped lift the casket out of the ambulance?
A: Of course, I’ve read something about casket teams but I don’t have any recollection of any casket teams on the scene at that time. I recall there was Kellerman and Greer - who was the driver - O’Neill and myself and there were some others. There had to be. And I don’t know who assisted in that, but we carried it through the door and right on into the autopsy room, and set it on the floor there before it was opened.
Q: The floor of the autopsy room, or the floor of the ward, generally?
A: Well, it was sort of a anteroom there. I think.
Q: Were there any milimy officials who helped unload the casket with you, as best you recall?
A: I can’t recall that, either. And I’m pretty sure there were others who assisted, but I can’t remember any specific officers or anything.
Q: Did you place the casket onto any kind of stretcher, or cart, or vehicle that would enable you to roll it; or did you physically carry it?
A: As I recall, I don’t think there was any cart there. I think we hand-carried it right in.
Q: Did you stay with the casket from the time that you unloaded it from the ambulance until it was opened, or was it out of your sight at any time?
A: I was there until it was opened. I
remember the sight when they opened the lid of the casket, and the body was wrapped in sheets. You know, you’ve heard a lot about body bags. And I’d like to insert one thing here. I was a squadron commander and a B-24 pilot in World War II. And when I came home, I was a base operations officer. And that means going out to every crash scene. And I’ve gone out to those, where they’ve put bodies in body bags and zipped them up and everything. Lifton, one time, called and asked me about body bags. And I told him, “Don’t worry about me knowing what a body bag is.” But the body was in sheets.
Q: And it was not in a body bag?
A: Not there.
Q: After the casket was opened, did you have any role in lifting the body out of the casket?
A: No, I think that was medical technicians or people then that were assigned to the medical unit that put it on the autopsy table.
Q: Did you see the body lifted out of the casket and put onto the autopsy table? A: I believe I do. I remember that. That was just before. They cleared the room, that I mentioned. The photographs and the X-rays that were taken right after that. Q: Now, I just want to make sure that we’ve got a- I’ll call it a chain of custody. A: Yes. Q: Although, I’m using the term loosely. But you were - I mean, from what I understand you were saying - that you were with the casket, at least from the time it was unloaded from the Navy ambulance until the body was lifted out of that same casket - and put on the autopsy table. A: Yes. Q: And when the body was unwrapped, were you able to identify the body as that of President Kennedy? A: Oh, there was no doubt. Another thing, too. During the autopsy, when the body was positioned on one side, there was this scar in the lumbar region of the back resulting from the PT boat incident. But that thick hair and scar and his face wasn’t distorted that much. You could tell it was President Kennedy.Q: Could you describe, very briefly, what the casket looked like, if you recall?
A: Well. it was a - Now, there was another thing about shipping caskets. This was an expensive display-type - Not display, but -
Q: Ceremonial?
A: Ceremonial, viewing type casket. And I remember a handle had been broken off. There’d been damage, I think, either in loading or unloading. I don’t know which. Loading at Dallas or unloading at Andrews.


And that, in particular, there was the statement that Humes made when we first arrived when the body first came in, and they opened the casket. It was wrapped in sheets, a sheet around the body and a sepatate sheet around the head, which was blood-soaked. But it was either then or when they placed the body on the autopsy table, that Humes made the statement that there’s been an apparent tracheotomy and surgery in the head area.

And this was in my FD 302. I've often said since then, that in looking back, which we can all do after something happens.

After the big piece of bone came in from Dallas - which was found in the limousine out in Dallas, a piece of the skull - that I would have had the presence of mind to ask a question. Of course, things were happening fast, and you had brass and rank there that went to the ceiling.

If only I had asked - Dr. Humes, I'm speaking of the pathologist: "Dr. Humes, now that this piece has come in, does this account for your first statement about there being surgery in the head area?" Which didn't occur to me at the time.

In Lifton's book, this was a central theme, about surgery in the head area. And looking back, I would say that that's been one thing I've always regretted; that I didn't do.
Click to expand...


Both the Lifton and the Horne variations of the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" theory absolutely depend on the fact that JFK's body was not in the casket shipped from Dallas. In both variations the body had been stolen by the evil forces of THEY to be modified to match a single shooter from behind, even though you would think it would be easier for THEY just to have a single shooter from behind, but we can ignore that bit of illogic for the moment. If the theory means that we always take witness statements at their word, what does Sibert's testimony mean for the theory?
 
Axxman300 said:
But it's not. That's the problem, I read the same things back when I bought into the CT. The problem is that the Carcano was a functional rifle. The Italians wouldn't have wasted time producing it if the thing was crap, and it was not.

The Carcano was used by big game hunters in the 1920s to kill elephants because the 6.5x 52mm round could penetrate the skull with no problem, and this meant they didn't have to lug around the heavier elephant guns of the time.

More to the point, the Carcano was a rifle Oswald could afford. Even today they're available for under $1,000, which is good for an antique.

Again, look at this from the point of view of putting together a conspiracy...

Why a Carcano instead of a garden variety .306 hunting rifle? Why buy the one rifle that would have a unique ballistic signature? A .306 in Texas would be impossible to track down in 1963, they'd have to search almost every house and apartment in the entire state because they're just that common.

Then, like you said, the Carcano wasn't the greatest rifle out there, so why risk your operation with a $13 rifle? You're not robbing a liquor store, you are shooting the President of the United States, and you're only going to get one chance, so why take a chance on an unknown Italian rifle?

And yet there it was, killing JFK, and striking two men with a single bullet - just as advertised. If it was a conspiracy with two shooters whomever planned it was a moron.
Click to expand...

If Oswald was the "Patsy" that he said he was a conspiracy theory would fit quite nicely. Who really cared what rifle he had. If the conspiracy was that someone contrived to show Oswald as the lone shooter or if there was no conspiracy then your theory makes perfect sense. That doesn't prove anything at all, it's irrelevant to reaching any kind of conclusion at all.

Remember where they were. That town was owned by LBJ and his cronies. If it was moronic that fits too, LBJ was a supreme idiot. There are simply too many loose ends for my satisfaction.

Don't put me in the hard core CT faction, I'm mostly just very extremely skeptical and to some extent always have been.

BTW: I think you're referring to a .30-06, not a .306
 
Why bother debating how good the rifle was? In the only experiment of it's kind, the HSCA did an experiment where they roped off Dealey Plaza and fired shots from the TSBD and the Grassy Knoll while two observers reported where they perceived the shots coming from. The data says that a shot from the TSBD sounds like a shot from the TSBD and a shot from the Knoll sounds like a shot from the Knoll.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0074b.htm

Since we have half of all Dealey Plaza witnesses screaming from the highest mountains they heard shots from the Knoll area, we can't just say it was confusion or something like that. It had to be an issue of acoustics.

It looks like there was either some activity from the Knoll area, or shooters from behind were using noise-suppressors in conjunction with supersonic ammunition. Noise-suppressors can create the illusion that a gunshot originated from the opposite direction that it truly did.

Diagram from a publication by the Military Armament Corporation about noise-suppressors:

spattern.gif
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom