JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

Status
Not open for further replies.
HSienzant said:
Yes. It was accomplished.

Miller hit two of three using the iron sights using Oswald's rifle. And took only 4.45 seconds to do so. Could he have done better with three shots if he knew he could take 8 seconds or more? Undoubtedly. Or alternately, could he have gotten off four or five shots in eight seconds? Also undoubtedly.

Mr. SIMMONS. ...Specialist Miller used 4.6 seconds on his first attempt, 5.15 seconds in his second attempt, and 4.45 seconds in his exercise using the iron sight.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was the accuracy of Specialist Miller?
Mr. SIMMONS. I do not have his accuracy separated from the group.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it possible to separate the accuracy out?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; it is, by an additional calculation.
Mr. Miller succeeded in hitting the third target on both attempts with the telescope. He missed the second target on both attempts with the telescope,
but he hit the second target with the iron sight. And he emplaced all three rounds on the target, the first target.
Mr. EISENBERG. How did he do with the iron sight on the third target?
Mr. SIMMONS. On the third target he missed the boards completely. And we have not checked this out. It appears that for the firing posture which Mr. Miller--Specialist Miller uses, the iron sight is not zeroed for him, since his impacts on the first and second targets were quite high, and against the third target we would assume that the projectile went over the top of the target, which extended only a few inches over the top of the silhouette.


Again: Two of three in less than 4.5 seconds.

Any other questions?

Hank
Click to expand...

Can I get some context to that quote? Like down to exactly what height he was, how big the target was, if the target was moving, etc.?
 
BStrong, you gotta be really desperate to use Marina. Can we keep this to science that we can know for sure?
 
HSienzant said:
So after claiming it's not about the nose of CE399 emerging intact (Undeformed tip? I don't know about that. I understand that the argument has always been that the bullet was tumbling when it hit bone), you go on to claim it's about the nose of CE399 emerging intact.

And you make the claim I already showed was inadequate when Mark Lane, Josiah Thompson, and Sylvia Meagher made it - that a bullet fired directly into a goat's rib somehow eliminates CE399 from traveling a very different path and suffering very different damage.

It was bizarre when Mark Lane, Josiah Thompson, and Sylvia Meagher made that claim, it's no less bizarre when you make it, especially when you make it immediately after being told it would not fly.

Hank
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who compared human bone to freaking PINE.
 
MicahJava said:
Kill Zone: A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza by Craig Roberts explains the use of a sabot and it's possible relation to Dealey Plaza scenarios:

[A] sabot round — a specially hand-loaded bullet — [is] purposely fired to insert false evidence into the crime scene. In this case, either into the car or the body. It mattered not which, as long as “Oswald’s” bullet could be found with enough rifling left intact to match the barrel of the 6.5 Carcano.

What that means is this: a 6.5mm bullet, with its relevant rifling left intact by being fired into a tank of water and recovered, can be reloaded into a larger casing, such as .30 caliber (which is 7.62 millimeter in diameter), and be used again. Only this time, the plastic sabot liner is what actually makes contact with the inside of the barrel, rides the [lands] and grooves, and picks up the rifling marks of this particular weapon. The bullet sheds the plastic liner, then travels downrange bearing the marks of the rifle from which it was originally fired. And if the round is undercharged, the bullet travels at much less of a velocity — with a reduced noise signature — until it comes to rest in the area intended by the shooter. In an opposite scenario, the sabottype round is used to increase velocity and striking power. It does this by using the powder charge of a larger volume casing to propel a smaller, lighter bullet. In any case, it is evident that at some date and time a sabot round was fired from the roof of the Records Building, from behind the waist-high parapet that overlooks Dealey Plaza.

From Noel H. Twyman's book Bloody Treason:

...By using a partially charged car*tridge, a "sabot" can be used for a "meat shot"; that is to fire a bullet at low veloc*ity that does not penetrate the body, but is a marker found in the body that will trace back to a rifle from which the bullet was not fired-i.e., Oswald's rifle.

Re-firing bullets that came from CE139 is one theory, but sabots and undercharged rounds are possible ways to explain a scenario in which the back wound would literally be as shallow as the autopsy professionals believed. Rounds can be intentionally undercharged for reasons such as reducing noise.
Click to expand...

So your theory now is the bullet found in Parkland is a remnant of a sabot shot, a plant, a bullet linked to another shooting that was swapped out for CE399 later in the evidence chain, or what?

Or do you even have a hypothesis here?

Your posts on the assassination feel more like a fish flopping around on a boat deck trying to get back into wate, willing to try anything in desperation, rather than a cogent attempt to deal with the evidence.

Was the CE139 rifle found in the Depository used at all? Do you have an argument here? If it was, there is no need to use a different weapon to leave bullets behind traceable to Oswald's weapon. Using Oswald's weapon for the entire shooting will leave behind only bullets or fragments or shells traceable to Oswald's weapon.

So you must be arguing that Oswald's weapon fired NO shots during the assassination and he was framed, if you're arguing for the need for a different weapon to 'plant' a bullet from his weapon into Kennedy by a sabot and deliberate undercharge.

Perhaps you can explain why an innocent Oswald would then kill a police officer 45 minutes after the assassination? That does NOT seem like the action of an innocent man to me. Do innocent men shoot officers approaching them to ask them some questions frequently where you come from?

Just curious.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
So why didn't the autopsists find two wounds in the neck, if Lifton's claim is correct? Why don't the autopsy photos show two wounds in the neck? (one trache and one bullet wound)?
Click to expand...

I'm not even saying the throat wound was an entry, but Lifton posits that the throat wound/trach incision was expanded from some kind of probing or even as an effort to make it look like an exit.

The autopsy report mentions no such development.

Perhaps you can quote from it where it says anything like you're claiming it says: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
Click to expand...

During the autopsy, and not on a sanitized third draft of the autopsy report, they did speculate that the stretcher bullet squeezed out of Kennedy's body. Surely you know this.

Look at the Dale Myers recreation. You can see where Connally is relative to JFK. You can plunk that limo down into a plat map of Dealey Plaza and determine where a shot hitting Connally would have to come from if it didn't pass through JFK first (hint: it's the western end of the TSBD. Any evidence of a shooter there)?

No, of course not. The only evidence for a shooter is the one you don't accept fired the shots that did all the damage, using the only weapon recovered that day, and left ballistic evidence behind in three shells, two large fragments, and one nearly whole bullet.

Oh, that's right. Part of the CT religion is that anything pointing to Oswald is automatically suspected of being planted or a forgery.

Hank
Click to expand...

Dale Meyers? From the same Discovery Channel special which held a test bullet to the camera at just the right angle to conceal the full extent of it's deformity? Maybe we should start off a little skeptical. After all, most of the information we have on Dale Meyers' animation is only from that Discovery Channel clip, and a few other photographs. Dale Meyers refuses to release his computer data, and instead chooses to whine on the internet about people asking questions. Does this sound like the behavior of a man who truly believes he solved one of the biggest forensic controversies ever?

Read this: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12c%3Aanimania
 
MicahJava said:
I'm not the one who compared human bone to freaking PINE.
Click to expand...

You are avoiding my points entirely.

Reminder:

HSienzant said:
It's still in one piece, and it struck two medical dummies with the appropriate sinew and bone simulants. And it still has an undeformed tip.

Conspiracy theorists have questioned for five decades whether a bullet could survive the passage through two men and emerge with an undeformed tip and in one piece.

For example, in RUSH TO JUDGMENT, Mark Lane wrote:

Since one bullet was supposed by the Commission to have struck the President and Governor Connally and to have remained intact, the Commission called experts to prove that -any 6.5-millimeter bullet could do the same.

Scientific medical experiments for the Commission were conducted by a veterinarian, Dr Alfred G. Olivier, described by the Commission as 'a doctor who had spent 7 years in wounds ballistics research for the U.S. Army'. One of Dr Olivier's main tasks was to have a bullet fired from the alleged assassination rifle through the carcass of a goat said by the Commission to simulate Governor Connally's back and chest. Dr Olivier said that the damage done to the goat carcass was 'very similar' to the injury to Governor Connally's rib. However, when asked to describe the bullet used in the experiment, he said, 'The bullet has been quite flattened.' Commission Exhibit 399 is almost unaltered.

Another bullet was fired through the wrist of a human cadaver. Asked how the fracture compared with Governor Connally's wound, Dr Olivier replied with pardonable pride, 'In this particular instance to the best of my memory from looking at the X-rays, it is very close. It is about one of the best ones that we obtained.' Yet Dr Olivier admitted of the bullet that struck the cadaver's wrist that 'the nose of the bullet is quite flattened from striking the radius [bone].'
Q. How does it compare, for example, with Commission Exhibit 399 ?
Dr Olivier : It is not like it at all. I mean. Commission Exhibit 399 is not flattened on the end. This one is very severely flattened on the end.
Dr Olivier also had a bullet fired through a gelatin block simulating the President's neck but was mercifully spared any question about the bullet's condition.

However, even after all that, Lane conceded that the appropriate test (to test for bullet condition) was never performed by Olivier, and thus, his criticisms aimed at the condition of the bullet were thereby invalid:

Although the Commission asserted that its experts had proved that one bullet could pass through the President's neck and then through the Governor's chest and wrist and enter his thigh, the experts had never attempted that comprehensive test. Instead, they had fired different bullets, each through a different substance, each bullet suffering distortion in the process. Nevertheless the Commission concluded that one bullet—Commission Exhibit 399—did all the damage, while remaining unshattered, unflattened, undeformed.

It is neither unflattened nor undeformed. Lane lied about its condition.

Faced now with a example of a bullet that survived the entire passage the Commission concluded CE399 underwent, they (and you) are forced now to quibble over the apparent amount of deformation.

Like that was not unexpected. Conspiracy theorists accept nothing that points to non-conspiracy, not matter how well documented.

Hank

PS: You still owe me a scenario for how a pointed tip bullet wound up in Parkland Hospital to be discovered on the same floor as Governor Connally's stretcher.
Click to expand...



HSienzant said:
She mentions Miller, but flits right over the implications. She also simply lies about the results, saying two of the three failed to match Oswald's results. Oswald put two of three shots into the President in upwards of 7.9 seconds, according to the Warren Commission.

In other words, the total time span of the shots could be eight, nine, or even ten seconds, as the Commission could not determine which shot missed, nor could they determine when the first or last shot was fired, if either of those was the one that missed.

So when we talk about the time of the shots, it is upward of 7.9 seconds... maybe nine or ten seconds in total.

Yet Meagher wrote: The tests actually conducted at Aberdeen remain supremely irrelevant as a measure of Oswald's rifle capability. The results are nevertheless significant in some respects.
The rifle tests are discussed in the Warren Report, in somewhat evasive terms (WR 193-194), and in the testimony of Army Expert Ronald Simmons (3H 441-451). Three master riflemen each fired two series of three shots, using the so-called assassination rifle with the telescopic sight. (One of the experts fired an extra series of three shots with iron sights.) Two of the master riflemen completely failed to match the feat attributed to Oswald. The best of the three, Miller, got two hits out of three in each series, taking 4.6 and 5.15 seconds respectively.
Staley got two hits out of three in 6.75 seconds, and then three out of three in 6.45 seconds. Hendrix got two hits out of three in each of his two series, taking 8.25 and 7.0 seconds respectively.

DiEugenio is disingenuous above in referencing Meagher's reference to Miller.

DiEugenio is also disingenuous in claiming "Of the three men, only one of them bettered Oswald’s time."

The six times are 4.6, 5.15, 6.75. 6.45, 8.25, and 7.0 seconds.

All of them are better than Oswald's maximum time as determined by the Warren Commission. It's a lie to say otherwise.

As noted, it's false when Meagher claimed it. It's false when DiEugenio claimed it, it's false when you quote DiEugenio or Meagher claiming it.

All of them took less time than the Warren Commission allowed Oswald.

Bugliosi said that.

Hank
Click to expand...


HSienzant said:
So after claiming it's not about the nose of CE399 emerging intact (Undeformed tip? I don't know about that. I understand that the argument has always been that the bullet was tumbling when it hit bone), you go on to claim it's about the nose of CE399 emerging intact.

And you make the claim I already showed was inadequate when Mark Lane, Josiah Thompson, and Sylvia Meagher made it - that a bullet fired directly into a goat's rib somehow eliminates CE399 from traveling a very different path and suffering very different damage.

It was bizarre when Mark Lane, Josiah Thompson, and Sylvia Meagher made that claim, it's no less bizarre when you make it, especially when you make it immediately after being told it would not fly.

Hank
Click to expand...


Just admit when you have no reasoned response. We'd cut you some slack. You'd even come off as more credible.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
HSienzant, can I get your thoughts on the versions of the back wound photo that show the head opening? Especially when it concerns the location of the depressed cowlick fracture. That way we go back things that concern the science of whether it was physically possible for a lone assassin to cause all of the damage to Kennedy.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Cmikes, either you have a funny way of viewing science, or you are playing semantics in an effort to win an internet joust with verbal diarrhea.
Click to expand...


If you have no answer to my questions, it's polite to just admit it. Your personal attacks just make it more clear that you actually have no idea what you're talking about.

Would you like to try again? Why should we believe your interpretation of the authenticated photos and x-rays of JFK's autopsy over every single forensic pathologist that has examined the evidence?
 
cmikes said:
If you have no answer to my questions, it's polite to just admit it. Your personal attacks just make it more clear that you actually have no idea what you're talking about.

Would you like to try again? Why should we believe your interpretation of the authenticated photos and x-rays of JFK's autopsy over every single forensic pathologist that has examined the evidence?
Click to expand...

Dr. Peter Cummings disagrees with the cowlick entry theory. He believes the entry was lower, meaning that the depressed cowlick fracture is not an entry wound. I explained this. You have some kind of weird illusion of consensus.
 
MicahJava said:
BStrong, you gotta be really desperate to use Marina. Can we keep this to science that we can know for sure?
Click to expand...

Like her or not, Marina is closer to the subject matter than any conspiracy monger you've yet to reference.

So far you've demonstrated that you have at best a dysfunctional relationship with facts of any type, so an appeal to science doesn't mean much coming from you.

I've already addressed PCR's ******** story. His book is based not just on ********, he tried to co-op the name of one of the best shooters that ever lived to back up his ******** story. The fact that he did it after Carlos Hathcock's death is a pretty good indication of exactly how much truth there is in his version of reality. The fact I referenced it (iirc) before you landed here might be a clue.

I attended the same civilian marksmanship school that PCR said he attended. We were instructed by Carlos Hathcock. JFK never came up, Dallas never came up. The sniper school at Quantico has no record of any test of the JFK scenario as asserted by PCR and believe me, the Corps isn't any different than the Army. They record every training evolution, every round fired, every student that attends. There was no Dallas shooting test performed at Quantico. The only person that has ever asserted that is PCR and the jerk-offs that believe his ******** story.

I know **** like what he wrote attracts flies, but that doesn't mean that referencing that **** makes someone any smarter than a fly.

Reality check. Let's get one documented example of a sabot round used to distract the detectives from the true killer. I remember it in a bunch of fiction books, but never once encountered it in the world. Let's get one documented example of a sabot round used in conjunction with "undercharged" rounds to produce a subsonic projectile.
 
MicahJava said:
Oh, so he was standing just 1 ft. off the ground, firing at a stationary 20 sq ft. target from 40 feet away. Nice.

semitists weapon gnarl bitter iowans shyer cgs
Click to expand...

Lyrics for the St. Vitus dance? I imagine with all the dancing you need to do to avoid facts in evidence you'd be a good candidate.
 
MicahJava said:
Dr. Peter Cummings disagrees with the cowlick entry theory. He believes the entry was lower, meaning that the depressed cowlick fracture is not an entry wound. I explained this. You have some kind of weird illusion of consensus.
Click to expand...

Far less weird than your reliance on the strangest of grand conspiracy theories and a complete rejection of human error being any possible answer for the inconsistencies.
 
MicahJava said:
Dr. Peter Cummings disagrees with the cowlick entry theory. He believes the entry was lower, meaning that the depressed cowlick fracture is not an entry wound. I explained this. You have some kind of weird illusion of consensus.
Click to expand...


So? You seem to be under the impression that JFK's skull was intact in the back except for a nice, neat, clean bullet hole at the entry wound. I would ask you to go back and look at the clip I linked to, particularly the section where they showed the test firings of high powered rifles through human skulls. Note how the skulls come flying completely apart because of the pressure wave and imagine what that would look like afterwards if you're trying to determine exactly where the bullet entered. A shattered skull with some skin holding it together. How easy do you believe it would be to find the exact millimeter where the bullet entered in such a situation?

You're losing the forest for the trees. No matter what exact millimeter they put the entrance wound at, every forensic pathologist that has examined the evidence agrees that one bullet entered the back of JFK's skull and exited through a massive wound in the right front.

Let's boil it down to a single question to find out where we're at. A single bullet entered JFK's skull from the rear and exited the right front of his head. Do you agree or disagree with this statement and why?
 
cmikes said:
So? You seem to be under the impression that JFK's skull was intact in the back except for a nice, neat, clean bullet hole at the entry wound. I would ask you to go back and look at the clip I linked to, particularly the section where they showed the test firings of high powered rifles through human skulls. Note how the skulls come flying completely apart because of the pressure wave and imagine what that would look like afterwards if you're trying to determine exactly where the bullet entered. A shattered skull with some skin holding it together. How easy do you believe it would be to find the exact millimeter where the bullet entered in such a situation?
Click to expand...

You're actually arguing my position. Check out this gif of one of those television hatchet jobs on JFK where they shoot a ballistics dummy right around the cowlick area. The skull shatters around the entry area and creates more of a tangential wound. Now how on earth did Dr. Finck say he examined the intact entry wound in the skull unless that wound was way lower than the large head wound?

9esxsUf.gif
 
MicahJava said:
But did you forget the part where wood is in no way comparable to bones?
Click to expand...

How does a rib bone compare in density to a solid block of pine? A human being can easily snap a rib with one good punch. I don't think ribs are as indestructible as you seem to think they are.

As far as the goat experiment, there is one massive flaw with their methodology. Can you spot it?
 
MicahJava said:
You're actually arguing my position. Check out this gif of one of those television hatchet jobs on JFK where they shoot a ballistics dummy right around the cowlick area. The skull shatters around the entry area and creates more of a tangential wound. Now how on earth did Dr. Finck say he examined the intact entry wound in the skull unless that wound was way lower than the large head wound?

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/9esxsUf.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

That he made a mistake?

With as many times you've been busted posting nonsense in this thread I'd have would thought that you'd would be familiar with the concept.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom