JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[HSienzant]

Oh, so he was standing just 1 ft. off the ground, firing at a stationary 20 sq ft. target from 40 feet away. Nice.

What's even nicer is you just exposed yourself as mendacious and a prevaricator. None of the specific measurements you just claimed above is found in the testimony I directed you to. You just made it all up. Pretty much like Mark Lane, Josiah Thompson, and Sylvia Meagher... and a host of other conspiracy authors. When in doubt, make it up.

Even with the link to the testimony right in front of you, make it up instead.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/simmons.htm
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0225a.htm

Or you could look it up and quit the B.S.

semitists weapon gnarl bitter iowans shyer cgs

It's an anagram for "WC testimony is boring, answer direct questions"

You have your answer. I have mine. You'd rather make up stuff than find the truth. We established that above.

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

Martin Luther King and Anton Cermak leap to mind. (Cermak, Mayor of Chicago, was riding with President-elect Franklin Rooseveldt, if memory serves correctly.

I forgot about King, which is sad on my part.

 

[Axxman300]

Important note: Has anybody ever tried to test the accuracy of a single-assassin/Carcano scenario only using the iron sights? That's really the only way to do it now that most now agree that using the iron sights would be easier than using the scope.

Yes, the ITALIAN ARMY in WWI and WWII.

 

[HSienzant]

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.

You'd rather make up stuff than find the truth. We established that above.

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

BStrong, you gotta be really desperate to use Marina. Can we keep this to science that we can know for sure?

You clearly don't understand the science.

You don't understand ballistics, and that's easier than forensic medicine any day.

Like every CTer you ignore facts, cherry pick data out of context, and quote woo websites as reliable sources. You automatically assume the government is lying, or wrong, or both. You disregard any witness testimony which counters your delusion of a conspiracy.

Worse, you're just getting started on a 54 year-old wive's tale which guys like me had much more time to wallow in the crap-ola that you're swallowing now. As a former JFK CTer I'm going to continue pointing out that your rabbit hole has a dead end.

If you insist on believing in a JFK conspiracy then you'll have to leave Oswald as the lone shooter, and look elsewhere. Did someone put him up to the job? Was he promised exile in Cuba? The ballistics show one rifle in Dealey Plaza, the forensics show that JFK and Connelly were hit from behind with the same weapon. Oswald fled the scene, shot one DPD officer, and attempted to shoot a second officer.

The facts, the evidence all point to Oswald as the lone shooter. If there are other parts to this story they'll be found before 11/22/1963.

 

[BStrong]

Martin Luther King and Anton Cermak leap to mind. (Cermak, Mayor of Chicago, was riding with President-elect Franklin Rooseveldt, if memory serves correctly.

Cermak was shot and killed with a .32 S. & W. wheelgun.

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

Medgar Evers was shot and killed w/ a 30 caliber rifle:

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/29/us/jurors-in-medgar-evers-case-handle-rifle-from-the-past.html

Larry Flynt was shot and wounded by a shooter using a .44 caliber rifle:

http://murderpedia.org/male.F/f/franklin-joseph.htm

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Who cares what Lifton says or posits?

Lifton insists all the shooters were in front of the President, which puts them all in front of the Governor, too. So if the President's wounds were all inflicted from the front, and altered to look like wounds from behind as Lifton posits, then it follows that the Governor's wounds were likewise inflicted from the front and altered to look like wounds from behind, even though Lifton never mentions this in his 747+ page tome to bad science and poorer logic.

This is what you get when you follow conspiracy authors down their personal rabbit hole.

And if you want to believe that Perry said he never made the trache through the bullet wound, be my guest, just bear in mind NO ONE ELSE ever said there were two wounds on the throat - a bullet wound and a trache. None of the other Parkland doctors, none of the Bethesda witnesses. The autopsy photos don't show it. The autopsy report doesn't show it. None of the Bethesda witnesses, even 33 years after the assassination, remembered it that way.

Believe whatever outlier nonsense you wish.

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.[emphasis added]

"They did speculate..." Thank you for that admission. Speculations are not evidence. Surely you know this. The 'sanitized' bit is just your belief, supported by no evidence whatsoever. It carries no weight.

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?

Where'd you get the image you showed? Oh, From the same Discovery Channel special?

Hilarious.

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?

It sounds like a man who's done a lot of work and isn't about to give it away for free. It also sounds like you can't attack the message, so you attack the messenger.

Read this: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12c%3Aanimania

The very first image is wrong. Note the red line in relation to the hairline in Myers' images, but in the center [autopsy] image, the hairline is much closer to the red line than in Myers' images. Pat Speer is trying to show something is wrong with Myers work, but Speer's establishing he either can't align the hairline correctly in three images, or he deliberately misaligned them.

Hank

 

[BStrong]

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.

snipped...

I addressed PCR's ******** story three years before you landed here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9486646&postcount=3934

"*Note. There is one JFK "researcher" and CT hawker that has an actual background as a trained professional.

Unfortunately, this individual wasn't satisfied with his own version of events, or maybe his book editor wanted some more horsepower in the story, so this individual claimed that when he attended LE marksman training run in conjunction with one of the greatest combat and competition marksman that ever lived, this individual claimed that the great man told him that the Marine scout/sniper school at Quantico had run a test to duplicate LHO's shooting, but nobody could duplicate the feat, including the great man.

The only problem?

No such test has ever taken place at the school - the military is very funny, they keep records of everything, and no such records exist.

For my part, I went through the same LE school run by the great man, and although he taught much, LHO, JFK and assassinations never came up, and no other individual involved with TGM or the school had ever heard him make any such claim.

The book written by the hawker dropped into obscurity afaik, but I wanted to touch on it because non-professionally trained JFK hawkers have grabbed onto this particular ******** story as "proof."

The other fact germane to this story, the book was published after the death of the The Great Man - Carlos Hathcock, USMC, 1942 - 1999."

 

[HSienzant]

Still just avoiding my points entirely.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11767402&postcount=2727

And making up stuff.

Hank

 

[BStrong]

Still just avoiding my points entirely.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11767402&postcount=2727

And making up stuff.

Hank

That's what his sources tend to do, so he follows suit.

 

[traxy]

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?

Actually Myers animation is originally from Beyond Conspiracy, the ABC special. It's where he won his Emmy Award.

He's also submitted his animation and all of its inputs to the foremost forensic animation company in North America. They gave it a rave review, said it was extremely accurate and well done. The letter is up on his website.

You'll forgive me if I find the criticism of Pat Speer with a grain of salt compared to that.

 

[Meadmaker]

This whole undercharged and sabot discussion brings up something about the assassination that just doesn't get discussed a lot.

If this was a conspiracy, it had to be planned. Right? That's kind of the definition of a conspiracy.

So, I've planned events. I've done project management. The process is pretty straightforward. You visualize how you want the event or activity to go. You put resources in place to make it happen. Depending on the risk involved you might have to have contingency plans in place. You probably make a list and check off items as you go.

So now I'm picturing the planning guy giving instructions to the Assassination Committee on the night of November 21.

"Ok. We're all set. Oswald will be in the book depository. He usually works alone, so he'll have time to build a sniper's nest. He is instructed use one special undercharged sabot round so that (*insert motive here - I'm really not following why anyone would ever do that*). Lefty will be at the grassy knoll. He's got fake Secret Service credentials. Mugs is at the hospital. He has a bullet that matches Oswald's rifle with him that he will plant and make sure it's found."

"Uh, boss...why plant a bullet? Won't there be plenty of bullets in the car?"

"Yeah, that's the problem. Not all of them will be from Oswald's gun. Our team at the FBI will arrange to make sure they are assigned to the evidence detail from the limo. They're going to throw out all the bullets they find unless they are absolutely sure it's Oswald's. He's a lousy shot, so there might not be any. We have to be sure there's at least one."

"There are a lot of people with cameras and even movie cameras these days. What happens if they record a shot from the front?"

"We've got people on the ground to interrogate anyone with a camera. They'll say they are gathering evidence, but they'll expose as much film as they can. We'll have to spin the contents of any that get past us."

Now keep repeating that scenario for all the contingencies they have to deal with. It's a masterpiece of planning. Just imagine how you would go about planning it, and what resources and skills would be required. It's a tall order.

 

[HSienzant]

This whole undercharged and sabot discussion brings up something about the assassination that just doesn't get discussed a lot.

If this was a conspiracy, it had to be planned. Right? That's kind of the definition of a conspiracy.

So, I've planned events. I've done project management. The process is pretty straightforward. You visualize how you want the event or activity to go. You put resources in place to make it happen. Depending on the risk involved you might have to have contingency plans in place. You probably make a list and check off items as you go.

So now I'm picturing the planning guy giving instructions to the Assassination Committee on the night of November 21.

"Ok. We're all set. Oswald will be in the book depository. He usually works alone, so he'll have time to build a sniper's nest. He is instructed use one special undercharged sabot round so that (*insert motive here - I'm really not following why anyone would ever do that*).

It would have to be from another shooter, to frame Oswald for taking part in the assassination. That's the typical conspiracy argument.

The better contingency plan is to just shoot the President from behind with Oswald's rifle. If one of the multitude of Oswald look-alikes wandering around Dallas on the day of the assassination, or in the months before the shooting is a half-way decent shot, use him to do the shooting. Witnesses will therefore describe the shooter as a young, slender white male with no facial hair (no beard or mustache), etc.

You save a ton of money on the witness elimination squad and the body alteration team, to mention nothing of the money you'd save on the planting of evidence team, the forgery of evidence team, and the transcription alteration services.

Lefty will be at the grassy knoll. He's got fake Secret Service credentials. Mugs is at the hospital. He has a bullet that matches Oswald's rifle with him that he will plant and make sure it's found."

"Uh, boss...why plant a bullet? Won't there be plenty of bullets in the car?"

"Yeah, that's the problem. Not all of them will be from Oswald's gun.

They would be if there is only one gun (Oswald's) doing the shooting. Not sure how the multiple gun scenario survived the vetting process back in May of 1963.

Our team at the FBI will arrange to make sure they are assigned to the evidence detail from the limo. They're going to throw out all the bullets they find unless they are absolutely sure it's Oswald's. He's a lousy shot, so there might not be any. We have to be sure there's at least one."

How good a shot he is doesn't matter if he's being framed and didn't actually fire a shot. But if he's a lousy shot, the conspirators should not be framing him for owning a cheap rifle. Perhaps a modern (as of 1963) semi-automatic weapon would make more sense, rather than a bolt-action, war-surplus weapon that's 20 years old or older. You have to make it appear plausible he could pull off the shooting by himself, and framing a lousy shot with a lousier rifle doesn't appear to be a solid plan. Again, not sure how that would survive the May action meeting either. Did the funds for a decent rifle suddenly dry up?

"There are a lot of people with cameras and even movie cameras these days. What happens if they record a shot from the front?"

"We've got people on the ground to interrogate anyone with a camera. They'll say they are gathering evidence, but they'll expose as much film as they can. We'll have to spin the contents of any that get past us."

Not expose film, although that does make the most sense. With no film, there's no baseline to compare against. Yet the conspiracy theory du jour is that the films and photos are altered, not destroyed ... so you have to intercept all films and photos and tweak them before they see the light of day, anticipating things like the necessity to remove a slow-down from the Zapruder film for some reason (although it is something I would want to leave in, if I were a conspirator -- it would make Oswald's head shot seem all that much easier), but conspiracy theorists argue the plotters removed this for some reason.

Now keep repeating that scenario for all the contingencies they have to deal with. It's a masterpiece of planning. Just imagine how you would go about planning it, and what resources and skills would be required. It's a tall order.

An unlimited budget and unlimited time would not be sufficient.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

So how exactly does one ensure that sabot round will survive with enough rifling intact?

If it hits the car, it might hit something metallic that will either damage it beyond recognition or deflect it out of the car entirely. If it hits the President, it might hit something hard that will likewise cause it to have no recognizable lands and grooves to match to the rifle -- like the President's skull or his scapula, for instance.

A sabot sounds like a comic book solution, not a real-life solution, and it offers at least as many reasons not to take that approach as to take it. It could be a lot of work for no realistic chance at a payback.

You might have to fire three or four sabot rounds to ensure one survived with sufficient markings to trace it to Oswald's weapon... but then you also run the risk of all three or four sabot rounds surviving. Is that really a risk conspirators want to take?

The whole argument also depends on the conspirators having access to Oswald's rifle at some point prior to the assassination, so they can fire some rounds into cotton or water and recover them later for use in the assassination, to frame Oswald.

But if they have access to Oswald's rifle, why not just smuggle it into his place of work and have someone who's a half-way decent shot shoot from the sixth window using Oswald's weapon, and Oswald's bullets, without all this sabot nonsense? That way, whatever bullets and shells survive the assassination will have to point solely to Oswald's weapon (if they point anywhere), because that was the only weapon used -- AND THOSE WERE THE ACTUAL BULLETS USED IN THE ASSASSINATION.

Simple, not complex. Use the patsy's own weapon to commit the crime. Not a gaggle of shooters shooting from all over the plaza, leaving evidence of multiple shooters behind that has to be 'cleaned up'.

Multiple shooters to frame a lone nut is a stupid plan. Forrest Gump could tell you that.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

And still waiting for MicahJava to even try to post a reasonable response to this post of mine:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11767392&postcount=2724

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[r], 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

 

[Meadmaker]

On a related note to the planning difficulties, I always wonder not just how many people had to be involved, but whether there was anyone that the planners considered "untouchable", i.e. they couldn't be corrupted. They wouldn't take bribes. They wouldn't betray the country by killing the President. They had personal loyalty to Kennedy. Were there any people who were definitely against the planners, so much so that if they found out about the plot they would do everything in their power to bring the murderers to justice. If that were the case, then no evidence could be forged with their help, or with their knowledge.

The usual dodge seems to be that the conspirators had enough power to persuade some people, bribe others, threaten the rest, and when all else fails, convince them to keep quiet for the good of the country.

When I see the cast of characters that had to be treated that way, I always wonder what the point would be of killing the President. Why bother? He obviously is just a figurehead anyway. What's the point?

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

So....the plan didn't work? CE399 wasn't recovered from the car, and nothing was recovered from either body.

But maybe CE399 was deliberately flattened at the base so as to preserve the rifling when Mugs planted it at the hospital. That's a pretty clever plan. They need a bullet from Oswald's rifle. So, they make one. They need the rifling preserved, but it has to have at least some damage, so they damage it at the base, and "VOILA", a bullet perfect to frame Oswald. What could be simpler?

But then they had to invent the single bullet theory in order to explain the flattening at the base.

I wonder if they had that story in advance, or it was an afterthought.

 

[cmikes]

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]

No, I'm arguing my position. As far as determining who was responsible for JFK's assassination it's irrelevant if the entry wound in JFK's skull is above and slightly to the right of the EOP as claimed by the autopsy doctors or if the entry wound in JFK's skull is more above and slightly to the right of the EOP as claimed by the HSCA medical panel.

What's relevant is that the wound was made by a bullet fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle to exclusion of every other rifle in the world as proven by the bullet fragments discovered in the limo after the assassination.

Now, since you dodged the question again, can you please try to answer this time. One bullet entered the back of JFK's skull and exited through a massive wound in the right front of JFK's skull. Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?

 

[Axxman300]

How good a shot he is doesn't matter if he's being framed and didn't actually fire a shot. But if he's a lousy shot, the conspirators should not be framing him for owning a cheap rifle. Perhaps a modern (as of 1963) semi-automatic weapon would make more sense, rather than a bolt-action, war-surplus weapon that's 20 years old or older. You have to make it appear plausible he could pull off the shooting by himself, and framing a lousy shot with a lousier rifle doesn't appear to be a solid plan. Again, not sure how that would survive the May action meeting either. Did the funds for a decent rifle suddenly dry up?


Hank

Why not just "steal" an M-14 from a National Guard armory? You can frame Oswald for that one too, and you have a .762 weapon that's capable of full-auto, and had a 20-round magazine. He could have killed everybody in the President's car, the second car, and even LBJ's car. Go big or go home, right? With five magazines he could have shot it out with DPD for a while and gone out a legend.

Either way, if I'm throwing an assassination in 1963 I'm arming my shooter(s) with M-14s because it widens my pool of applicants to every man with prior military service, it's an easy weapon to get your hands on if you're an evil shadow government type, and it's more reliable than the Carcano while being harder to trace (unless it's left at the crime scene, and even then it just gets tracked back to the NG armory we stole it from).

But that's just me.

 

[pgwenthold]

This whole undercharged and sabot discussion brings up something about the assassination that just doesn't get discussed a lot.

If this was a conspiracy, it had to be planned. Right? That's kind of the definition of a conspiracy.

So, I've planned events. I've done project management. The process is pretty straightforward. You visualize how you want the event or activity to go. You put resources in place to make it happen. Depending on the risk involved you might have to have contingency plans in place. You probably make a list and check off items as you go.

So now I'm picturing the planning guy giving instructions to the Assassination Committee on the night of November 21.

"Ok. We're all set. Oswald will be in the book depository. He usually works alone, so he'll have time to build a sniper's nest. He is instructed use one special undercharged sabot round so that (*insert motive here - I'm really not following why anyone would ever do that*). Lefty will be at the grassy knoll. He's got fake Secret Service credentials. Mugs is at the hospital. He has a bullet that matches Oswald's rifle with him that he will plant and make sure it's found."

"Uh, boss...why plant a bullet? Won't there be plenty of bullets in the car?"

"Yeah, that's the problem. Not all of them will be from Oswald's gun. Our team at the FBI will arrange to make sure they are assigned to the evidence detail from the limo. They're going to throw out all the bullets they find unless they are absolutely sure it's Oswald's. He's a lousy shot, so there might not be any. We have to be sure there's at least one."

"There are a lot of people with cameras and even movie cameras these days. What happens if they record a shot from the front?"

"We've got people on the ground to interrogate anyone with a camera. They'll say they are gathering evidence, but they'll expose as much film as they can. We'll have to spin the contents of any that get past us."

Now keep repeating that scenario for all the contingencies they have to deal with. It's a masterpiece of planning. Just imagine how you would go about planning it, and what resources and skills would be required. It's a tall order.

I'm reminded of Dana Carvey talking about framing OJ




I really like OJ...