JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[Axxman300]

I'm pretty disturbed by BStrong and Reheat thinking it would ever be ok to not release the name of a convict or even suspect in a high-profile crime case. I don't care about whatever hypothetical you pull out about copycats, or how the suspect/convict feels about what they did, people should have the freedom to know. I have a respect for people's freedom and the establishment of history. Lone Nutters don't respect history.

That's not what he said.

The idea is to have the news media refrain from glorifying mass-shooters, not keep their names secret.

Media hype over shootings simply drives the next sicko to seek glory with a gun. In some cases you can count on network specials about the shooting for two or three weeks. The Santa Barbara shooter was considered a hero on the message board he hung out because of all the media attention.

Nobody's talking about censoring the media.

 

[MicahJava]

I once had an individual explain to my why the .50 BMG round was supernaturally (he used the term) deadly.

For my edification, he explained that the round traveled at such a high velocity and contained such energy that if the round passed a person within two feet without impacting them, the "shock wave" would break an arm or a leg as it missed, but if the round passed close by the head without hitting, the shock wave would shatter the skull.

No ****.

Until I encountered MJ here at ISF I thought I had maxxed out my lifetime ballistic ignorance quota, but this thread has provided much material. The "ventriloquist" suppressor has been a real comedy gem.

What are you talking about? If the noise caused by a subsonic bullet moving through the air is louder than the noise caused by the muzzle blast, the sound of the shot will be distorted. And earlier I provided a book that talked about how silencers can disperse the sound of the muzzle blast itself.

I first heard of this "opposite direction" phenomenon on the JFK section of the London Education Forum from user and gun enthusiast Robert Prudhomme. I Googled and browsed around gun forums and saw corroboration for this, where not only can the use of noise-suppressors in conjunction with supersonic ammunition distort the noise of a shot to make it difficult to locate it's origin, but in some cases it can actually sound like the shots are coming from the opposite direction of the shooter. Here are some gun nuts talking about it:

Fred_C_Dobbs on reloadersnest.com said:

The noise that a supersonic bullet makes is much louder than the muzzle report, which tends to give your intended target confusing information about where the bullet came from. Not only is it traveling faster than the speed of sound itself, that supersonic crack fans out behind the bullet. If the bullet goes by you, you won't hear it until it has passed. What little noise the muzzle report makes gets drowned out by the bullet. Since the bullet was traveling faster than sound, it gets to the target before the wimpy muzzle report. So all you hear is the loud CRACK! of the bullet. Since that sound isn't coming from the direction of the shooter but from the direction of the target, you sense that the shot came from the opposite direction of the one it actually did. I know guys who hunt feral hogs at night in Alabama with suppressed ARs and night vision scopes. After the first shot, any hogs who aren't hit almost always run away from the sound of the bullet and toward the direction of the shooters.

http://reloadersnest.com/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16999

Brian in Oregon on trapshooters.com said:

That's a significant reduction for hunting in semi-urban areas or where you do not want to disturb critters. It also confuses coyotes. Generally they hear a muzzle report and they take off in the opposite direction. A suppressed .223 confuses them. The supersonic bullet, if it misses them, makes a crack loud enough to hide the muzzle report. They sometimes will hesitate trying to figure out what's going on, because they cannot pinpoint the direction.

http://www.trapshooters.com/threads/silencer-vs-suppressor.174703/

Twitch2120 on gunandgame.com said:

...Ranb is correct on all his points, suppressing a rifle is an excellent idea. the uncorking (which is the loudest event in a gunshot) is reduced. the sonic crack also does a silly thing that makes the gunshot sound like its coming from the opposite direction. many a towel head have run INTO the shooter rather than away. there is nothing that stops the sonic crack of a bullet but you have to understand that the crack is sustained throughout the bullets flight.

https://www.gunandgame.com/threads/silencer-for-mosin.143718/page-3

Kent J on thefirearmblog.com said:

There have been reports from Afghanistan where enemy fighters actually took cover on the wrong side because they thought the Snipers shots were coming from the opposite direction because the Sniper was using a Suppressor!

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/09/12/suppressed-rifles-pistols/

GunNutmegger on yankeegunnuts.com said:

...Actually, there’s a 3rd option: use it with supersonic ammo, and cause a lot of confusion among the people you are shooting at, since the sonic boom will make them think the bullet came from the opposite direction that you shot from. This is really only practical with a rifle, at medium to long range.

http://www.yankeegunnuts.com/2010/08/05/suppressed-guns-better-mousetraps/


veritas16 on Warriortalk.com points out:

In John Plaster's book, he says that sometimes the "crack" without the corresponding thump makes the bad guy think the shot came from the opposite direction, so the bad guy chooses the wrong side of whatever cover he's using.

http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?39599-Suppressor-questions/page2


Tennessee Slim on varminthunters.com said

...The red chevron indicates the location of the bullet once Chuckie has entered the cone of the bullet's crack. Now he can hear the bullet, but the bullet has passed him. So when he finally hears it, it's behind him.

So if he flees the noise, he will tend to run, not away from, but toward the shooter. This is something you'll commonly see from the videos made by the guys in Alabama who hunt wild hogs at night with night scopes and suppressors. They can't see the hunters in the dark, and can't see the muzzle flashes or hear the reports because of the suppressors, so what shots miss the hogs (or hit a hog behind them) will sound to be coming from the opposite direction of the shooters, so they commonly will break and run directly into the guns.

http://www.varminthunters.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-119665.html

Multigunner on gunloads.com said:

From what I've heard if a sniper uses a suppressor with a supersonic cartridge those near the victim being fired on and not themselves hit would hear the crack further down range and believe, for a few precious seconds at least, that the shooting came from the opposite direction.
Sounds feasible.
In any case any reduction in muzzle blast is a plus.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?128617-Ideal-Bolt-Action-Rifle/page4

 

[MicahJava]

No games, no excuses.

Just awaiting your evidence.

Not your opinion. Or the reckoning of a conspiracy theorist. Or the anomalous recollections from a third of a century after the assassination. Or assertions you make but cannot prove. Or what you read on some conspiracy site.

Evidence.

Got any?

Apparently not.

Hank

Me: Look at these half a dozen or so autopsy witnesses who say the doctors probed the throat wound! And look, even the autopsy doctors themselves basically admitted they thought the throat wound was a bullet hole!

You: Nuh-uh, cus [yadda yadda FBI, yadda yadda Dr. Perry's phone call]

Me: There's actually a cogent explanation for that! Here's witness evidence that indicates the autopsy doctors were notified about the original throat wound Friday night during the autopsy!

You: [grumbles something about 15-year-old and 30-year-old memories even though this revision explains all of the evidence perfectly]

 

[MicahJava]

That's not what he said.

The idea is to have the news media refrain from glorifying mass-shooters, not keep their names secret.

Media hype over shootings simply drives the next sicko to seek glory with a gun. In some cases you can count on network specials about the shooting for two or three weeks. The Santa Barbara shooter was considered a hero on the message board he hung out because of all the media attention.

Nobody's talking about censoring the media.

I'm all for the media avoiding talking about the perps too much, especially when all it does is serve stupid agendas. But obviously the public has the right to know all available information about the perps if they please, especially if it's a high-profile case.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Me: Look at these half a dozen or so autopsy witnesses who say the doctors probed the throat wound! And look, even the autopsy doctors themselves basically admitted they thought the throat wound was a bullet hole!

You: Nuh-uh, cus [yadda yadda FBI, yadda yadda Dr. Perry's phone call]

Me: There's actually a cogent explanation for that! Here's witness evidence that indicates the autopsy doctors were notified about the original throat wound Friday night during the autopsy!

You: [grumbles something about 15-year-old and 30-year-old memories even though this revision explains all of the evidence perfectly]

You forgot to mention the evidence.

 

[MicahJava]

You forgot to mention the evidence.

Yeah, and there's no evidence for evolution or the big bang.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Yeah, and there's no evidence for evolution or the big bang.

Sure there is.

Despite your griping it is quite clear that the problem is that we can all see the evidence involved in the JFK assassination, and thus we can see that it simply doesn't support your opinions.

 

[MicahJava]

Sure there is.

Despite your griping it is quite clear that the problem is that we can all see the evidence involved in the JFK assassination, and thus we can see that it simply doesn't support your opinions.

Nope, the evidence gravitates towards JFK's autopsy pathologists knowing about the bullet wound in the throat. That's something history will have to live with.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Nope, the evidence gravitates towards JFK's autopsy pathologists knowing about the bullet wound in the throat. That's something history will have to live with.

I agree they knew about the wounds. More than you. It also leans towards them disagreeing with you. You have proven this at great length, by all you ignore or handwave away. It has grown tedious.

 

[MicahJava]

I agree they knew about the wounds. More than you. It also leans towards them disagreeing with you. You have proven this at great length, by all you ignore or handwave away. It has grown tedious.

You agree that the autopsy pathologists knew more than I do about the throat wound? Good to know.

 

[Tomtomkent]

You agree that the autopsy pathologists knew more than I do about the throat wound? Good to know.

Yes. But before you try and achieve a "HaHa!" moment, just remember: this is why your pretending they support, point to, or infer your CT fails. Their opinions are quite clear, and your interpretation is stretched and forced, to the point it begins to whiff of the troll.

Assuming you are in any way genuine, not w would be the time to reconsider how you have been making your arguments, and trump to understand that repetition is not going to suddenly become convincing.

 

[Reheat]

What are you talking about? If the noise caused by a subsonic bullet moving through the air is louder than the noise caused by the muzzle blast, the sound of the shot will be distorted. And earlier I provided a book that talked about how silencers can disperse the sound of the muzzle blast itself.

I'm not at all sure how you think this diatribe helps your case. Was the grassy knoll opposite the TSBD? No, it wasn't, it was parallel. The Forum posts you quote are mostly correct, but you missed a key point. The distances involved plays a key role. The distances in Dealey Plaza were very short range, mostly well under 100 yards, some less than 50 yards. One poster even acknowledged the phenomenon you allege only works at medium to long range where the suppressed muzzle blast is not audible. But, anyone in the Dealey Plaza area would likely have heard both the supersonic crack and the reduced muzzle blast.

You simply have gone to a lot of trouble to disprove your point.

A suppressor does not render the muzzle blast silent, it only reduces it. At the distances in Dealey Plaza those anywhere on the street in front or those on the knoll itself would have heard it. Did anyone report a muffled sound? Certainly not that I've read about.

Congratulations, you've just disproven the point you're trying to make.

If you can provide any hard evidence at all other than this crap (which you don't understand) such as as an actual bullet or an exit wound that would prove this, I'll accept the possibility of a shooter from the grassy knoll area. Otherwise you're simply blowing smoke about something you don't understand.

 

[BStrong]

What are you talking about? If the noise caused by a subsonic bullet moving through the air is louder than the noise caused by the muzzle blast, the sound of the shot will be distorted. And earlier I provided a book that talked about how silencers can disperse the sound of the muzzle blast itself.

I first heard of this "opposite direction" phenomenon on the JFK section of the London Education Forum from user and gun enthusiast Robert Prudhomme. I Googled and browsed around gun forums and saw corroboration for this, where not only can the use of noise-suppressors in conjunction with supersonic ammunition distort the noise of a shot to make it difficult to locate it's origin, but in some cases it can actually sound like the shots are coming from the opposite direction of the shooter. Here are some gun nuts talking about it:

snipped...

Your complete lack of knowledge in the subject matter. You are trying to find (in your mind) a seemingly plausible explanation of facts not in evidence.

My first hands-on experience with suppressors was in the 1960's. I held a SOT license from the late 1970's until the late '80's and manufactured cans. My first hand knowledge of the subject matter is extensive.

You persist in attempting to crowbar nonsense into the established evidence based on a patent misunderstanding of how individuals perceive sound.

A suppressor as a mechanical device is not the controlling factor that confuses earwitnesses. Earwitnesses are fully capable of mis-identifying sounds and the source of those sounds.

That is why the earwitness accounts you wish to hang your hat on are pretty much worthless.

The smartest suppressor designer of my generation had a sales technique that was and is unprecedented. He would take people on a tour of various areas of New Orleans and fire examples of his suppressed pistols in public areas and inside a particular hotel. One of the venues involved firing a pistol from a balcony into a safe backstop over the heads of people doing their thing down at street level.

The people gettin' their drink on paid no attention to the overhead projectiles, sonic and sub-sonic.

Suppressed or non-suppressed, individuals often make mistakes regarding sound.

Earwitness accounts are wholly subjective. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be so many accounts of gunshots sounding like firecrackers.

Try these:

http://komonews.com/news/local/heard-what-sounded-like-firecrackers-and-realized-it-was-a-shooting

http://patch.com/illinois/chicago/gunshots-or-fireworks-learn-tell-difference

The earwitnesses involved filter what they heard through their experience, and more people are familiar with the sounds of firecrackers than are experienced in the sounds of gunfire and the sound of a passing supersonic or sub-sonic projectile.

 

[traxy]

Me: Look at these half a dozen or so autopsy witnesses who say the doctors probed the throat wound! And look, even the autopsy doctors themselves basically admitted they thought the throat wound was a bullet hole!

You: Nuh-uh, cus [yadda yadda FBI, yadda yadda Dr. Perry's phone call]

Me: There's actually a cogent explanation for that! Here's witness evidence that indicates the autopsy doctors were notified about the original throat wound Friday night during the autopsy!

You: [grumbles something about 15-year-old and 30-year-old memories even though this revision explains all of the evidence perfectly]

Notice a common thread in the bolded stuff?

Here's a challenge for you Micah. Try making the case for a conspiracy without citing witness memories as the crux of your argument.

I bet you come up empty handed.

 

[traxy]

Yeah, and there's no evidence for evolution or the big bang.

Actually there is plenty of evidence supporting both of those, and none of it hinges on witness memory.

 

[BStrong]

I'm all for the media avoiding talking about the perps too much, especially when all it does is serve stupid agendas. But obviously the public has the right to know all available information about the perps if they please, especially if it's a high-profile case.

Facts not in evidence.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Yeah, and there's no evidence for evolution or the big bang.

You forgot to add your evidence for an alternative assassin again.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Yeah, and there's no evidence for evolution or the big bang.

I don't mean this in any insulting way, but is the issue here that you have some misunderstanding of what evidence is, and what qualifies as being viable?

Or, more precisely, and assuming you aren't intending to troll this thread, do you understand what others here are going to consider viable evidence?

 

[HSienzant]

Me: Look at these half a dozen or so autopsy witnesses who say the doctors probed the throat wound! And look, even the autopsy doctors themselves basically admitted they thought the throat wound was a bullet hole!

You: Nuh-uh, cus [yadda yadda FBI, yadda yadda Dr. Perry's phone call]

Me: There's actually a cogent explanation for that! Here's witness evidence that indicates the autopsy doctors were notified about the original throat wound Friday night during the autopsy!

You: [grumbles something about 15-year-old and 30-year-old memories even though this revision explains all of the evidence perfectly]

You have zero chance of getting to the truth if you cannot summarize your opponents' argument adequately. You will forever be knocking down strawmen.

Hank

 

[BStrong]

You have zero chance of getting to the truth if you cannot summarize your opponents' argument adequately. You will forever be knocking down strawmen.

Hank

When someone has no knowledge in a given subject past what they want to believe there's no real discussion to be had.

I have a friend that I've known for years, but it wasn't until recently that we found out that we're related by marriage. If your people come from an island (Sicily) sooner or later everyone ends up being related.

He sums up our relationship "We talk for three hours and agree, we yell at each other for 20 minutes, then we go back to agreeing."

He's pretty much right.

He believes 100% that anybody in California can walk into a gun store or a gunshow, pay cash for a machinegun and walk out with no paperwork and questions asked.

The fact that I point him in the direction of the ATF and the California Bureau of Firearms is besides the point - he believes what he believes.

It's pretty much the same for Ctists - on 9/11, somebody stated "it sounded like an explosion." - Ctist: Controlled demolition! super banana fana bobama thermite! thermate! nano-thermite! etc.

Dallas: "I heard the shots coming from over there." Proof! Conspiracy! ad infinitum.

The facts don't matter to certain folks. Since they have no background in the subject matter they can not deal with the evidence that refutes whatever fantasy they want to be true.