JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[MicahJava]

You ignore the part where the fibers of JFK's tie and shirt indicate the bullet exited through the front of the throat. The shirt and jacket indicate ONE bullet entered through the back.

So if the clothing indicates one bullet entered through the back and exited out of the front of the body then the math looks something like this:

1 = 1

You're making it 1 = 2.

When you look at the COMBINATION of physical evidence; the pathology, forensics, and ballistics a reasonable person must conclude the shot was a 6.5x52mm Carcano round. There is ZERO evidence of more than 2 rounds striking the President.

Period.

Did I ever argue the throat was an entry? No. And of course, you're jumping to conclusions by saying the clothing evidence can only mean a back-to-throat track.

 

[Axxman300]

As far as heat goes, pain is unfortunately the best teacher, and not just the piece itself. When a crew served weapon, like an M2 .50 or any of the 7.62 types is fired that brass being ejected is best avoided, and if you have the misfortune of getting one up your sleeve or down the uniform you can get some interesting beauty marks. The Browning .50 at least ejects out the bottom, but 60's eject out the right side and can make things unpleasant. The HK 21 not only ejects from the right but throws the case into the next county. Until you get rained on by one it's hard to imagine damn near red hot brass rain.

True. My good friend began his Army career as an AG to a M-60 gunner with C Co. 2-75, and he showed me the scars he still has on the back of his neck from taking a bad position next to the weapon (the gunner was more than happy to let him learn the hard way too).

This makes me wonder why Oswald didn't think to cover his tracks by starting a fire on the 6th floor on his way out. Coulda, shoulda, woulda...

 

[Axxman300]

Did I ever argue the throat was an entry? No. And of course, you're jumping to conclusions by saying the clothing evidence can only mean a back-to-throat track.

Not jumping to conclusions, those are the conclusions. The fibers clearly indicate the direction of the bullet (people have been getting shot for a long time, and the FBI caught on early and bought microscopes).

 

[Axxman300]

Just to establish that, since the throat wound was most likely probed during the autopsy, there is no evidence they seriously considered a back-to-throat track. The only thing approaching evidence is that CBS memo talking about the zig-zagging probe.

So what are you arguing, because the evidence indicates one round striking the President in the back and exiting the throat. The internal probe doesn't matter because the fiber evidence backs this scenario up 100%.

The internal probe is nothing but a side-show.

 

[HSienzant]

Just to establish that, since the throat wound was most likely probed during the autopsy, there is no evidence they seriously considered a back-to-throat track. The only thing approaching evidence is that CBS memo talking about the zig-zagging probe.

No, that's not evidence of anything. I already told you that.

"The only thing approaching evidence" is the autopsy report.
And the testimony of Humes, Finck, and Boswell.
And the consensus of all the forensic pathologists that the original autopsists got it right.

That's evidence. Something you appear to not understand. And confuse with hearsay memos and 33-year after the fact recollections.

Good luck with that.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Did I ever argue the throat was an entry? No. And of course, you're jumping to conclusions by saying the clothing evidence can only mean a back-to-throat track.

Where's the bullet that struck JFK in the back?

Where's the evidence that a fragment of bone or bullet from the head strike exited JFK's throat?

And since JFK wasn't struck in the head until frame Z313, perhaps you can tell us why he points at his throat with the index finger of his left hand in the Zframes in the late Z250s?

Like here: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z258.jpg

It sure looks to me like he's trying to indicate he suffered a wound there. Or do you seriously entertain the idea he was indicating "We're Number One!"

Hank

 

[BStrong]

Axxman300, I accidentally typed subsonic when I meant supersonic. A supersonic bullet will be louder than it's suppressed muzzle blast, ergo knoll witnesses.

No, it won't:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/634649.pdf

"For supersonic velocities, the air in the gun barrel ahead of the projectile is compressed and accelerated and its muzzle exit causes a weak shock wave to form. Following muzzle exit of the projectile, the high pressure gun gases begin a rapid expansion to the atmosphere, causing a strong wave propagating at supersonic velocities for a short distance.

This shock or overpressure condition decays rapidly and then continues to travel at sonic velocity as an impulse wave or sound wave. A schlieren photograph of this expanding shock wave is shown in Figure 1. A second important sound source is the shock wave created by a supersonic projectile. However, recent studies (2) indicate that it will not reveal weapon location; therefore, this study is concerned with muzzle gas sound only."

 

[traxy]

No, that's basically what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying the muzzle blast would be that silent of suppressors were used in Dealey Plaza. It depends on the witness. With the motorcycle backfire and crowd noises, that especially factors in confusion. Nobody's saying that 1960's noise-suppressors would cover up the muzzle blast that much in a situation like this.

In that case the only sensible thing to do is disregard all of the earwitness testimony as unreliable...which means we have to go with whatever other evidence we have for specific firing locations, including witnesses who actually saw a shooter, recovered spent rifle casings or weapons recovered from the scene.

Oh look, we're back at the depository again...

 

[traxy]

Dr. Humes' version of events is witness evidence. The other people there tell a different story. Everybody else tells the story of how the autopsy physicians figured out the throat wound wasn't just a trach incision, so they stuck probes in and out of it. I don't think Dr. Humes ever even mentioned the second phone call that Dr. Perry did.

You're relying on witness memory again.

Told ya you'd come up empty handed.

 

[Reheat]

No, it won't:

I enthusiastically concur. There is no way a crack or zing from a supersonic bullet will obscure the sound of a suppressed muzzle blast from a weapon at close range. The crack or zing is simple not that loud. There would have been reports of a muffled sound if a suppressed weapon had been used. They are very distinctly different sounds.

At long ranges where the muffled sound of a suppressed muzzle blast might not be audible that is possible, but in Dealey Plaza that is simply not possible. The muffled sound of a suppressed weapon would have been heard. It is simply hogwash to contend otherwise.

 

[HSienzant]

In that case the only sensible thing to do is disregard all of the earwitness testimony as unreliable...which means we have to go with whatever other evidence we have for specific firing locations, including witnesses who actually saw a shooter, recovered spent rifle casings or weapons recovered from the scene.

Oh look, we're back at the depository again...

You're forgetting conspiracy theorists' #1 rule.

Anybody But Oswald.

With the appropriate application of this rule, all the hard evidence can be discarded, all the eyewitnesses who saw a Depository shooter are questionable, the rifle was planted or just a prop, or both, and any earwitnesses who said anywhere but the knoll are likewise unworthy of consideration. You can also question the autopsy, the autopsy x-rays and photos, the veracity of the autopsists and all the forensic pathologists who confirm the autopsists conclusions.

With this rule, the conspiracy evidence is the only thing left standing.

I mean, the conspiracy is just so ... obvious.

Hank

 

[BStrong]

Fun field trip for interested parties.

Go to a NRA sanctioned High Power Rifle match and volunteer to mark targets in the target pits downrange.

You'll be safe behind cover and will be able to experience first hand what supersonic projectiles sound like passing by your position.

 

[Axxman300]

Fun field trip for interested parties.

Go to a NRA sanctioned High Power Rifle match and volunteer to mark targets in the target pits downrange.

You'll be safe behind cover and will be able to experience first hand what supersonic projectiles sound like passing by your position.

I guy I know fell asleep out on one of Fort Ord's beach ranges (sleep/passed out/whatever). He woke to the sound of what he thought were bees swarming over his head, but soon discovered he was pinned down by a platoon of bootcamp recruits with their new M-16s.

 

[Axxman300]

Plus, Reheat has actually flown supersonic.

At a Beale AFB airshow in 1985 an F-4 from the Nevada ANG buzzed the runway at near Mach 1. I didn't hear the announcer, and suddenly there's this big green and black machine in the sky, which the sound of the engines a good two seconds behind.

Silence that.

 

[Reheat]

Plus, Reheat has actually flown supersonic.

At a Beale AFB airshow in 1985 an F-4 from the Nevada ANG buzzed the runway at near Mach 1. I didn't hear the announcer, and suddenly there's this big green and black machine in the sky, which the sound of the engines a good two seconds behind.

Silence that.

Comparing a bullet's supersonic shock wave to a supersonic aircraft at low level is like comparing the sound of a #500 bomb blast with a dog fart.

I once inadvertently flew over one of the manned sites in the Nevada Red Flag area at low level (~ 200') well above supersonic. The people there were still yelling over the phone when I landed about 1.5 hours later. Supersonic shock waves caused by aircraft at low level usually results in damage to windows and even structures. Bullets don't.

 

[Meadmaker]

This discussion of supersonic bullets, muzzle blasts, echos, and silencers (with or without noise projection) is all very interesting, but what does it mean?

If we think about the evidence, what we have is that some people heard shots from the grassy knoll. Some heard shots from the book depository. Some heard shots from elsewhere. What should we conclude from that?

It seems to me that the only reasonable conclusion that we can draw from that evidence is that some of the witnesses were wrong about the source of the shots. Indeed, it is more than an "it seems", it's indisputable. Some people were wrong.

So the talk about sonic booms and silencers is kind of cool, but in terms of telling us anything about who killed John F. Kennedy, it's fairly useless. Lots of people reported lots of different things. They can't all be right. They can't all have fallen prey to the same acoustic tricks of bullets, guns, and echos. Some of them were just wrong, and enough of them were just wrong that we can say the earwitness testimony is nothing more than a little bit of a hint at the source of the gunfire. Without other, physical, evidence to back it up, it has no significant value as evidence.

 

[Axxman300]

Comparing a bullet's supersonic shock wave to a supersonic aircraft at low level is like comparing the sound of a #500 bomb blast with a dog fart.

I once inadvertently flew over one of the manned sites in the Nevada Red Flag area at low level (~ 200') well above supersonic. The people there were still yelling over the phone when I landed about 1.5 hours later. Supersonic shock waves caused by aircraft at low level usually results in damage to windows and even structures. Bullets don't.

Yes, and the point was your plane was there before the shockwave.

I should also add: Buwahahahahahahahahaha! (I miss the 111)

 

[Axxman300]

This discussion of supersonic bullets, muzzle blasts, echos, and silencers (with or without noise projection) is all very interesting, but what does it mean?

If we think about the evidence, what we have is that some people heard shots from the grassy knoll. Some heard shots from the book depository. Some heard shots from elsewhere. What should we conclude from that?

It seems to me that the only reasonable conclusion that we can draw from that evidence is that some of the witnesses were wrong about the source of the shots. Indeed, it is more than an "it seems", it's indisputable. Some people were wrong.

So the talk about sonic booms and silencers is kind of cool, but in terms of telling us anything about who killed John F. Kennedy, it's fairly useless. Lots of people reported lots of different things. They can't all be right. They can't all have fallen prey to the same acoustic tricks of bullets, guns, and echos. Some of them were just wrong, and enough of them were just wrong that we can say the earwitness testimony is nothing more than a little bit of a hint at the source of the gunfire. Without other, physical, evidence to back it up, it has no significant value as evidence.

Gotta break it up sometimes.

We have pointed out that people's perceptions can be, and often are faulty (hence Skeptics), and we have pointed out that physical, ballistic, and forensic evidence points to 2 6.5x52mm rounds striking JFK with one bullet being shared with Connelly. We have pointed out that Oswald was 2 for 4 on 11/22/63 with the deaths of JFK & Tippet, while wounding Connelly, and nearly shooting a second DPD officer in the theater during his collar. Throw in the attempt on General Walker and he was 2 for 5. We have pointed out that Oswald was the only TSBD employee to leave after the shooting.

We will continue to point this out forever because this CT is one of the cornerstones of the CT universe, a gateway conspiracy which often leads to weirder conspiracies if one is not careful.

I used to be a JFK CT-loon, and even today I am open to any new information which indicates someone else knew about Oswald's plan (such as there was any plan, and I'm not sure any more). There are almost a hundred books about the Kennedy's and their darker business dating back to Joe senior, and there are hundreds more about the CIA during that era, and there must be a thousand books about the mafia. Some of those books have drifted into CT-land, but there has been no consistent narrative, no consistent suspects (or suspects behind the suspects * not counting the CIA, because they seem to have magic powers in the CT universe).
There have been thousands of documents released, with thousands more due to see daylight this summer, and there have been peripheral document dumps from CIA regarding Cuba, Central America, and a list of operations in the 1960s. There are likely forgotten photographs hidden away in closets and attics in the Dallas area that might one day show a clear enough image to give a definitive answer (the second LHO backyard photo was found in the garage of a retired DPD officer by his son). The sad truth is that even if or when the Babushka lady's pictures ever emerge people will still argue over what they see or don't see in the photo.

 

[Wolrab]

Comparing a bullet's supersonic shock wave to a supersonic aircraft at low level is like comparing the sound of a #500 bomb blast with a dog fart.

I once inadvertently flew over one of the manned sites in the Nevada Red Flag area at low level (~ 200') well above supersonic. The people there were still yelling over the phone when I landed about 1.5 hours later. Supersonic shock waves caused by aircraft at low level usually results in damage to windows and even structures. Bullets don't.

Now if you were flying a suppressed aircraft everyone would have thought you were coming from the opposite direction and several other magical properties that I could produce (without citation) as needed for my narrative.

 

[BStrong]

I guy I know fell asleep out on one of Fort Ord's beach ranges (sleep/passed out/whatever). He woke to the sound of what he thought were bees swarming over his head, but soon discovered he was pinned down by a platoon of bootcamp recruits with their new M-16s.

Not exactly the same situation, but the story that was been handed down to me was an FNG told the NCO, "hey look at those fireflies!" and the NCO's reaction was:

"Fireflies my ass, those are *********** tracers!"

There is no substitute for experience.