Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[bknight]

...

Q: In addition to that entrance wound, there was also an exit wound. Do you recall that?

A: [Perusing document] Close to midnight, portions of cranial vault - portions of cranial vault are received from Dallas, Texas, and identified an exit. Yes.

Q: Okay. We have just discussed, or identified two separate holes that were in the President's head. Were there any other holes besides the exit wound and the entrance wound?

A: No.

Q: Three holes or just two?

A: Two.

Q: And which bone was the entrance wound located in?

A: The occipital bone. It was recorded as occipital. We should refer to the record for that.

...

And how many holes were seen?

 

[HSienzant]

Earlier I only tallied up about twelve experts who were either forensic pathologists or radiologists who agreed with the cowlick entry. How many radiologists agree with it? How many forensic radiologists agree with it?

Earlier, trying to diminish the import of these numbers, you claimed it was "only about twelve".

Last I checked, there were only about twelve ...

And no, you do not have to be qualified to interpret gunshot wound X-rays very well if you are a forensic pathologist.

You keep saying that, but you never cite for it. Why is that? Are we supposed to just accept everything you say, especially given your penchant for stating things that don't track back to anything verifiable?

A forensic pathologist's job is to determine the cause of death at autopsy.

And he does that how, exactly, especially in the case where the death occurred 15 years earlier, and he cannot see the body? Oh, that's right, he looks at the extant autopsy materials, like the autopsy X-Rays and photos.

See where Dr. Finck was asked to identify an entry wound on the X-rays, to which he replied "I always refer to the radiologists on that".

You just claimed Finck -- the person whose opinion you cite most extensively -- isn't qualified to render an opinion. We've talked about the three original pathologists extensively, and how they appear reticent in later interviews to say anything controversial, because of how they had been mistreated by conspiracy theorists in the past. Here's another example of Finck declining to make a statement, and you treat it as a blanket indictment of all forensic pathologists everywhere. This is solely your interpretation of his remark. It is susceptible of other interpretations.

But as I said on the prior page:

Resolved: Conspiracy theorists ignore expert opinion and discard any evidence contrary to their beliefs to argue for their unique interpretation of the evidence. They cannot cite any expert opinion that establishes their interpretation, and they rely on logical fallacies like personal incredulity and straw man arguments to keep their interpretation afloat. They cannot explain the overlying structure of their supposed conspiracy, or why conspirators would want to do what they claim, nor can the explain how the evidence all fits together, even assuming their interpretation is correct. They ignore contradictions in their own assertions, and pretend their interpretation is the only one that makes sense.

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

I have not researched high-tech ammunition, or the history thereof because so far I don't think it's very necessary tool to explain the shooting. I just mentioned it for a second.

Are you that incapable of getting anything right?

Was the shot highly unlikely to be made by anyone? Or only highly unlikely if made by Oswald?

What is your comprehensive theory for how the assassination happened that fits all the evidence?

 

[pgwenthold]

You are still beating this dead horse? For crying out loud, it wasn't even close to a difficult shot, with a scope or with iron sights. The notion that there was something miraculous about Oswald hitting JFK with a rifle from less than 100 yards is possibly the silliest notion to come out of the JFK conspiracy theory world.

And don't forget, he had 4 chances do it.

(why did Oswald shoot 3 times? Because that is how many times it took to hit the target)

 

[Garrison]

I have not researched high-tech ammunition, or the history thereof because so far I don't think it's very necessary tool to explain the shooting. I just mentioned it for a second.

So why mention it at all? Why not at least do some basic research before posting? This just reinforces the impression that you unthinkingly regurgitate anything you hope will shore up your theory regardless of how implausible the idea is.

 

[Ranb]

It's like I'm on ignore. Oh well, it feels like I'm clubbing a baby seal here anyway. I'll resume lurking the thread if I can't get a response.

 

[BStrong]

I usually just pass through this thread but the above is stupidity of a different order. ice bullets have been tried, shockingly they vaporize on firing. if a wax bullet could be somehow coated so it didn't vaporize or ignite it would either splash on contact or at best behave like a bean bag round. As for 'dissolving' metal, this is just bloody minded nonsense.

Wait! what about dry ice bullets!

https://books.google.com/books?id=G... ice bullets in the jfk assassination&f=false

Even conspiracy nutjobs (see above) have rejected that fictional plot device.

You can actually fashion a projectile out of dry ice, but the problem in use isn't vaporization, it's the total lack of sectional density - an ice projectile can not be stabilized in flight by the barrel rifling, and because the projectile has no density in comparison to a conventional lead/brass projectile they have no penetrative effectiveness past actual muzzle contact distances and even then the expanding gas behind the projectile is more injurious to a soft target than the projectile.

 

[BStrong]

It's like I'm on ignore. Oh well, it feels like I'm clubbing a baby seal here anyway. I'll resume lurking the thread if I can't get a response.

MJ has a constitutional right to remain silent.

Unfortunately he only uses that right selectively.

 

[Wolrab]

Well I've never seen this one addressed: In the Vietnam era 50,000 rounds were fired for every enemy killed. Where are the other 49,997 bullets?

 

[heymatto70]

Added this: "And there were more than three shots, but some of them were silenced and fired by unseen gunmen who fired unseen weapons which were never heard and left no bullets, shells, or weapons behind, almost like they were never there at all..." to the above... thanks!

Hank

Silent phasers obviously. Pew pew!

 

[bknight]

Well I've never seen this one addressed: In the Vietnam era 50,000 rounds were fired for every enemy killed. Where are the other 49,997 bullets?

Vanished in a mist of particles, of course.

 

[BStrong]

Well I've never seen this one addressed: In the Vietnam era 50,000 rounds were fired for every enemy killed. Where are the other 49,997 bullets?

It's like that other famous questionable sharpshooter assassination case, Benito Mussolini:

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

"Six thousand Italian sharpshooters."

 

[CORed]

Well I've never seen this one addressed: In the Vietnam era 50,000 rounds were fired for every enemy killed. Where are the other 49,997 bullets?

Picked up and sold for scrap would be my guess.

 

[BStrong]

Picked up and sold for scrap would be my guess.

Brass cartridge cases yes, expended projectiles, no.

Vietnam also has the problem that has manifested itself wherever there are unexploded munitions - old unexploded artillery shells and aerial bombs etc. are just buried under the surface and are waiting to work as intended.

 

[Axxman300]

It's like I'm on ignore. Oh well, it feels like I'm clubbing a baby seal here anyway. I'll resume lurking the thread if I can't get a response.

Because you have a rifle in your avi, and MJ cannot discuss ballistics, firearms, or general shooting on any level.

I'll ask you this question:

If someone hands you a bolt-action rifle with a barrel that has a 1:8 twist, and is loaded with 6.5x52mm, 160 grain rounds...are you going to be bummed out because it's a piece of junk? Can you kill with it? What kind of effective ranges are we talking about?

And what's that rifle going to do to a skull at 300 feet?

 

[HSienzant]

What? It is true that exit wounds can be very small if they are created by very low-velocity bullets...

Yes, now you simply need to quote one or more of the original autopsists or one or more of the forensic pathologists who re-examined the extant autopsy materials for the HSCA in 1978 who said they thought there was a small exit wound in JFK's head caused by a low-velocity bullet for this point to have ANY PERTINENCE whatsoever to the assassination.

Got anything like that?

No, of course not.

You're just throwing stuff out there to deflect the conversation. You don't want to resolve the issues, you simply want to prolong the conversation so it appears you have some valid points to make.

You don't.

Hank

 

[bknight]

MicahJava

How many entry holes to the head did the gentlemen observe during the autopsy?

 

[Ranb]

Because you have a rifle in your avi,....

If someone hands you a bolt-action rifle with a barrel that has a 1:8 twist, and is loaded with 6.5x52mm, 160 grain rounds...are you going to be bummed out because it's a piece of junk? Can you kill with it? What kind of effective ranges are we talking about?

And what's that rifle going to do to a skull at 300 feet?

That's me with an old FWB 300S air rifle.

The specs you provide don't make it junk of course. My Carcano is junk due to the pitted black bore.

It can kill very well. With a 2300 fps muzzle velocity, the 164 grain bullet with a BC of .28 will still be moving over 1500 fps at 300 yards.

It will stay supersonic out to 500 yards, so I would call this it max effective range. Max possible range extends out to 3400 yards. With a VLD bullet max effective range would be about 900 yards with a max of 5600 yards. Accuracy past 300 yards requires a good bore and good sights/scope in my opinion. I can get on paper with the standard crappy sights at 200 yards with a larger target.

 

[Axxman300]

Thanks for the reply.

The Carcano is what ultimately ended my JFK-CTist days for good. In Dallas, 1963 it was a ballistic unicorn, and that big, long, heavy round fired at such close distance made it a canon. Had Oswald used a .762 or .45 or another common round there would be more room to spin a web of mystery, but the 6.5x52mm just screams Oswald.

It also screams amateur.

The Carcano is not a rifle a professional assassin would seek out, and therefore not a weapon which would be used in a conspiracy. The Carcano is a weapon that says "Look at me!", and in this case it screams "I did it."

 

[BStrong]

Thanks for the reply.

The Carcano is what ultimately ended my JFK-CTist days for good. In Dallas, 1963 it was a ballistic unicorn, and that big, long, heavy round fired at such close distance made it a canon. Had Oswald used a .762 or .45 or another common round there would be more room to spin a web of mystery, but the 6.5x52mm just screams Oswald.

It also screams amateur.

The Carcano is not a rifle a professional assassin would seek out, and therefore not a weapon which would be used in a conspiracy. The Carcano is a weapon that says "Look at me!", and in this case it screams "I did it."

It was also affordable for LHO

FWIW, other than the differences between the operating systems of the respective rifles, the 6.5 x 52R in the Carcano isn't but a step behind the 6.5 x 55 Swedish, one of the best cartridges ever designed.