bknight
Master Poster
You know this is the mark of a rationale mature acceptance of a mistake, a characteristic that MJ apparently does not possess.
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting
- Thread starter bknight
- Start date
- Status
You know this is the mark of a rationale mature acceptance of a mistake, a characteristic that MJ apparently does not possess.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
Read ranb's explanation.
I suspected as such. Now, tell me more about what other force vectors I need to include in the calculation.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
Yeah, thanks Ranb for the clarification. I was trying to figure out what I was missing.
What are you calculating?
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
The acceleration of the bullet. In response to abaddon's insult that I don't know vector math, and his WTF response to my question of how the bullet can still be accelerating.
It isn't, as you explained. But hey, abaddon felt a need to insult me for my question.
Axxman300
Philosopher
You know this is the mark of a rationale mature acceptance of a mistake, a characteristic that MJ apparently does not possess.
It's all about credibility, and there's no way to defend a bonehead mistake...unless you're a CTist, then you double down.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Yeah, I just bought some new gun magazines featuring 6.5's because I'm only familiar with .556 and .762 (NATO) rounds, and their work. The caliber seems to be an exclusive club for long-range marksmen, I guess because of the price. Much to learn.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
It's all about credibility, and there's no way to defend a bonehead mistake...unless you're a CTist, then you double down.
QFT
It's not just CTist's side of the street. In my experience there are individuals that hold opinions that are very easily refuted, but even when confronted with contradictory physical evidence in front of them they refuse to admit that they're wrong.
The example that sticks with me is when I introduced a particular person to firing a submachine gun.
Like any untrained individual indoctrinated by popular fiction, they were amazed at how quickly the piece ran dry - 30 rounds, even with skillful trigger control, does not last long at 800 rounds per minute.
This particular guy insisted that I hadn't provided him with a full magazine of ammo. My response was to give him the mag loading tool and a box of 50 9mm rounds - even after seeing that the magazine would only take 30 rounds, he simply couldn't admit he was wrong.
I explained to him that in most every depiction of gun play in popular fiction the firearms as depicted are wholly incorrect, and that in most scenes involving the piece we were firing (HK MP5) the actor may run anywhere between 300 to 500 rounds through it without a magazine change. He really never did accept it.
One of my relatives by marriage believes 100% that anyone in California can walk into a gun store or gun show and purchase a machine gun cash and carry no questions asked. I've attempted to give him the correct information and he does not want to believe it and has told me that what I'm trying to tell him is NRA propaganda...You can not educate someone who doesn't want to be educated.
CTists fall right into that demographic.
Axxman300
Philosopher
That applies to the JFK forensics and ballistics too.
I'm not a big gun guy, I'm familiar with .22, 9mm, .357, .38, .556, and .762 caliber rounds because they are most common, and they are my frame of reference for performance. When we get into 6.5 it becomes more esoteric because it seems like an exotic caliber used by a smaller group of marksmen. I have to really search forums, and web links to track down good information.
When it comes to the 6.5x52mm round I think it caused much confusion among the doctors at Parkland, and later at the autopsy precisely because they'd never encountered a GSW caused by one. Reading the FBI's notes when they tested the round after the assassination it is clear that they were impressed by the bullet's performance, and once they understood how what the round was capable of they could easily sign off on the single-bullet theory, and JFK being struck from behind.
The people who can't buy the single-bullet theory - even people who shoot - are the ones who refuse to see beyond the common calibers. What do we always hear?
"I've never seen a bullet to that."
I wonder if the FBI and Secret Service ever reached out to Italian army doctors? I wonder what they would have said had they seen the x-rays and autopsy photos?
I'm not a big gun guy, I'm familiar with .22, 9mm, .357, .38, .556, and .762 caliber rounds because they are most common, and they are my frame of reference for performance. When we get into 6.5 it becomes more esoteric because it seems like an exotic caliber used by a smaller group of marksmen. I have to really search forums, and web links to track down good information.
When it comes to the 6.5x52mm round I think it caused much confusion among the doctors at Parkland, and later at the autopsy precisely because they'd never encountered a GSW caused by one. Reading the FBI's notes when they tested the round after the assassination it is clear that they were impressed by the bullet's performance, and once they understood how what the round was capable of they could easily sign off on the single-bullet theory, and JFK being struck from behind.
The people who can't buy the single-bullet theory - even people who shoot - are the ones who refuse to see beyond the common calibers. What do we always hear?
"I've never seen a bullet to that."
I wonder if the FBI and Secret Service ever reached out to Italian army doctors? I wonder what they would have said had they seen the x-rays and autopsy photos?
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Perhaps you are reading "insults" where none were intended.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
As a practical matter at the time of the assassination, I'm sure there were doctors in practice that had experience in the military from WWII or Korea.
I'm willing to bet that Hank knows the pedigrees of the doctor at Parkland.
A bunch of folks (think MJ in this thread) have simply glommed on to one or another of the various ballistic/GSW fact-free conspiracy theories and have never looked back - there is little to no chance that they'll change their mind because they absolutely refuse to study the subject matter and refuse to listen to anyone that has.
bknight
Master Poster
It's all about credibility, and there's no way to defend a bonehead mistake...unless you're a CTist, then you double down.
It is much much more than credibility, but credibility is a large component.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
"Is vector math beyond your grasp?" is not an insult?
Whatever. The others have answered my question, and confirmed my suspicions. I am fine.
bknight
Master Poster
Very sad but true that those minds ignore facts and base believes on other factors.
Major Major
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 438
Variety Is the Spice of CT's
Those wonderful guys at Lew Rockwell have done it again.
Here's Jacob Hornberger, who presents his complete analysis of the situation: LHO was a CIA asset, sent to infiltrate the Communist movement, who was framed by the CIA in order to cover up their assassination of the president.
Part 1:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/08/jacob-hornberger/figuring-kennedy-assassination/
Part 2:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/08/jacob-hornberger/figuring-jfk-murder-coup/
He explains things in a way that would do some people proud. Thus, for example, the wound on the back of the President's head was actually an exit wound, as Sandra Spencer said from her memory of developing the autopsy pictures, and the pictures released as the autopsy pictures were not the ones she had developed.
But wait! There's more!
Finian Cunningham explains that LHO was actually an informant for the FBI, trying to warn them about the plot, while "There seems little doubt that Kennedy was “taken out” by executive action, a term used by the CIA and its Deep States operatives, including the numerous hit men that triangulated the ambush on JFK’s motorcade on that fateful day in Dealey Plaza, Dallas."
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/08/no_author/lies-jfk-killers/
Aren't you glad there are such well-informed, thoughtful, skeptical people out there?
Those wonderful guys at Lew Rockwell have done it again.
Here's Jacob Hornberger, who presents his complete analysis of the situation: LHO was a CIA asset, sent to infiltrate the Communist movement, who was framed by the CIA in order to cover up their assassination of the president.
Part 1:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/08/jacob-hornberger/figuring-kennedy-assassination/
Part 2:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/08/jacob-hornberger/figuring-jfk-murder-coup/
He explains things in a way that would do some people proud. Thus, for example, the wound on the back of the President's head was actually an exit wound, as Sandra Spencer said from her memory of developing the autopsy pictures, and the pictures released as the autopsy pictures were not the ones she had developed.
But wait! There's more!
Finian Cunningham explains that LHO was actually an informant for the FBI, trying to warn them about the plot, while "There seems little doubt that Kennedy was “taken out” by executive action, a term used by the CIA and its Deep States operatives, including the numerous hit men that triangulated the ambush on JFK’s motorcade on that fateful day in Dealey Plaza, Dallas."
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/08/no_author/lies-jfk-killers/
Aren't you glad there are such well-informed, thoughtful, skeptical people out there?
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
I'm not clicking on the link, but I am guessing (and it is a guess) off the bat, this can be explained because we know there were "sanitised" images taken for potential use in a trial or the like, with some measure of cleaning and reconstruction with mortician's wax, to make them look less...explicit... than those used for analysis
Obviously, it is either that, or a massive complex conspiracy that for some reason, bothered to take both fake and real photos, rather than just the fake ones...
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Those wonderful guys at Lew Rockwell have done it again.
Here's Jacob Hornberger, who presents his complete analysis of the situation: LHO was a CIA asset, sent to infiltrate the Communist movement, who was framed by the CIA in order to cover up their assassination of the president.
Part 1:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/08/jacob-hornberger/figuring-kennedy-assassination/
Part 2:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/08/jacob-hornberger/figuring-jfk-murder-coup/
He explains things in a way that would do some people proud. Thus, for example, the wound on the back of the President's head was actually an exit wound, as Sandra Spencer said from her memory of developing the autopsy pictures, and the pictures released as the autopsy pictures were not the ones she had developed.
But wait! There's more!
Finian Cunningham explains that LHO was actually an informant for the FBI, trying to warn them about the plot, while "There seems little doubt that Kennedy was “taken out” by executive action, a term used by the CIA and its Deep States operatives, including the numerous hit men that triangulated the ambush on JFK’s motorcade on that fateful day in Dealey Plaza, Dallas."
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/08/no_author/lies-jfk-killers/
Aren't you glad there are such well-informed, thoughtful, skeptical people out there?
Both theories are retreads of old CTist baloney.
(the classics never get old)
Major Major
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 438
Well, yes.
I liked the citation of Jim Douglass's JFK and the Unspeakable. CTist baloney doesn't have an expiration date, and a claim discredited 1000 times will be used by a 1001st author as something brand new, fresh, and unanswerable.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Those wonderful guys at Lew Rockwell have done it again.
Here's Jacob Hornberger, who presents his complete analysis of the situation: LHO was a CIA asset, sent to infiltrate the Communist movement, who was framed by the CIA in order to cover up their assassination of the president.
Part 1:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/08/jacob-hornberger/figuring-kennedy-assassination/
Part 2:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/08/jacob-hornberger/figuring-jfk-murder-coup/
He explains things in a way that would do some people proud. Thus, for example, the wound on the back of the President's head was actually an exit wound, as Sandra Spencer said from her memory of developing the autopsy pictures, and the pictures released as the autopsy pictures were not the ones she had developed.
But wait! There's more!
Finian Cunningham explains that LHO was actually an informant for the FBI, trying to warn them about the plot, while "There seems little doubt that Kennedy was “taken out” by executive action, a term used by the CIA and its Deep States operatives, including the numerous hit men that triangulated the ambush on JFK’s motorcade on that fateful day in Dealey Plaza, Dallas."
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/08/no_author/lies-jfk-killers/
Aren't you glad there are such well-informed, thoughtful, skeptical people out there?
I got a kick out of the first link claiming this:
"Like so many others since the JFK assassination, they try to figure out what the motive of the accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was. In the Politico article, they posit that maybe — just maybe—Oswald somehow discovered the super-secret assassination attempts against Cuban leader Fidel Castro by the CIA and the Mafia, which had entered into an assassination partnership to kill Castro. Their thesis is that Oswald, as a supposed communist, loved and revered Castro, and therefore decided to retaliate by assassinating Kennedy."
Do they mean the super-secret assassination attempts that were published in the New Orleans Times Picayune that Oswald read daily in the summer of 1963?
Here's the House Select Committee's 1978 reference to that "super-secret assassination attempts against Cuban leader Fidel Castro".
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol3/html/HSCA_Vol3_0004a.htm
""The revelation in 1976 that the Premier of Cuba was the target of an unsuccessful assassination planned by the United States served to fuel the fires of speculation that Cuba had been the perpetrator of the successful effort against the President of the United States in 1963. It was recalled that Premier Castro himself, in an interview with Associated Press reporter Daniel Harker on September 7, 1963, seemed to be warning that U.S. leaders who approved terrorist attacks on Cuban leaders could themselves be vulnerable. "
Here's a link to the story itself:
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defa...geroot/2017/08/04/2017.08.04 - Politico 4.JPG
Those super-secret assassination attempts that were written about by Daniel Harker and carried by the Associated Press and published in literally hundreds of newspapers nationwide more than two months before the assassination?
And then published in the Warren Commission volumes of evidence?
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0304b.htm
Last edited:
Axxman300
Philosopher
Wow...nothing in those links was true other than JFK getting shot.
I used to eat all that stuff up.
I used to eat all that stuff up.
- Status