Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Axxman300 said:
First off, a "pristine" bullet is one that was never fired.

Second, the statement that CE-399 was fired into water is a LIE.

Anyone with a few hours of trigger squeezing of the Carcano can tell you that this bullet was fired by a Carcano. Specifically Oswald's Carcano.

CE 399 is not pristine, it is deformed from impact, which is clearly visible in these high resolution pictures:

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305144

In fact, looking at the bottom you can see pieces of lead missing from the core. Guess where these were found, no really - guess:

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305166


The basic truth of the assassination is that the lone weapon was a Carcano rifle, 6.5x52mm, fired from the 6th Floor of the TSBD, by Lee Oswald.

Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

Um, you may be pretending to forget that Henry Hurt showed that firing a Carcano round into water can slightly deform the base like that:

swYdxhc.jpg


The Discovery Channel bullet, which broke two ribs instead of one, was bent at a sharp angle. They held it up to the camera in such a way to give a deceiving view of the deformity, but they show how deformed it really was for a brief moment.

giphy.gif
 
Dave Rogers said:
There's a little more to it than that. He also brands any expert who disagrees with him as unreliable for disagreeing with him, which he then takes as a pretext to ignore the testimony of that expert. It's a very tight little circular argument.

Dave
Click to expand...

Do you care to have any discussion here at all or are you just popping your head in again?
 
So wait... the Discovery Channel bullet that did slightly different damage suffered slightly different damage? Astounding. It is almost as though exactly replicating specific damage is impossible, but particular elements were replicated within reasonable parameters...

Yet again Micha disproves his ow. Point with his own evidence.
 
Tomtomkent said:
So wait... the Discovery Channel bullet that did slightly different damage suffered slightly different damage? Astounding. It is almost as though exactly replicating specific damage is impossible, but particular elements were replicated within reasonable parameters...

Yet again Micha disproves his ow. Point with his own evidence.
Click to expand...

David Von Pein described the Discovery Channel bullet as "the closest we're likely to ever get to a perfect duplication of the Single Bullet Theory".

Is your "reasonable parameter" firing a bullet into water instead of human bones?
 
MicahJava said:
Um, you may be pretending to forget that Henry Hurt showed that firing a Carcano round into water can slightly deform the base like that:

The Discovery Channel bullet, which broke two ribs instead of one, was bent at a sharp angle. They held it up to the camera in such a way to give a deceiving view of the deformity, but they show how deformed it really was for a brief moment.
Click to expand...

Nope.

First, you incorrectly used the term "Pristine", which marks you as someone who doesn't understand ballistics, guns, bullets, or anything else fun that goes bang.

Second, what happened to the other 99 rounds he fired into the water?

Oh that's right, he only fired the one. A good experiment starts a 100, and a great experiment would have 1,000 + rounds fired into a tank of water in order to get a base-line set of data points.

One bullet means he was just as lucky as Oswald. Nothing more.


They held it up to the camera in such a way to give a deceiving view of the deformity, but they show how deformed it really was for a brief moment.
Click to expand...

You need to knock this off right now. They didn't deceive anybody, nor did they try. Why do you insist on lying when you actually post the visual evidence proving that you're lying?

And again, if this was a serious experiment there would have been 1,000 bullets fired into those forensic gel targets. That would be expensive, and not one JFK CTist has ever had the stones to raise money to do this kind of thing.
 
MicahJava said:
David Von Pein described the Discovery Channel bullet as "the closest we're likely to ever get to a perfect duplication of the Single Bullet Theory".

Is your "reasonable parameter" firing a bullet into water instead of human bones?
Click to expand...

If you knew anything about ballistic testing you'd know the answer to this.
 
MicahJava said:
David Von Pein described the Discovery Channel bullet as "the closest we're likely to ever get to a perfect duplication of the Single Bullet Theory".

Is your "reasonable parameter" firing a bullet into water instead of human bones?
Click to expand...

Might want to look into the Thompson-LaGarde terminal ballistics tests and the criticism of the findings:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson–LaGarde_Tests

"The Thompson–LaGarde Tests have since been criticized as being "highly unscientific" and producing a recommendation unsupported by the test results.[7] Others, notably Julian Hatcher[9] and Jeff Cooper[10] regarded the tests as well conducted, and the recommendation as fully supported by the evidence available to the board, and empirical evidence subsequently available concerning stopping power and handgun effectiveness."

Short of having a living human test subject willing to be shot in the interest of conspiracy theory validation, all the various hype about the lack of duplication of the projectile ballistic evidence is background noise at best.

We've gone over this before - the fact that something can't be duplicated by other individuals at other times in no way establishes that the original act didn't occur - Because I can't duplicate Sarver's 1000 yd group or Dixon's 1538 yd shot on a moving target (open sights, black powder cartridge rifle) does not mean they didn't get the score or hit that the match results or the historical record supports.
 
MicahJava said:
No surprise to you that I would point out a major flaw in your argument: That Nicol's trustworthiness is demonstrably questionable.
Click to expand...

You questioned it. That's a lot different than demonstrating it's questionable. You provided no evidence it's questionable, nothing whatsoever that impeaches his testimony. You simply asked a question ("Oh jeez, Joseph Nicol? just never mind please.... Wasn't Nicol literally the only guy out of seven who claimed to match the bullets recovered from Tippit's body to the revolver in evidence?").

Not the same thing as "Nicol's trustworthiness is demonstrably questionable". We'll await your evidence demonstrating his trustworthiness is questionable, as you alleged, which of course will never come, as you don't have any. Your problem is the same problem shared by Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher, Jim Marrs, and every other conspiracy book writer -- the evidence points to Oswald and only to Oswald. So you need take stuff out of context, allude to funny business but never prove any, utilize logical fallacies and throw as much mud as possible to obscure the clear evidence of Oswald's guilt.

And the funny thing is you don't even know the evidence you're arguing against. All the experts that examined the test bullet fired from Oswald's rifle and the two fragments recovered from the limo reached the same conclusion: Those fragments match that test bullet, proof positive that Oswald's weapon fired the bullet that created those fragments. You simply assert otherwise and question the veracity of one man, pretending that your questioning his veracity is sufficient. It's not. Your arguments reduce to: "I'm right, every expert is wrong."

Sorry, we're not buying it.


MicahJava said:
The HSCA claimed that no new reliable analysis could be done on rifling marks because it was fires too many times after,
Click to expand...

That's true, each shot fired in accuracy tests has the potential to change the barrel markings slightly, and the rust on the rifle (it hadn't been maintained in the archives but simply stored away) changed the markings by 1978 such that those markings on the 1978 test bullet didn't match the test bullet fired by the FBI in 1963.

But -- (And it's a very important But) -- the HSCA firearms panel took the same photographic evidence that was prepared by the FBI in 1963 and studied that evidence. They agreed that evidence showed the two fragments showed sufficient ballistic markings to conclude those fragments were fired from Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

So we have this array of conclusions:

FBI's Robert Frazier: Fragments match test bullet fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
Joseph Nicol: Fragments match test bullet fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
HSCA Firearms Panel: Fragments match test bullet fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
MicahJava: (quote)And how can you know anything about the fragments besides perhaps that they were from a 6.5 Carcano round? They're too mangled to show rifling. Neutron Activation analysis is debunked. What are you talking about "ballistically traceable"?(close quote)



MicahJava said:
so I guess you only have Mr. "I'm the only person out of seven to say the Tippit bullets matched the revolver".
Click to expand...

What part of Robert Frazier and the HSCA firearms panel concluded the same thing don't you understand? You can question Nicol all you like. You still haven't shown he is wrong in his assessment of the fragments recovered from the limo.


MicahJava said:
What exactly do you have besides Neutron Activation baloney debunked years ago and not used in courts anymore?
Click to expand...

Only this:

FBI's Robert Frazier: Fragments match test bullet fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
Joseph Nicol: Fragments match test bullet fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
HSCA Firearms Panel: Fragments match test bullet fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

Pretend all you want it doesn't exist. It isn't going away anytime soon. You have nothing except your own doubts, which is simply the LOGICAL FALLACY of Personal Incredulity, already explained to you.

Good luck keeping that argument afloat.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
David Von Pein described the Discovery Channel bullet as "the closest we're likely to ever get to a perfect duplication of the Single Bullet Theory".
Click to expand...

Yeah, because the experiment using accurate medical dummies is expensive (as pointed out by Axxman) and getting close once is enough evidence for those without an axe to grind (i.e., reasonable people who aren't already committed to a conspiracy explanation). And as Axxman pointed out, conspiracy theorists don't do experiments of this nature. Let me add they just whine about how the experiments done by others always aren't good enough.

Sorry, that whining isn't good enough to establish your point. The bullet emerged in one piece, with an undamaged tip, which is what critics ALWAYS complained couldn't happen (until it did). Having been shown a bullet that did what they said couldn't be done, they did exactly what you'd expect, and exactly what you're doing.

They fell back on an old standby, the LOGICAL FALLACY. They simply moved the goalposts.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/129/Moving_the_Goalposts

Moving the Goalposts (also known as: gravity game, raising the bar, argument by demanding impossible perfection [form of])
Description: Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied refusing to conceded or accept the opponent’s argument.
Logical Form:
Issue A has been raised, and adequately answered.
Issue B is then raised, and adequately answered.
.....
Issue Z is then raised, and adequately answered.
(despite all issues adequately answered, the opponent refuses to conceded or accept the argument.

This is your argument to a T.

This is also your argument about the fragments. You claimed they could not be matched because the markings necessary weren't present. You were shown the archives photos showing those markings, and provided the conclusions of Robert Frazier, Joseph Nicol, and the HSCA firearms panel that the markings on the test bullet fired from Oswald's rifle in 1963 by the FBI matched the markings on the two fragments recovered from the limo.

Did you concede the point? No. You simply moved the goalposts, arguing that Nicol's conclusions are not trustworthy, but providing NO EVIDENCE to support that argument.

We understand your problem. You are pounding the table because neither the law nor the facts are on your side.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
David Von Pein described the Discovery Channel bullet as "the closest we're likely to ever get to a perfect duplication of the Single Bullet Theory".

Is your "reasonable parameter" firing a bullet into water instead of human bones?
Click to expand...

Given the number of shots required to learn the range of reactions, then yes, shooting into analogues is more practical than shooting people. Frankly I would expect fibre boards of calculated densities to be used rather than water. The contention would be if the number of entrances and exits would cause the expected yawing, within the expected range of deformations.
 
Should point out that even if we could shoot 100 people in a moving convertible from 300 feet at a height equaling the 6th floor -and were able to strike the exact location each time - we would get 100 variations on the outcome. Many would be close to the 11/23/63 shots, and many would only remotely close, and a few would not resemble the outcome in any way other than death of the test subject.

Bullets are funny things. Human bodies are funnier things. This is reality, and one must factor in reality when assessing any GSW.
 
Axxman300 said:
Should point out that even if we could shoot 100 people in a moving convertible from 300 feet at a height equaling the 6th floor -and were able to strike the exact location each time - we would get 100 variations on the outcome. Many would be close to the 11/23/63 11/22/63 shots, and many would only remotely close, and a few would not resemble the outcome in any way other than death of the test subject.

Bullets are funny things. Human bodies are funnier things. This is reality, and one must factor in reality when assessing any GSW.
Click to expand...

FTFY.

Hank
 
BStrong said:
Might want to look into the Thompson-LaGarde terminal ballistics tests and the criticism of the findings:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson–LaGarde_Tests

"The Thompson–LaGarde Tests have since been criticized as being "highly unscientific" and producing a recommendation unsupported by the test results.[7] Others, notably Julian Hatcher[9] and Jeff Cooper[10] regarded the tests as well conducted, and the recommendation as fully supported by the evidence available to the board, and empirical evidence subsequently available concerning stopping power and handgun effectiveness."

Short of having a living human test subject willing to be shot in the interest of conspiracy theory validation, all the various hype about the lack of duplication of the projectile ballistic evidence is background noise at best.

We've gone over this before - the fact that something can't be duplicated by other individuals at other times in no way establishes that the original act didn't occur - Because I can't duplicate Sarver's 1000 yd group or Dixon's 1538 yd shot on a moving target (open sights, black powder cartridge rifle) does not mean they didn't get the score or hit that the match results or the historical record supports.
Click to expand...

How convenient.
 
MicahJava said:
Hank, see this video from the RFK Assassination investigation where an expert is explaining the differences and similarities in victim bullets and test bullets using enlarged photographs of the marking imprints?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydP5hXqWKhY&t=74m1s

Where's that for JFK?
Click to expand...

See the testimony of Frazier and Nicol, along with the referenced Commission Exhibits, all previously provided.

I am sorry but reading it will have to do. They didn't videotape the testimony.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom