Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[Axxman300]

Why do I theorize more than three shots if most of the witnesses only heard three loud shots? Noise suppressors probably. The CIA manual on assassination mentions using suppressors, and that was written a decade before.

See my last post. CIA did not advise using silenced weapons. They're big on a visit to the hardware store.

The DIRECT evidence for noise suppressors is John Connally.

Nope. The second the 6.5x52mm round tore through his body his reliability as a witness goes into the toilet. The man was in shock, and pain.

Plus they found the bullet.

And he provided some of the best evidence against the Single Bullet Theory:

A. I think it's pretty clear, judging by the dozens of Dealey Plaza witness statements, that the first loud shot was at 190-224. I think there's very little in the way of evidence for a loud shout occurring before that. Rosemary Willis and Conally turning their heads before that is kind of weak evidence compared to the totality of it all.

Sonic evidence is worthless in Dealey Plaza, everyone knows this. What you heard depended on where you were standing.

B. Connally always swore that he was struck very shortly after the first loud shot, and that he did not hear this shot. He always said that he remembered only two loud shots, but he thinks the second shot was the head shot, and by the totality of the evidence it appears that the last two loud shots were bunched together almost like you could mistake it for just one.

The first shot missed.

The second bullet - the one that struck him after passing through JFK - struck long before the sound got there.

The third bullet struck JFK in the head a few seconds later.

 

[abaddon]

Why do I theorize more than three shots if most of the witnesses only heard three loud shots?

Who knows? To date you have leapt through hoops to avoid presenting any theory at all. Perhaps you now have a theory of 6 million shots to present, but I doubt it.

Noise suppressors probably.

You tried that before and got comprehensively burned. Sure you want to go for round 2?

The CIA manual on assassination mentions using suppressors, and that was written a decade before.

Sure. What exactly did it say? Bit coy about that are you not?

The DIRECT evidence for noise suppressors is John Connally.

And he provided some of the best evidence against the Single Bullet Theory:

A. I think it's pretty clear, judging by the dozens of Dealey Plaza witness statements, that the first loud shot was at 190-224. I think there's very little in the way of evidence for a loud shout occurring before that. Rosemary Willis and Conally turning their heads before that is kind of weak evidence compared to the totality of it all.

B. Connally always swore that he was struck very shortly after the first loud shot, and that he did not hear this shot. He always said that he remembered only two loud shots, but he thinks the second shot was the head shot, and by the totality of the evidence it appears that the last two loud shots were bunched together almost like you could mistake it for just one.

And full on fringe reset. All of that was toasted comprehensively several times before. You want to get toasted again for reasons nobody can fathom.

Perhaps this time is different. Perhaps this time you actually have a coherent theory of something. Not holding my breath.

 

[smartcooky]

Has anyone here been watching the History Channel's doco series "JFK Declassified: Tracking Oswald".

If so, what do you think?

 

[HSienzant]

As soon has someone mouths the "magic bullet" crap I know they are either ignorant or are dogmatically wedded to conspiracy woo. It is a total canard, because there was no "magic bullet" period.

The movie JFK has Costner, playing Garrison, mouth the "magic bullet" crap to the jury in his abuse of prosecution of Clay Shaw. The result is that large numbers of people not just Conspiracy wackaloons believe the "magic bullet" nonsense.

This is one historical lie that needs to die.

Yep. It needs to go...

Back, and to the left........ back, and to the left....... back....... and to the left

That's a different bullet - the one that struck JFK in the head. And a different steaming pile of conspiracy woo.

The magic bullet is the one that hit JFK above the shoulder blade and to the right of the spine, exiting JFK's throat, and then went on to strike Connally.

You have pointed out part of the problem... wherever you turn, conspiracy theorists have misstated the evidence and the argument, leading those who read the conspiracy literature into a morass of twisted logic and bizarre plot devices they can never find their way out of without help.

CTs would rather believe in altered wounds than a straight bullet path. They would rather believe in a planted rifle and planted bullet than a $21.45 rifle (including scope and shipping) in the hands of an ex-marine with the skill to hit a target at 500 yards (the longest shot in the assassination was 88 yards). They would rather believe in a patsy with intelligence connections who acted guilty than a lone nut malcontent shooting at a target of opportunity.

And the one thing I've discovered after 25 years of debating this assassination online (going back to Prodigy in the early 1990's) is you can't use evidence and logic to talk a man out of a position he didn't use evidence and logic to get himself into.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Has anyone here been watching the History Channel's doco series "JFK Declassified: Tracking Oswald".

If so, what do you think?

It was discussed back up-thread.

Like here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11997483&postcount=1591

And in the prior thread.
Like here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11813561&postcount=3201

I couldn't stomach it. Too much conspiracy nonsense and speculation.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Fixed that for you.

The Warren Commission got it right. Conspiracy theorists misstate the relative positions of the two men, pretend the bullet paused in mid-air, pretend it made a right hand turn, then a left, all in an attempt to sell an unknowing public on the argument that the Warren Commissioners were a pack of fools.

They weren't.

Hank

Neither of us are photographic experts, so how can you claim to be correct as if you've proved with the films that such a trajectory is possible?

be back soon with more

 

[RoboTimbo]

Neither of us are photographic experts, so how can you claim to be correct as if you've proved with the films that such a trajectory is possible?

be back soon with more

LOL.

What were the results of the autopsy, which you've been citing? You're pretending that the burden of proof rests with Hank.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Neither of us are photographic experts, so how can you claim to be correct as if you've proved with the films that such a trajectory is possible?

be back soon with more

Has this not been answered comprehensively in the four previous incarnations of this thread? Is there anything new to be said, that has not been flogged to death?

 

[CORed]

Yes.

JFK's defense strategy relied on what he called "Flexible Response" which required a huge military. Eisenhower before him believed in "Targeted Response" which involved threatening nuclear force. The problem with a huge military is the temptation to use it.

I agree that Vietnam would have gone much differently under JFK. LBJ micromanaged the war. JFK loved his Special Forces, and would have heeded their advice. I'm not saying we would have won, but maybe we find a way to end it better in late 1968. Who knows?

It's hard to say. I think it would have been hard to do a worse job of managing the war than LBJ did. It would have been a difficult war to win in any case, but LBJ managed it in a way that made it impossible.

 

[HSienzant]

Neither of us are photographic experts, so how can you claim to be correct as if you've proved with the films that such a trajectory is possible?

You're changing the subject -- which was "How do you know there was more than three shots?" Remember trying to justify that by claiming the shots were silenced -- which meant unseen shooters firing unheard shots with unseen rifles which caused unseen damage -- and failing miserably?

You'll punt once more on that subject.

We know bullets tend to travel in a straight line (actually a parabola affected by gravity, but for the distances we're talking, a straight line is close enough), unless they hit something that deflects them. There was nothing between JFK and Connally but thin air. Thus the pretend flight of CE399 as seen in the movie JFK never happened. Nobody but Conspiracy Theorists ever argued it did. It's a straw man argument for the ages, advanced by CTs to pretend to have a point.

They don't.

We know Connally and JFK were hit with the same bullet because we can see them both react in the same instant of time in the Z-film -- right around Z224, as I pointed out immediately above. No second shooter was seen, nor evidence of one found. Ergo, one bullet hit both men.

We know Connally and JFK were hit with the same bullet because CE399 was recovered from Parkland. It was established to have been fired from Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. It is military ammo, designed to penetrate flesh with minimal deformation. It performed exactly as it was designed to, penetrating JFK and then hitting the Governor.

We also know Connally and JFK were hit with the same bullet because Connally was seated immediately in front of JFK, and the bullet determined to have been fired from the sixth floor window of the Depository was determined by the autopsy doctors to have struck JFK in the back and exited JFK's throat. It had to hit something. There is no damage to the limo that could be linked to this bullet. Ergo, it struck the only other victim of the shooting, Connally.

We know Connally and JFK were hit with the same bullet because the CE399 bullet was found on one of two stretchers -- one of which belonged to Connally -- on a different floor than Connally was being treated on. So either the conspirators somehow knew to plant a bullet there on a different floor (or got incredibly lucky) - instead of in the emergency room where Connally was being treated, for instance. Care to explain how they knew were to plant it?

Hank

 

[smartcooky]

We know bullets tend to travel in a straight line (actually a parabola affected by gravity, but for the distances we're talking, a straight line is close enough), unless they hit something that deflects them. There was nothing between JFK and Connally but thin air. Thus the pretend flight of CE399 as seen in the movie JFK never happened. Nobody but Conspiracy Theorists ever argued it did. It's a straw man argument for the ages, advanced by CTs to pretend to have a point.

They don't.

We know Connally and JFK were hit with the same shot because we can see them both react in the same instant of time in the Z-film -- right around Z224, as I pointed out immediately above. No second shooter was seen, nor evidence of one found. Ergo, one bullet hit both men.

We know Connally and JFK were hit with the same shot because CE399 was recovered from Parkland. It was established to have been fired from Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. It is military ammo, designed to penetrate flesh with minimal deformation. It performed exactly as it was designed to, penetrating JFK and then hitting the Governor.

We also know Connally and JFK were hit with the same bullet because Connally was seated immediately in front of JFK, and the bullet determined to have been fired from the sixth floor window of the Depository was determined by the autopsy doctors to have struck JFK in the back and exited JFK's throat. It had to hit something. There is no damage to the limo that could be linked to this bullet. Ergo, it struck the only other victim of the shooting, Connally.

We know Connally and JFK were hit with the same shot because the CE399 bullet was found on one of two stretchers -- one of which belonged to Connally -- on a different floor than Connally was being treated on. So either the conspirators somehow knew to plant a bullet there on a different floor - instead of in the emergency room where Connally was being treated, for instance. Care to explain how they knew were to plant it?

Hank

Here is an excerpt from an excellent documentary called "Cold Case JFK" in which a couple of forensic ballistics experts tested the Mannlicher Carcano



They showed that the type of bullet Oswald used was;

a. fully capable of penetrating far enough to easily go through one man and into another at the range from with JFK was shot, and

b. had a strong tendency to yaw/tumble after passing through a target.

They were able to demonstrate that the single bullet was not only capable of travelling in a direct line through JFK and tumbling into Connally, but that it was the most likely thing to happen.

Here is the full documentary for anyone who is interested and hasn't seen it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jeb0AFNTJk

For anyone who has any interest in the JFK Assassination, it is well worth taking the time to watch. It pretty well systematically and scientifically debunks all the CT nuttery related to the shooting.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Neither of us are photographic experts, so how can you claim to be correct as if you've proved with the films that such a trajectory is possible?

be back soon with more

What was the trajectory of the fourth bullet from the second shooter you keep claiming existed?
Have you proved such a trajectory was possible?

 

[Axxman300]

Has anyone here been watching the History Channel's doco series "JFK Declassified: Tracking Oswald".

If so, what do you think?

I reviewed it somewhere on this thread. Here's quick and dirty...

What's good:

You get to see many of the places mentioned in the Warren Commission and throughout JFK Assassination lore like Mexico City, Oswald's hotel in Mexico City, the abandoned CIA training sites for Operation Mongoose, Oswald's room at the boarding house, etc.

You get an intelligence operative's perspective on things, which is good and bad since most spies are paranoid by nature.

They take a fresh look at the Cuban Exile community, and their paramilitary groups.

They do an acoustical survey of Dealey Plaza to show what an echo-monster the place is.

What's Bad:

Overly melodramatic. 90% of their "New Information" is stuff assassination buffs have known forever from reading the WC and the HSCA. I understand that most Americans today (like MJ) don't know jack about the assassination let alone have the capability to put it into the context of the Cold War, but the show really insults your intelligence at times.

Bob Baer goes into this project looking for a conspiracy, and everything is painted with that brush, and it's frustrating when he does find evidence that seems to speak for itself because the level of BS wipes out credibility.

There are a couple of times, like when they're tracing Oswald's steps in New Orleans where they go down the CT rabbit hole and give us 2+2= Elephant.

Bottom Line:

It's not a bad show if you have low expectations. They could have done it in a 90-minute special, and it would have been much better. Baer vicariously links Oswald to a Cuban paramilitary cell in Dallas, suggesting that the attempt on General Walker was Oswald's initiation into the group. The most compelling evidence for this is Oswald's actions after he kills JFK. The bus he took (before switching to a cab) had stops along the route he takes after leaving the boarding house until he is stopped by Tippet. The bus route terminates in a part of town were a number of Cuban Exile groups had meeting houses. Baer proposes that Oswald was fleeing to a safe-house after the assassination.

Again, Baer is former CIA, and the CIA felt that Oswald had been compromised by Cuban intelligence. So far nobody has proved this either way.

 

[MicahJava]

Here is an excerpt from an excellent documentary called "Cold Case JFK" in which a couple of forensic ballistics experts tested the Mannlicher Carcano



They showed that the type of bullet Oswald used was;

a. fully capable of penetrating far enough to easily go through one man and into another at the range from with JFK was shot, and

b. had a strong tendency to yaw/tumble after passing through a target.

They were able to demonstrate that the single bullet was not only capable of travelling in a direct line through JFK and tumbling into Connally, but that it was the most likely thing to happen.

Here is the full documentary for anyone who is interested and hasn't seen it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jeb0AFNTJk

For anyone who has any interest in the JFK Assassination, it is well worth taking the time to watch. It pretty well systematically and scientifically debunks all the CT nuttery related to the shooting.

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. Pathetic.

See how desperate lone nutters get? It's like they themselves are willing conspirators in Kennedy's death.

 

[Whip]

I prefer the Seinfeld commission report.

 

[HSienzant]

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. Pathetic.

[qimg]https://media.giphy.com/media/jGzyT9pTOdKE0/giphy.gif[/qimg]

See how desperate lone nutters get? It's like they themselves are willing conspirators in Kennedy's death.

Yeah. Except we covered all that months ago. You're just doing your turn around the conspiracy carousel once more. Maybe this time you'll capture the brass ring.

And per usual, you were left to change the subject.

Here's just one rebuttal, from September 13, 2017. There were multiple others:

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

And the bullet in the recreation did more damage (according to you, striking two ribs) so why wouldn't you expect it to be bent more?

Your argument reduced to: "I'm not satisfied". So what?

Reasonable people would be satisfied that the bullet that emerged in one piece with an undamaged tip would be satisfied that recreation bullet satisfied the original complaint raised by conspiracy theorists.

And that it's close enough for government work. Would this have ever been an issue in the mid-60s if the Warren Commission had commissioned tests like these - complete with state of the art medical dummies, and got that result?

No.

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

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. Pathetic.

[qimg]https://media.giphy.com/media/jGzyT9pTOdKE0/giphy.gif[/qimg]

See how desperate lone nutters get? It's like they themselves are willing conspirators in Kennedy's death.

So your thinking is that because the bullet struck two ribs instead of one that it should have less damage?

I what world does that make sense?

The better question is what kind of damage would other, more common rifle rounds cause, and what would happen to those bullets?

 

[MicahJava]

The Henry Hurt bullet

 

[MicahJava]

So your thinking is that because the bullet struck two ribs instead of one that it should have less damage?

I what world does that make sense?

The better question is what kind of damage would other, more common rifle rounds cause, and what would happen to those bullets?

You have a strange way of understanding the English language.

 

[MicahJava]

I reviewed it somewhere on this thread. Here's quick and dirty...

What's good:

You get to see many of the places mentioned in the Warren Commission and throughout JFK Assassination lore like Mexico City, Oswald's hotel in Mexico City, the abandoned CIA training sites for Operation Mongoose, Oswald's room at the boarding house, etc.

You get an intelligence operative's perspective on things, which is good and bad since most spies are paranoid by nature.

They take a fresh look at the Cuban Exile community, and their paramilitary groups.

They do an acoustical survey of Dealey Plaza to show what an echo-monster the place is.

What's Bad:

Overly melodramatic. 90% of their "New Information" is stuff assassination buffs have known forever from reading the WC and the HSCA. I understand that most Americans today (like MJ) don't know jack about the assassination let alone have the capability to put it into the context of the Cold War, but the show really insults your intelligence at times.

Bob Baer goes into this project looking for a conspiracy, and everything is painted with that brush, and it's frustrating when he does find evidence that seems to speak for itself because the level of BS wipes out credibility.

There are a couple of times, like when they're tracing Oswald's steps in New Orleans where they go down the CT rabbit hole and give us 2+2= Elephant.

Bottom Line:

It's not a bad show if you have low expectations. They could have done it in a 90-minute special, and it would have been much better. Baer vicariously links Oswald to a Cuban paramilitary cell in Dallas, suggesting that the attempt on General Walker was Oswald's initiation into the group. The most compelling evidence for this is Oswald's actions after he kills JFK. The bus he took (before switching to a cab) had stops along the route he takes after leaving the boarding house until he is stopped by Tippet. The bus route terminates in a part of town were a number of Cuban Exile groups had meeting houses. Baer proposes that Oswald was fleeing to a safe-house after the assassination.

Again, Baer is former CIA, and the CIA felt that Oswald had been compromised by Cuban intelligence. So far nobody has proved this either way.

It's a lot worse than what you're saying. See the 7-part review at KennedysAndKing.com:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/jfk-declassified-tracking-oswald