Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[MicahJava]

That Discovery Channel also has the animation by Dale Myers. This guy acts like a copyright Nazi when really he's probably just afraid of providing any of his work for other people to review it. All we know about his animation is from a couple fraudulent TV specials and some screenshots on his website. This dude bragged about having his animation "reviewed" by some dudes from the animation company Z-Axis, which does not specialize in re-creating 3d environments from 2D photographs as was the intention of Myers' cartoon.

See all of the known problems with Dale's SBT animation here:

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12c:animania

 

[MicahJava]

That Discovery Channel also has the animation by Dale Myers. This guy acts like a copyright Nazi when really he's probably just afraid of providing any of his work for other people to review it. All we know about his animation is from a couple fraudulent TV specials and some screenshots on his website. This dude bragged about having his animation "reviewed" by some dudes from the animation company Z-Axis, which does not specialize in re-creating 3d environments from 2D photographs as was the intention of Myers' cartoon.

See all of the known problems with Dale's SBT animation here:

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12c:animania

 

[MicahJava]

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

The biggest mystery in the shooting evidence is probably what happened to the missile that struck near the EOP.

 

[MicahJava]

Still waiting for MicahJava to justify his use of witness recollections from decades after the fact when he clearly discounts the contemporary witness statements made within 24 hours of the assassination, as pointed out almost a year ago:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11760443&postcount=2536

Hank

Hank, what is it with your ridiculous ridiculous motif about later-day recollections you keep going on about? Name one time I brought up an issue that wasn't rooted in the contemporaneous documentation. I apologize if it upsets you that other evidence appearing afterworld corroborates some of the stuff I'm talking about. You are just confused about what it means to be through with presenting the evidence, and you have nothing important to say in response so you ramble and filibuster the thread with long meaningless text.

 

[MicahJava]

Unfortunately the length of time one spends on a pet theory, like trying to move the wound locations to suit it, only ever allows you to convince yourself, and makes pride the main reason to discount what, to the rest of the world, is blindingly obvious.

If a CT advocate actually wanted to put the criticism to bed, they would not dance around or ignore the posts where the sceptics are laying out, piece by piece, the answers they would need to hear to be convinced.

What did the Clark Panel and HSCA do besides move wound locations to suit their pet theories? Precisely zero human beings who saw the body ever agreed with their crap.

 

[MicahJava]

Hank, if you want to have your own idea of what Connally's statements say, transcribe the earliest best ones and show your work on how you corroborate it with a shooting scenario.

 

[MicahJava]

It's not a manual, it's called "A Study in Assassinations":

https://archive.org/details/CIAAStudyOfAssassination1953

On page 9 they discuss the best options for killing the target, and advise against specialized weapons, and instead recommend whatever's lying around.

On page 11 they caution against using a firearm because they have a lousy track record...BUT...if you gotta use one, use a bolt-action rifle.

Page 14 covers "Silent Weapons". Guess what, they don't recommend them. They say that pistols, submachine guns, and improvised carbines can be silenced thanks to their ability to fire subsonic rounds, but range for the carbine is 100 yards on a good day, and pistols have to be "an arms length away" from the target.

The section ends with these words of wisdom:

A telescopically sighted, closed action carbine shooting a low velocity bullet of great weight, and built for accuracy, could be very useful to an assassin in certain situations. At this time of writing, NO SUCH WEAPON EXISTS.

A manual would have a lot of "How To", like the US Army Ranger Manual, which covers everything infantry related, but this is just an overview on assassinations because in the end a real assassin is going to do the job based on where he is, and what he has at his disposal during his window of opportunity. In Oswald's case, it was an actual window, and the only rifle he could afford. Fate did the rest.


Man, that's is some cracker-jack research by MJ. Yet again you've cited a source that disagrees with your theory, and even better, it's from the CIA.

Except they did exist in 1963. Like this one.

 

[smartcooky]

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

I go into this from the perspective of having once been a dyed in the wool, "second shooter behind the stockade fence at the top of the grassy knoll" believer in a conspiracy to kill JFK. I was never a believer in any other conspiracy theories, just that one, and thankfully (to the benefit of my own sanity) I managed to climb out of the rabbit hole as I grew up.

Having said that, while I believe LHO acted alone, I have always been open to the possibility that he may have been influenced by the people he had contact with in the weeks, months and years before 11/22/63, or may even have had help to do the planning.

What go me into watching "Tracking Oswald" was Baer's clear statement right at the beginning that there was no second shooter. Starting from a position of obvious commonsense was good.

What I find disappointing about it is that they take all the logical steps to find evidence, but no matter how flimsy that evidence is, they seem to draw extraordinarily long bows from it; not so much 2 + 2 = elephants as concluding that the sound of hoofbeats must mean zebras.

 

[HSienzant]

The Henry Hurt bullet

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/swYdxhc.jpg[/qimg]

Yes, it's designed not to deform. And it didn't. So?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

You have a strange way of being responsive to questions about your theory and / or arguments.

You avoid all of that.

Hank

 

[Hans]

Having said that, while I believe LHO acted alone, I have always been open to the possibility that he may have been influenced by the people he had contact with in the weeks, months and years before 11/22/63, or may even have had help to do the planning.

That has been my stance for decades. I suspect but of course cannot provide any evidence that LHO may have believed or actually been told something by a Cuban official. Some off hand remark, some political cliche (the revolution must rid itself of its enemies, etc.) or statement by a non-native English speaking official might have set LHO on his course to disaster.

Then again he might have come up with the idea himself.

Will we ever know? Nope

 

[MicahJava]

I go into this from the perspective of having once been a dyed in the wool, "second shooter behind the stockade fence at the top of the grassy knoll" believer in a conspiracy to kill JFK. I was never a believer in any other conspiracy theories, just that one, and thankfully (to the benefit of my own sanity) I managed to climb out of the rabbit hole as I grew up.

Having said that, while I believe LHO acted alone, I have always been open to the possibility that he may have been influenced by the people he had contact with in the weeks, months and years before 11/22/63, or may even have had help to do the planning.

What go me into watching "Tracking Oswald" was Baer's clear statement right at the beginning that there was no second shooter. Starting from a position of obvious commonsense was good.

What I find disappointing about it is that they take all the logical steps to find evidence, but no matter how flimsy that evidence is, they seem to draw extraordinarily long bows from it; not so much 2 + 2 = elephants as concluding that the sound of hoofbeats must mean zebras.

smartcooky, analyzing what may have happened in front of Kennedy is nowhere near as settled as what happened behind Kennedy, which is where the missile that created the small wound next to the external occipital protuberance probably originated.

I could concede that the occipital-blowout witnesses are wrong because they viewed Kennedy's head from an odd angle that may have made the large wound appear more behind the ear than above. But the problems with the EOP wound stem from the reports and statements of the people who examined Kennedy's body for hours and handled his scalp, skull, and brain. You should honestly come back into the rabbit hole, and BTW Tracking Oswald is a terrible waste of time for both the producers of the series and the viewer.

 

[MicahJava]

Yes, it's designed not to deform. And it didn't. So?

Hank

But the base did. Firing this round into water can mimic the slight flattening on the base of CE399.

 

[HSienzant]

That Discovery Channel also has the animation by Dale Myers. This guy acts like a copyright Nazi when really he's probably just afraid of providing any of his work for other people to review it. All we know about his animation is from a couple fraudulent TV specials and some screenshots on his website. This dude bragged about having his animation "reviewed" by some dudes from the animation company Z-Axis, which does not specialize in re-creating 3d environments from 2D photographs as was the intention of Myers' cartoon.

See all of the known problems with Dale's SBT animation here:

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12c:animania

And another fringe reset by you. Honestly, you need some new material. We've covered all this in detail in the past.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12050930&postcount=2278

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12114058&postcount=3250

Honestly, it looks like another Gish Gallop by you... change the subject to something else, anything else, rather than try to defend your argument about the evidence for a suppressed shot (or shots - "Clarity" isn't your middle name).

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The biggest mystery in the shooting evidence is probably what happened to the missile that struck near the EOP.

Most people can figure it out from the Z-film alone.

The autopsy report confirms their impression.

The HSCA forensic pathology panel's conclusions are redundant, but also confirms it.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Hank, what is it with your ridiculous ridiculous motif about later-day recollections you keep going on about? Name one time I brought up an issue that wasn't rooted in the contemporaneous documentation. I apologize if it upsets you that other evidence appearing afterworld corroborates some of the stuff I'm talking about. You are just confused about what it means to be through with presenting the evidence, and you have nothing important to say in response so you ramble and filibuster the thread with long meaningless text.

The Parkland bullet, off the top of my head.

You rely on recollections from years after the fact to attempt to toss out CE399.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Hank, if you want to have your own idea of what Connally's statements say, transcribe the earliest best ones and show your work on how you corroborate it with a shooting scenario.

Did that above. I don't need to post it again. You just need to read it again.

More Fringe Reset by you. We discussed Connally in the prior thread.

We're awaiting your scenario to juxtapose against it, to see which better fits the totality of the evidence.

I asked you when you think the first and second shot happened, for starters.

You punting AGAIN?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Except they did exist in 1963. Like this one.

[qimg]http://www.rifleman.org.uk/Images/SOEi%20manual%20page.gif[/qimg]

The fact that they 'existed' is the least of your problems...

I listed what you need to do here:

If you want to explain away unheard shots by unseen assassins firing unseen weapons that caused unseen damage, well, wouldn't it be simpler to just explain away these unheard shots by saying they weren't fired?

If you want to argue for actual shots, then you need some evidence, not just conjecture and speculation and logical fallacies.
1. Let's see the link to this supposed "CIA manual on assassination".
2. Let's see the eyewitness testimony for other assassins.
3. Let's see the other bullets that were fired.
4. Let's see the evidence for the CIA's involvement in the assassination.
5. Let's see the evidence for suppressed shots (hint: It's not "well, nobody heard them, so ergo, they must have been suppressed!").
6. Show the damage to JFK in the autopsy evidence and from the autopsy report and the HSCA forensic panel report of what these bullets struck, if anything. Or to Connally in Connally's Parkland medical records.
7. Wouldn't it be simpler to just explain away these unheard shots by unseen assassins firing unseen weapons that caused unseen damage by saying there weren't any?

We're still awaiting your attempt to do any of that.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

But the base did. Firing this round into water can mimic the slight flattening on the base of CE399.

And your point is?

There is deformation of CE399 elsewhere.

What does Hurt's bullet look like, in toto?

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

No, I went through this in detail with Robert Harris before you got here. Read the prior threads and see the evidence for a head shot and the sound of the impact of the head shot as the close-together two loud reports heard by many witnesses. Bob pretended not to understand the point. You can take that approach as well.

This is the only thing from you I think is kind of cool. Can you elaborate? I understand that a lot of witness statements indicate that there was a brief moment of time between the second and third loud reports, but nowhere near as long as the length between the first and second. Like Roy Kellerman saying he heard the third shot a moment after he stepped on the gas and the limousine just began to increase speed.