Axxman300
Philosopher
Why would I waste my time at a JFK Assassination CT-Looney site?
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting
- Thread starter bknight
- Start date
- Status
Why would I waste my time at a JFK Assassination CT-Looney site?
Axxman300
Philosopher
Fringe reset. We've covered this. You lost.
Axxman300
Philosopher
No mystery, the ONE BULLET that struck JFK in the head was a 6.5x52mm Carcano round. It shattered, and most of it ended up on the front floor boards.
Axxman300
Philosopher
,
So you want us to believe that a .22 is a high-powered rifle?
LMAO.
I'm just going to assume that you didn't - yet again - bother to read the CIA "manual" at all in order to, you know, learn something.
The Winchester Model-74 is what the big kids call a "Squirrel Gun", had a max range of 100 yards, but was not reliable at that range. Most targets engaged were at the 10 to 25 yard range.
My favorite part of this whole thing, aside from your continuing failure to understand ballistics, is that you first cite the "CIA Assassination Manual", and then when I quote directly from said "manual" your next move is to say that the CIA didn't know what they were talking about...and yet these guys would have been key to your nifty CT.
So you want us to believe that a .22 is a high-powered rifle?
LMAO.
I'm just going to assume that you didn't - yet again - bother to read the CIA "manual" at all in order to, you know, learn something.
The Winchester Model-74 is what the big kids call a "Squirrel Gun", had a max range of 100 yards, but was not reliable at that range. Most targets engaged were at the 10 to 25 yard range.
My favorite part of this whole thing, aside from your continuing failure to understand ballistics, is that you first cite the "CIA Assassination Manual", and then when I quote directly from said "manual" your next move is to say that the CIA didn't know what they were talking about...and yet these guys would have been key to your nifty CT.
Last edited:
Axxman300
Philosopher
Fringe reset. We've discussed ear-witness testimony, and how Dealey Plaza is an echo chamber making what someone heard dependent on where they stood.
Thanks for playing.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Axxman300
Philosopher
And why was that?
They made their statements based on a few issues: shock, and not understanding what they saw.
No, none of them have said anything other than he was struck by two bullets, both of those being 6.5x52mm Carcano rounds.
You never saw it, so how would you know? The CT crowd was b*tt-hurt over the fact that Baer never even considered a second shooter...which he proves in one of the episodes. At least Baer was looking in the right direction for a conspiracy because there is nothing to be found in Dealey Plaza.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Exactly.
The problem with the show was much of the stuff they chased down was only to fill air-time.
Baer knew the National Archives was going to release the documents in October, so why not wait a year and make a better show?
Those last two episodes where they're tracking the bus route and linking it to known locations of Anti-Castro Cuban meet-houses was the most compelling thing I'd seen that could have, at least remotely, linked him to a Cuban Paramilitary cell.
The problem was that they didn't spend as much time with that line of investigation, and logical thinkers are left with the facts: Oswald got off the bus, took a cab home, and killed Tippet before he could catch another one...if that was his plan, which we'll never know.
The document release reveals the scope of the CIA's anti-Castro operation which stretched from Florida to Texas. Oswald's fascination with Communism, and Castro took him to New Orleans, and put him on the same streets as the paramilitaries, but no one can link him to them, and without solid evidence Oswald remains a lone actor.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
We've already discussed this. You were very incoherent and often attempted to intentionally confuse me or others reading, including ignoring information previously given to you. Not one more time thank you.
See this sentence in the 1953 CIA book A Study Of Assassinations:
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 the time of writing, no such weapon is known to exist.
But it did exist in 1963. 100 yards range is perfect for planning to deliver fatal wounds to Kennedy when the Limousine would straighten up on Elm street.
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
And there's nothing I find kind of cool from you. It's the same old conspiracy theorist shell game. Argue for something or other, asked to support it, change the subject. Rinse and repeat. I've been online debating the assassination since the early 1990's, on the Prodigy and AOL boards. Nothing has changed except the names of the conspiracy theorists.
No need. It's all in the threads you haven't read. Remember how you were urged to read the thread from the first one when you first logged in here? Obviously you never did. Your loss.
Except when you argue for what John Connally said. Then there's only a brief amount of time between the first two shots. As always, your arguments change from post to post, and it doesn't matter to you if your current argument contradicts your earlier one. Anything to give the appearance of actually having a point worthy of consideration.
You have to understand human nature to understand that. Kellerman didn't react that fast, and in fact the limo doesn't accelerate until after the head shot. But of course, he's going to say he accelerated before that. Part of the problem with the Secret Service procedures back then was that seniority determined which agents were closest to the President. Which meant the oldest, and slowest to react were the ones charged mostly with protecting the President.
That changed after the assassination.
Hank
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Please, someone tell me that Micah Java is not arguing that the evidence for a 2nd shooter in front of of JFK lies in the fact that his head jerked backwards!
Say it isn’t so!!!
Say it isn’t so!!!
HSienzant
Philosopher
The cited articles establish exactly nothing. There is the same old problem of one conspiracy theorist citing another citing another as if the first one established something. Too often all they established was their confusion between evidence and conjecture, and between sound reasoning and logical fallacies.
Hank
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
No, you can show a conspiracy with only missiles fired from behind. The evidence for that starts with the small wound near the external occipital protuberance. This wound was too low in the back of the head to correlate to a frontal-parietal exit like the HSCA posited. The official X-rays and brain photographs show most of the shrapnel and damage was only on the top of the head. A high-powered missile entering there would have turn open the cerebellum and occipital lobes, which is not shown on the brain photographs at all. Although Cyril Wecht once identified a possible tiny bullet fragment in the upper neck (which would itself probably constitute another proof of the EOP wound), no bullet fragments of any size were in the back of the brain. Either way, it looks like there's no way to explain the contradictory head wounds besides to invoke two missiles striking the head as Dr. George Burkley always expressed concern about.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Hank, since you didn't read any of the article at all you should know that Tracking Oswald contains conspiracy woo of the levels that both the researchers and lone nutters can agree to hate on.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Not one pathologist who examined the body or the extant autopsy materials agrees with your assessment. You have exactly ZERO qualifications to be overruling these people.
All of the qualified people to examine the body or the extant autopsy materials reached the incontrovertible conclusion that the bullet that struck JFK in the back of the head exited the top-right side of the head.
You can't overturn that just because you don't like it.
But you do that whenever the expert opinion doesn't agree with your viewpoint (which is nearly all of the time).
You simply ignore the expert opinion and substitute your own opinion.
You are not an expert. Your opinion means nothing. You don't get to overrule the conclusions of all the experts simply because you don't like their conclusions.
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
I read it. That's why I wrote what I did here:
Here's a couple of examples of the CT author (Arnaldo M. Fernandez) citing other CT authors as if their point is proven:
"Baer also abstained from warning the viewers about Oswald being impersonated by phone in Mexico City, as Bill Simpich has proven beyond any reasonable doubt in State Secret (2013). "
"What the Commission left out was this integral fact: at her first Secret Service interview, in the days immediately after the assassination, Marina repeatedly and forcefully denied that Oswald had ever been to Mexico! (James DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, p. 280)"
"The viewers are left in the dark about how John Newman has convincingly demonstrated in Oswald and the CIA (1995) that the Agency was closely and constantly tracking Oswald from 1959 to 1963."
Citing claims by other CTs doesn't establish those claims are true, accurate, well-reasoned, or supported by evidence. Did you misunderstand my point, or are you only pretending to misunderstand so as to have some straw-man rebuttal?
No kidding. I myself wrote that "I couldn't stomach it. Too much conspiracy nonsense and speculation."
Your argument goes nowhere. I didn't support the Baer history channel nonsense, I pointed out how the CT author (Arnaldo M. Fernandez) critical of Baer too often cites some other CT article as if it proves anything. It doesn't.
Hank
Last edited:
Axxman300
Philosopher
Facts always confuse you.
The active phrase here is "low velocity bullet of great weight", and while the .22 had a 100 yard range it was not accurate at that range, and it is a light round. From where you hint at where the second shooter stood he was out of range once the motorcade cleared the trees.
Plus you ignore the entire part where the CIA recommends against using guns of any kind. So you've cited a source from a 1953 CIA publication on assassination that says DON'T USE GUNS.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
So, the manual suggested a telescopic sighted, silenced, low velocity rifle firing a heavy bullet...
... How does a vermin rifle firing lightweight bullets prove the existence of the theoretical rifle?
But I’m game. Assuming you actually believe a weapon like the one in this advert was used, you can explain why there is no evidence of a low calibre bullet. You can explain why no wounds, even in your garbled mangling of the autopsy, match what we would expect from a .22 bullet.
Given the limited range of such weapons, well documented from ample field experiences of the Commandoes in WW2, you should be able to identify the weapon on the Zapruda film.
... How does a vermin rifle firing lightweight bullets prove the existence of the theoretical rifle?
But I’m game. Assuming you actually believe a weapon like the one in this advert was used, you can explain why there is no evidence of a low calibre bullet. You can explain why no wounds, even in your garbled mangling of the autopsy, match what we would expect from a .22 bullet.
Given the limited range of such weapons, well documented from ample field experiences of the Commandoes in WW2, you should be able to identify the weapon on the Zapruda film.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
And yet you've said that there was one entrance and one exit wound to the head.
You CTists are a funny bunch.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
LOL. I appreciate your desire to show how much you know about autopsies and gunshot wounds but do you also remember not knowing what "RN" was an abbreviation for?
Would it now? Please post your qualifications to make this assessment. Remember when you showed you didn't know what a "gun" was?
Well, no way to explain it other than the findings of the autopsy, which you've been citing.
LOL. But seriously, what do you get out of posting nonsense you crib from CT websites that make their sycophants look foolish?
- Status