Axxman300
Philosopher
I will yield to your knowledge on this one. I'm just seeing the caliber promoted more on covers than in the past. $1 a round? Yikes.
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge
- Thread starter BStrong
- Start date
- Status
I will yield to your knowledge on this one. I'm just seeing the caliber promoted more on covers than in the past. $1 a round? Yikes.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Even Pat Speer acknowledges that a single 6.5 mm round headshot causes devastating wounds:
As often as you've referred to his material I'm surprised that you didn't know that.
Last edited by a moderator:
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
No worries. Old bastards like me are clinging to the .30 caliber projos out of big fat cases, mine is a .30-378 Weatherby:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-378_Weatherby_Magnum
And Tom Sarver set the world record at 1000 yds with a .30 caliber wildcat of his own design - the .300 Hulk - a .338 Lapua magnum shortened 1/2 inch and necked down to .30.
I've been toying with the idea of rebarreling my 30-378 to 6.5-378 but I never get around to it.
Last edited:
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
Axxman300
Philosopher
I can't find any listed specifically for the 6.5x52mm.
All I found were:
6.5x54mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer
6.5x50mm Japanese Arisaka
6.5x55mm Swedish Mauser
6.5x57mm Mauser
6.5-.300 Weatherby Magnum.
It's possible no US manufacturers ever perused the caliber due to the assassination, it would have been not only a bad-taste stupid move, I doubt many would have sold.
The side issue here is that the 6.5x52mm round was exclusive to the Carcano, and by choosing the rifle, Oswald inadvertently left his signature on the assassination as these were the only bullets fired, and recovered in Dealey Plaza (along with his rifle at his place of employment).
The Caracano is the smoking gun pointing to Oswald's guilt.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I watched Episode 5 of "Tracking Oswald" in which they investigated the possibility of a second shooter to the right of JFK on the Grassy Knoll.
They started with two staples of JFK Conspiracy theory; "back and to the left" and "shots heard coming from the grassy knoll"
1. "Back and to the Left"
This meme was settled fairly quickly. They had a shooter fire a Mannlicher Carcano rifle at the back of a head made of ballistic gel using the same 6.5x52mm rounds at the same range with the same elevation. As I expected (and it seemed to the surprise of the shooter and his spotter) the head jerked backwards towards the shooter. I would like them to have taken this a little further and tried turning the head to the left and tilted down just to ram home the point.
2. "Shots from the Grassy Knoll".
This one was not so easy to settle and took some work. Many ear-witnesses in front of the grassy knoll and on the other side of the road from the grassy knoll (i.e. on the left of the limo) reported hearing four or more shots and that some of them came from the knoll itself i.e. from the grassy knoll. In the programme, they employed a sound engineer who surveyed Dealey Plaza, and then used some sophisticated audio software to work out where all the echoes would have come from and how loud they would have been. They used recordings of a Mannlicher Carcano rifle (again using the same rounds that Oswald used) to establish the sound level right next to the gun, and then placed those sounds (in the software) where the sniper's lair was. The biggest reflector of sound was the flat front of the railway overpass on the other side of the Plaza from the sniper's lair. They were able to establish that the incident sound of the gunshot (direct from the 6th floor) was 88dBA, and the echo from the front of the railway overpass was 84 dBA. It is well understaood that a 3dBA decrease in sound level is barely noticeable to the human ear. In fact, you have to lower the sound level by 5dBA before most listeners report a noticeable or significant change. For all intents and purposes a 4dBa drop from incident to echo would sound so close to the same as makes no difference. However, what I found disappointing is that they didn't take this further and start to do some calculations. So I took a scale drawing of Dealey Plaza for Nov 1963 and did some measurements.
Distances
Sniper's lair (point a) to a point directly across the road from the Grassy Knoll (point b) = 375 ft
Point (a) to the centre front of the Railway Overpass (point c) = 650 ft
Point c back to point b = 320 feet
Speed of sound at sea level 1100 fps.
Observers at (point b) would hear the incident gunshot 0.34 seconds 375/1100s) after it was fired, and would hear the echo (almost as loud) 0.86 seconds (945/1100) after it was fired. Take away the time for the incident shot and they would hear what seems to be two shots in quick succession half a second apart. No wonder people there heard several shots. Additionally, they would definitely be able to tell that the later sound came from a different direction. If they turned their head to look where the first gunshot came from, in the confusion they could easily have gained the impression that the echo of the first gunshot came from the left or right rather than from behind.
I think we can safely conclude (as did the two hosts on the programme) that the theory of a second shooter is dead and buried. The physical evidence they present of the ballistic gel head reaction to a shot from behind, as well as the sound evidence of the echoes accounts for both memes.
All the evidence points to a single shooter... all of it!
They started with two staples of JFK Conspiracy theory; "back and to the left" and "shots heard coming from the grassy knoll"
1. "Back and to the Left"
This meme was settled fairly quickly. They had a shooter fire a Mannlicher Carcano rifle at the back of a head made of ballistic gel using the same 6.5x52mm rounds at the same range with the same elevation. As I expected (and it seemed to the surprise of the shooter and his spotter) the head jerked backwards towards the shooter. I would like them to have taken this a little further and tried turning the head to the left and tilted down just to ram home the point.
2. "Shots from the Grassy Knoll".
This one was not so easy to settle and took some work. Many ear-witnesses in front of the grassy knoll and on the other side of the road from the grassy knoll (i.e. on the left of the limo) reported hearing four or more shots and that some of them came from the knoll itself i.e. from the grassy knoll. In the programme, they employed a sound engineer who surveyed Dealey Plaza, and then used some sophisticated audio software to work out where all the echoes would have come from and how loud they would have been. They used recordings of a Mannlicher Carcano rifle (again using the same rounds that Oswald used) to establish the sound level right next to the gun, and then placed those sounds (in the software) where the sniper's lair was. The biggest reflector of sound was the flat front of the railway overpass on the other side of the Plaza from the sniper's lair. They were able to establish that the incident sound of the gunshot (direct from the 6th floor) was 88dBA, and the echo from the front of the railway overpass was 84 dBA. It is well understaood that a 3dBA decrease in sound level is barely noticeable to the human ear. In fact, you have to lower the sound level by 5dBA before most listeners report a noticeable or significant change. For all intents and purposes a 4dBa drop from incident to echo would sound so close to the same as makes no difference. However, what I found disappointing is that they didn't take this further and start to do some calculations. So I took a scale drawing of Dealey Plaza for Nov 1963 and did some measurements.
Distances
Sniper's lair (point a) to a point directly across the road from the Grassy Knoll (point b) = 375 ft
Point (a) to the centre front of the Railway Overpass (point c) = 650 ft
Point c back to point b = 320 feet
Speed of sound at sea level 1100 fps.
Observers at (point b) would hear the incident gunshot 0.34 seconds 375/1100s) after it was fired, and would hear the echo (almost as loud) 0.86 seconds (945/1100) after it was fired. Take away the time for the incident shot and they would hear what seems to be two shots in quick succession half a second apart. No wonder people there heard several shots. Additionally, they would definitely be able to tell that the later sound came from a different direction. If they turned their head to look where the first gunshot came from, in the confusion they could easily have gained the impression that the echo of the first gunshot came from the left or right rather than from behind.
I think we can safely conclude (as did the two hosts on the programme) that the theory of a second shooter is dead and buried. The physical evidence they present of the ballistic gel head reaction to a shot from behind, as well as the sound evidence of the echoes accounts for both memes.
All the evidence points to a single shooter... all of it!
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Because it's a rimmed case there isn't any interest on the part of manufacturers to chamber modern sporting or target rifles in the Carcano round.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
One of the issues that has been beaten to death in these threads is the vagaries of memory.
Because certain parties refuse to recognize that memories aren't perfect evidence and wish to hand wave away any notion that an individual's recollection of an event or fact may not be perfect, here's something to think about.
Some of the folks posting in this thread never go elsewhere on the site, I go everywhere and I hope this isn't breaking anything in the MA, but there is a thread on the subject of Creepy Commercials.
Here is my first post in that thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12176102&postcount=18
It wasn't a TV commercial, but in '67 or '68 I recall an magazine print ad for the Shelby Mustang that was just bizarre. It was a line drawing depicting what looked to be a male driver speeding out of a drive way with a woman in the background that appeared to be hysterical running after the car, with a little boy in the foreground that looked to be in immediate danger of being run over by the male driver. I tried to find it before I posted this but it didn't come up on google.
This was a response:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12176738&postcount=43
That's really interesting and I'm curious. Do you remember anything about the text in the ad like a punchline or explanation of the scene? I wonder if it could be some confabulation whereby your memory of the ad is somehow significantly different from what you actually saw.
Given the following that that car has, the Shelby enthusiasts and collectors ought to know all about that ad as well as every other ad ever produced.
I just responded:
Considering I saw this once 50 years ago, my recollection is damn close - link to the ad, 1967 Shelby Mustang "Summer Place"
https://www.hobbydb.com/catalog_item...ang-gt/gallery
Here's a pintrest link:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/383228249516406055/
Unfortunately I wasn't able to post a pic of the ad but the above links are available to view for interested parties. I got part of it right, but not everything. I'll let folks make up their minds for themselves.
My point wrt the assassination is that no matter who the observer is, their training, experience etc. memory 50 years on are rarely perfect and there's a far better chance of being incomplete or corrupted by the simple passing of time.
Because certain parties refuse to recognize that memories aren't perfect evidence and wish to hand wave away any notion that an individual's recollection of an event or fact may not be perfect, here's something to think about.
Some of the folks posting in this thread never go elsewhere on the site, I go everywhere and I hope this isn't breaking anything in the MA, but there is a thread on the subject of Creepy Commercials.
Here is my first post in that thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12176102&postcount=18
It wasn't a TV commercial, but in '67 or '68 I recall an magazine print ad for the Shelby Mustang that was just bizarre. It was a line drawing depicting what looked to be a male driver speeding out of a drive way with a woman in the background that appeared to be hysterical running after the car, with a little boy in the foreground that looked to be in immediate danger of being run over by the male driver. I tried to find it before I posted this but it didn't come up on google.
This was a response:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12176738&postcount=43
That's really interesting and I'm curious. Do you remember anything about the text in the ad like a punchline or explanation of the scene? I wonder if it could be some confabulation whereby your memory of the ad is somehow significantly different from what you actually saw.
Given the following that that car has, the Shelby enthusiasts and collectors ought to know all about that ad as well as every other ad ever produced.
I just responded:
Considering I saw this once 50 years ago, my recollection is damn close - link to the ad, 1967 Shelby Mustang "Summer Place"
https://www.hobbydb.com/catalog_item...ang-gt/gallery
Here's a pintrest link:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/383228249516406055/
Unfortunately I wasn't able to post a pic of the ad but the above links are available to view for interested parties. I got part of it right, but not everything. I'll let folks make up their minds for themselves.
My point wrt the assassination is that no matter who the observer is, their training, experience etc. memory 50 years on are rarely perfect and there's a far better chance of being incomplete or corrupted by the simple passing of time.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Similar to the Sinbad "Genie" movie that a lot of people claim to remember, even with shared details, but never existed.
Plus, how many celebrities die each year where your first reaction is shock that they were still alive?
Because I'm 53 now a lot of life events which were once vivid have begun to fade, and a few are even wrong from retelling over time. I emphasize the story points that keep people interested while leaving out the dull (bit important parts).
Plus, how many celebrities die each year where your first reaction is shock that they were still alive?
Because I'm 53 now a lot of life events which were once vivid have begun to fade, and a few are even wrong from retelling over time. I emphasize the story points that keep people interested while leaving out the dull (bit important parts).
The idea that "back and to the left" is a problem for the single shooter solution to the JFK assassination is based on Hollywood physics. Basically by 1963 people had seen more than a generation of films showing people being knocked back by being hit by bullets. Thus people think that if the head moved back it "must" have been hit in front. This is patent nonsense. If Newton's laws are anything to go on the amount of energy required to knock someone back would have to overcome the inertia of the person being hit with the bullet(s) and that would be enormous. Further the bullet going forward from the gun would have an equal and opposite effect on the person firing the gun thus knocking them back! Since that doesn't generally happen we can dismiss the Hollywood physics.
Although the results of the test with the gel are interesting; and have been done before by the way with similar results. My own opinion of the matter is that the head movements are more the result of spastic muscle movements resulting from the bullet going though JFK's brain than anything else.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I agree with this too, although I think that more accounts for the "back" part of his head movement than the "to the left" part.
IMO his head movement to the left is more likely to have been due to the collapse of the pressure cavity in the right side of his skull. Effectively it was like a stick of explosive going off in his head; it blew out the skull on that side, and Newton's Third Law took care of the rest.
On a side note, it seems that MicahJava has done his usual trick of running away from the hard questions. We wait with baited breath for the next fringe reset.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Smartcooky, that Tracking Oswald crap will rot your brain. Conspiracy researchers hate it, Lone Nutters hate it. It's literally just a bunch of debunked crap. The "acoustics simulation" they did was junk science. You know what the HSCA acoustics panel did instead of some scam crap with a computer? They roped off Dealey Plaza and used the type of rifle in evidence to fire real rounds into sandbags and recorded how the sound reverberated. Guess what? A shot from the Depository does not sound like a shot from the knoll. I don't know about the feasibility of frontal shots actually striking anything, but the knoll witnesses need a better explanation.
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
What is your explanation?
Also, answer all the other outstanding questions you've been running away from.
HSienzant
Philosopher
We're awaiting yours.
Also, you'll need to explain why the majority of the witnesses who named a source named only the Depository for ALL the shots; and why the largest minority who named a source named only the knoll for ALL the shots.
They can't both be right. They can both be wrong, but they can't both be right. You like to pretend they are both right, but you need to ignore logic and evidence to conclude that.
If there were shots from multiple positions, wouldn't there be far more than four witnesses who said they heard shots from multiple locations?
And of course, no one said the shots came from any of the buildings behind the motorcade except the Depository.
ALL the witnesses who said they saw a shooter or a weapon pointed to the Depository.
You're going to argue for the canard that the witnesses might have recalled the source being from the last shot they heard. But that explains nothing. Clearly, the last shot came from somewhere. And wherever it came from, if your argument was true, then all the witnesses would point to there as the source of all the shots. So that argument explains exactly nothing. Because all the witnesses don't point to the same location as the source of all the shots.
We're going to await your change of subject or logical fallacy. But it's clear by now you don't have an explanation.
Hank
Last edited:
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
In your opinion.
Did you notice the characterisation you applied there. CT's are "researchers" but Lone shooter realists are "nutters".
Then tell everyone why it is. Don't just claim it is, demonstrate that it is.
And that compared to witness testimony in what way?
Agreed. You do not.
Explanation of what? That their imaginary gunman was real despite all evidence to the contrary?
HSienzant
Philosopher
And of course, that's the problem. Not the biased terminology that MicahJava uses to describe those who think Oswald alone shot JFK (nutters), but the fact that they do not view themselves as "assassination researchers", determined to uncover the truth, but rather, they view themselves as "conspiracy researchers", determined to establish a conspiracy.
As such, anything they find that supports the "Oswald did it alone and unaided" argument -- no matter how well-supported it is -- will be ignored by them. Anything they discovery that seems to argue for a conspiracy or cover-up -- no matter how thin or specious the reasoning -- will be trumpeted as exposing the conspiracy and/or cover-up.
"Conspiracy researchers" (MicahJava's own words) says more about their bias -- and MicahJava's -- than he might otherwise care to admit.
They don't want the truth. They want a conspiracy.
Hank
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Actually, the unmitigated crap you post here is more likely to rot brains
FTFY
Really. Well I'm one of those "Lone nutters" (as you have characterized us) and I think they have got this scenario pretty well right
(Actually, we aren't "lone nutters" we are people who look at THE EVIDENCE and go where it takes us, your fellow conspiritards are the nutters!
Then debunk it... here, now. Do your own tests and prove they are wrong... otherwise, shut up.
Then debunk it... here, now. Do your own tests and prove they are wrong... otherwise, shut up.
Prove it then. Lets have the official results of those tests and some actual documentation of the tests they did complete with a conclusions that states "A shot from the Depository does not sound like a shot from the knoll" .
Do this, or shut up. They are your only choices.
NOTE: Links to idiot JFK conspiracy websites are not evidence. They will be ignored/not followed.
HSienzant
Philosopher
A little background for those relatively new to the subject:
The "lone nutters" terminology goes back to Prodigy in the early 1990's at least (as far as when I first encountered it). The "lone nutter" (or just "nutter" for short) doesn't apply to the people who think Oswald shot JFK, but to Oswald, as viewed through the Warren Commission's eyes. They more or less characterized Oswald as a "lone nut", and found no evidence of conspiracy. Hence, those who believe as the WC did, that Oswald committed the assassination alone, and had no discernable political motivation, were called "lone nutters" (for believing Oswald was a "lone nut" assassin).
Those arguing for conspiracy back on Prodigy were "conspiracy loons" (or just "loons" for short).
I hasten to add that the discourse back then was far less rancorous, and I always took both terms as said at least partly (if not wholly) in jest.
Somehow, the "Lone Nutter" terminology has survived three decades to describe those who think Oswald was the lone assassin, but the "Conspiracy Loon" terminology has fallen by the wayside. It may be time to resurrect it - especially as the viewpoints of those who believe in conspiracy has gotten further and further out there (altered films, altered documents, altered witness testimony, altered hard evidence, altered body, altered x-rays and autopsy photos -- basically everything that points to Oswald is now argued is fabricated).
"Conspiracy loon" may be more accurate nowadays than ever before.
I never felt the "Lone Nutter" terminology was accurate, as I never viewed Oswald as a nut. A guy who believed in communistic ideals, yes. A guy who devoted about half his short life to those ideals, yes. A guy willing to lay down his life for those ideals, yes.
But a nut? No.
He knew right from wrong. He knew taking life was wrong. He knew killing Walker, Kennedy and Tippit was wrong. But he was willing to do that anyway to further his ideals (and yes, I know he failed to kill Walker. I feel I need to mention that otherwise MicahJava will argue that point, and ignore everything else I said).
Oswald had the means, motive, and opportunity. All the evidence points to him. He was a lone assassin, but not a lone nut (unlike a Hinckley or Chapman, for instance).
Hank
PS: Jean Davison has posted here in the past, and she was on Prodigy as well. A word from her would be appreciated, as far as her recollection of the terminology used back then.
Last edited:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
My pleasure, dude.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0074b.htm
Read from page 148-174. It says "A shot from the Depository does not sound like a shot from the knoll" in the unmistakable language of scientific test results.
BTW: Again, they were firing real rounds into sandbags in Dealey Plaza. The acoustics of a traveling supersonic bullet applies to this test.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Speaking as someone who was once down the rabbit hole on this particular conspiracy I think I can relate with some authority what it was like, at least for me, and what I see when I look back on that time.
The rabbit hole is an echo chamber; you only hear what you are saying, reflected back to you by others, who are also down the rabbit hole, saying the same things back to you. Also, you only hear what you want to hear; anything that does not fit into your delusion, is treated as "white noise"; a background hiss with no substance. The rabbit hole has become a trap, and you are locked in by a self-reinforcing delusion.
One of the worst aspects of this trap are that you don't even realise that it is a trap, and you don't understand that you are caught in it. IMO, there are three barriers to getting yourself out of the rabbit hole.
1. You will have to give up one or more a firmly held beliefs - the deeper down the hole you are, the more firmly you are likely to hold those beliefs, and the more firmly the trap has you snared.
2. You know that if you admit you were wrong all along, you are going to suffer a massive loss of face - you are going to look like a complete fool.
3. Reason and logic. You didn't fall into the hole using reason or logic, so you cannot reason your way out of it even if you wanted to... and you don't want to.
I can't speak for others, but there are a couple of "aha moments" that did it for me, and one of those was understanding what happened to the lost bullet. I can't even say why it was an "aha moment", all I know is that it triggered something that made me look a bit closer at what I believed, and I started to resolve the white noise into information. Reading the Jacob Cohen article I mentioned earlier was another "aha moment".
NOTE: I do wonder how Eric Hunt managed to claw his way out of his particular delusion
- Status