Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

[HSienzant]

Too bad you'll never be able to say anything unproving a shred of material from Talbot.

Your 'expert', your contention, your burden of proof. Nobody has to "unprove" anything Talbot or you or any other CT asserts.

You keep forgetting to check for logical fallacies before you post.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I find it amusing that you can only make the official story work by posting a wall of text parroting the official story in a way that overflows with misleading and controversial statements (or at least a string of words resembling a sentence). May as well try the thumb-fell-off trick at the Disability office. See look no thumb.

Not an adequate response.

 

[RoboTimbo]

One sign that you know what you're talking about is that you know what you don't know. Do you?

You apparently don't know how many entrance and exit wounds the official evidence (which you've been citing) shows. Of the many things you don't know, did you know that you didn't know that one?

 

[BStrong]

One sign that you know what you're talking about is that you know what you don't know. Do you?

Now you're working Donald Rumsfeld's side of the street?

I'm well aware that there's always something new to learn and I'm a willing student.

When something is posted in this thread that doesn't conform to reality wrt the fields I cited in my post I'm under no obligation to take the assertions based on ignorance as fact.

Case in point, your ventriloquist suppressor. I've posted many times about the unreliability of earwitness accounts and even related one of my most embarrassing moments related to reporting what I believed was a shotgun being fired close to my home. I've been writing about it in this thread for several years but evidently you learned nothing from it because you revisit the same earwitness jive over and over.

I'd say there is someone in this thread that not only doesn't know what they don't know they're unwilling to learn from someone that does.

Straight up, it may be I have more years of suppressor experience than you have years on this planet. 50+ years at this point. Who would be more likely to know the subject matter, the guy with 50 + years of hands on knowledge or the person who read about it from poorly informed sources?

 

[bknight]

Now you're working Donald Rumsfeld's side of the street?

I'm well aware that there's always something new to learn and I'm a willing student.

When something is posted in this thread that doesn't conform to reality wrt the fields I cited in my post I'm under no obligation to take the assertions based on ignorance as fact.

Case in point, your ventriloquist suppressor. I've posted many times about the unreliability of earwitness accounts and even related one of my most embarrassing moments related to reporting what I believed was a shotgun being fired close to my home. I've been writing about it in this thread for several years but evidently you learned nothing from it because you revisit the same earwitness jive over and over.

I'd say there is someone in this thread that not only doesn't know what they don't know they're unwilling to learn from someone that does.

Straight up, it may be I have more years of suppressor experience than you have years on this planet. 50+ years at this point. Who would be more likely to know the subject matter, the guy with 50 + years of hands on knowledge or the person who read about it from poorly informed sources?

Typical CT behavior, willfully ignorant and they don't know it or don't wish to accept the fact that they are wrong.

 

[Axxman300]

What "other side of the same X-ray"? Jesus, you guys are worse at this than a bot.

The one with the damage from the bullet.

 

[Axxman300]

I find it amusing that you can only make the official story work by posting a wall of text parroting the official story in a way that overflows with misleading and controversial statements (or at least a string of words resembling a sentence). May as well try the thumb-fell-off trick at the Disability office. See look no thumb.

It's not a wall of text, it's data supporting his point (which happens to be reality). This is what happens when someone has to over-explain the painfully obvious.

He has pointed out that ear-witness testimony in the JFK-Assassination is worthless as a single data point. When combined with the physical evidence most of the ear-witness testimony falls away and is explained by the echo chamber that is Dealey Plaza.

If you want to blow it off because the information is over your head that's your business, but you are in no position to look down your nose at his post based on your track record with basic facts.

 

[Axxman300]

One sign that you know what you're talking about is that you know what you don't know. Do you?

How about addressing the hundreds of counter points you've run away from?

 

[MicahJava]

Now you're working Donald Rumsfeld's side of the street?

I'm well aware that there's always something new to learn and I'm a willing student.

When something is posted in this thread that doesn't conform to reality wrt the fields I cited in my post I'm under no obligation to take the assertions based on ignorance as fact.

Case in point, your ventriloquist suppressor. I've posted many times about the unreliability of earwitness accounts and even related one of my most embarrassing moments related to reporting what I believed was a shotgun being fired close to my home. I've been writing about it in this thread for several years but evidently you learned nothing from it because you revisit the same earwitness jive over and over.

I'd say there is someone in this thread that not only doesn't know what they don't know they're unwilling to learn from someone that does.

Straight up, it may be I have more years of suppressor experience than you have years on this planet. 50+ years at this point. Who would be more likely to know the subject matter, the guy with 50 + years of hands on knowledge or the person who read about it from poorly informed sources?

The ventriloquist suppressor is possible, but your assertion is that there is no direct evidence for it.

What about Connally's repeated statements?

A. Connally said the shot that struck him occurred very shortly after first loud report he heard.

B. Connally said that he did not hear the shot that struck him.

C. Connally said that he heard two loud shots, the second one is apparently describing the z313 shot.

D. Connally said the single bullet theory could not be true unless the first loud shot missed.

E. Going to the dozens of other witnesses who gave a thorough description of the shooting, there is very little to zero indication that

F. I have not found any evidence for any loud report before Z190-224. Maybe Connally's quick head turn at z160 is something, but that can be discounted if it doesn't match the rest of the evidence.

I know about the phrase "you never hear the one that hits you", but show me any early statement by Connally describing what happened and try to fit it into a scenario without any loud shot before ~z190-224.

 

[MicahJava]

BTW the only reason I'm skeptical of the ventriloquist suppressor as a good explanation for the grassy knoll loud report phenomenon is because I have a hard time discounting all the statements about smoke on the knoll, some of them happening very early on on news reports and written statements/interview summaries.

 

[MicahJava]

Too bad you'll never be able to say anything unproving a shred of material from Talbot.

Back to the wounds, Bugliosi says that the autopsy doctors intentionally lied about the location of the entry wound because of personal spite from getting it wrong. Do you believe that BS?

No replies to this comment? Seriously. Reclaiming history, page 395.

Excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi:

How have the three autopsy pathologists reacted to this apparent gaffe in their report? Not very well, I’m afraid. By and large, most people don’t want to admit they made a mistake. The three autopsy surgeons were no exception.* When asked about the discrepancy in 1977, both Drs. Humes and Boswell repeated their 1964 testimony, insisting that the entrance wound was low in the skull (this time both said the wound was slightly below the external occipital protuberance)75 and that the photographs were misleading—a consistent theme in numerous subsequent interviews.76 An HSCA memo says that Dr. Humes, obviously reluctant to second-guess what he had written fourteen years earlier, stated categorically “that his physical measurements are correct and emphasized that he had access to the body itself and made the measurements of the actual head region.” In addition, he said that “photographs and X-rays have inherent limitations which are not present when one is examining the subject.”77 Also, in 1978, Dr. Finck testified to the HSCA that the entrance wound was low in the back of the head, identifying a small piece of white brain tissue, seen in autopsy photographs near the hairline, as the point of entry.78 Finck, too, pointed out to the committee that interpreting photographs of the body after the fact is never as good as examining the actual body, and chalked up the discrepancy as “the difference between the interpretation of photographs and the [actual] autopsy wounds.”79

Even Bugliosi didn't go so far as to claim the autopsy pathologists were simply wrong because of memory issues. Because that's stupid.

 

[smartcooky]

What about Connally's repeated statements?

A. Connally said the shot that struck him occurred very shortly after first loud report he heard.

The second shot struck him after he hears the first shot, that missed

Ever heard of the speed of sound....its 1100 fps

The muzzle velocity of a 6.5 x 52 round from a Mannlicher-Carcano is 2300 fps

DO THE MATH

B. Connally said that he did not hear the shot that struck him.

See previous comment

C. Connally said that he heard two loud shots, the second one is apparently describing the z313 shot.

Evidence?

The number of shots he heard is irrelevant. many people hear a different number of shots than were fired

D. Connally said the single bullet theory could not be true unless the first loud shot missed.

It did miss. Maybe he missed hearing the second one. Its sound would have arrived about 1/8 sec after he was hit. I think he would have been somewhat preoccupied at the time the sound arrived seeing as he had just suffered a bullet wound.

 

[smartcooky]

No replies to this comment?

There were replies... you just ignored them.

 

[applecorped]

This is not time we'll spent

 

[Axxman300]

BTW the only reason I'm skeptical of the ventriloquist suppressor as a good explanation for the grassy knoll loud report phenomenon is because I have a hard time discounting all the statements about smoke on the knoll, some of them happening very early on on news reports and written statements/interview summaries.

Guns have used smokeless powder since the late 1880's, so unless there were Civil War reinactors on the knoll there was no smoke.

There is no smoke visible in any of the footage in the minutes after the shooting. The smoke in the trees is a wive's tale, nothing more.

 

[RoboTimbo]

... I have a hard time discounting all the statements about smoke on the knoll..

Of course, that's what CTists do. What you should have a hard time doing is reconciling all the statements.

You have to not discount all the statements. That's how CTists maintain a sham veneer of relevance and keep the discussion going.

Shame, really.

 

[Axxman300]

The ventriloquist suppressor is possible, but your assertion is that there is no direct evidence for it.

That's because no qualified shooter in 1963 would have used one.

What about Connally's repeated statements?

What about them? The man was shot, he went into shock, so he's not a credible witness.

A. Connally said the shot that struck him occurred very shortly after first loud report he heard.

How long? Seconds? One second? A half a second? Oswald's first shot missed, so yeah, he'd have heard it.

B. Connally said that he did not hear the shot that struck him.

Nobody shot with a high powered rifle ever does, plus the screaming drowns out the report.

C. Connally said that he heard two loud shots, the second one is apparently describing the z313 shot.

So?

D. Connally said the single bullet theory could not be true unless the first loud shot missed.

He was hit by the second shot, so guess what? It's true, it happened.

F. I have not found any evidence for any loud report before Z190-224. Maybe Connally's quick head turn at z160 is something, but that can be discounted if it doesn't match the rest of the evidence.

Doesn't matter. The physical evidence, the ballistic evidence, and the pathology all points to Oswald.

I know about the phrase "you never hear the one that hits you", but show me any early statement by Connally describing what happened and try to fit it into a scenario without any loud shot before ~z190-224.

Easy:

Bullet strike's JFK, then Connally, followed by his wife screaming, Jackie screaming, the head-shot, more intense screaming, blood everywhere, brains everywhere, Connally in devastating from life-threatening GSW, then the acceleration of the limo.

Fits for me.

 

[BStrong]

BTW the only reason I'm skeptical of the ventriloquist suppressor as a good explanation for the grassy knoll loud report phenomenon is because I have a hard time discounting all the statements about smoke on the knoll, some of them happening very early on on news reports and written statements/interview summaries.

You have actually brushed up against reality, but by accident.

Outside of use on machineguns or submachine guns, suppressors on bolt action or semi auto rifles will virtually eliminate muzzle smoke/flash unless the piece is fired to the point the can gets seriously hot - a can will heat up over ambient temperature by approximately seven degrees per round. A shooter that limits their firing to 1 round per minute can put between 15-20 rounds downrange before the effectiveness of the can and the ability to suppress sound and dissipate muzzle flash/smoke is compromised.

Use a can in full auto, it gets loud quick and they glow real pretty.

 

[Axxman300]

No replies to this comment? Seriously. Reclaiming history, page 395.

Because it's OFF TOPIC.

You have to start a separate thread about Talbot's nincompoopery.

Even Bugliosi didn't go so far as to claim the autopsy pathologists were simply wrong because of memory issues. Because that's stupid.

Uncle Vince said Oswald acted alone.

 

[BStrong]

The ventriloquist suppressor is possible, but your assertion is that there is no direct evidence for it.

What about Connally's repeated statements?

It's a hell of a lot more than assertion, and how many times will I need to make this note?

Earwitness accounts of gunshots are subjective and unreliable. If I can be fooled, anybody with less experience is even more likely to be fooled.