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

[smartcooky]

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.

It must be a real bugger being a CT when you claim to know what you are talking about on a subject, only to run into someone who actually DOES know what they are talking about, and who then promptly trashes your claimed knowledge.

I love it!!

 

[pgwenthold]

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.

I'm unclear. AFAIK, Connolly's statements are perfectly consistent with the narrative.

1) He heard a shot. It didn't hit him.

2) He was hit by a bullet, but he didn't hear it. Not surprising, because he had just been hit by a bullet, fractions of a second before the sound would arrive.

3) He heard another shot. This was after the first two, and was not the shot of the bullet that hit him.

What's the problem? That he didn't hear the second shot? He only heard two shots. The majority of the witnesses heard three, so it's not as if the second shot wasn't made and used a silencer.

Moreover, we have an explanation for why Connolly didn't hear the second shot. A bullet ripped through his body in three places. His body was responding to that, it's not surprising his ears weren't attuned to specific noises.

Meanwhile, other people who weren't responding to the shock of being shot heard three shots fired. Connolly accounts for all three of them. Heard 2, felt 1.

 

[pgwenthold]

It must be a real bugger being a CT when you claim to know what you are talking about on a subject, only to run into someone who actually DOES know what they are talking about, and who then promptly trashes your claimed knowledge.

I love it!!

Pablo's First Law of Internet Discussion: Regardless of the topic, assume someone participating knows more about it than you do.

 

[turingtest]

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.

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.

Hell, CTists like MJ have a hard time reconciling their own statements, much less anyone else's- his post above is a good example of that. First he introduces a scenario (ventriloquist suppressors) which has no evidence to support it only because he needs it to explain what he thinks is effectively an anomaly in the ear-witness accounts which might point to conspiracy (but which is really only the kind of discrepancy to be expected from witness testimonies). But this scenario of a ventriloquist suppressor implies a conspiracy which worked to keep the real shooter's location hidden. And now MJ's skeptical of that because of "evidence" for another type of conspiracy that doesn't even make any sense, and is directly opposite to the first one- now we have a conspiracy posited which not only puts the real shooter in a location (the knoll) where he could be easily seen, but gives him a rifle emitting smoke, which makes his location even more obvious. Meantime, the "patsy" (Oswald) is in a location where he can't be so easily seen, in a building six stories up, and firing a rifle that uses smokeless powder. Uh huh...

The whole thing is an illustration of the fact that CTists aren't interested in resolving any mystery, only in creating one where none exists and then maintaining it at any cost, even when the cost is the complete loss of basic logic. They'll blithely bounce from a scenario that has no evidence to one that makes no sense, and contradicts the essence of the first, without any thought of consistency beyond what's needed to keep the CT going.

 

[HSienzant]

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

Nobody has to disprove your assertions, you need to prove them. Let's see how you try to do that. You cite the Governor as suggesting that, but only by selecting from the record incompletely and falsely.

What about Connally's repeated statements?

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

Never said that. In fact the Governor said the opposite.

To the Warren Commission:
Governor CONNALLY. It was a very brief span of time; oh, I would have to say a matter of seconds. I don't know, 10, 12 seconds (reminder: he thought there were THREE shots, that works out to five or six seconds between shots).

To the HSCA:
Mr. CONNALLY. Congressman, you know, I think it is impossible for me to say with precision, but obviously a very short period of time, a matter of seconds, because it was, you know, I think undoubtedly a fairly fluid movement. I heard the shot, I reacted by looking, I saw nothing, and I was in the process of turning when I felt the impact. I guess 6, 8, or 10 seconds, in that range, but I certainly couldn't be more precise than that, but it wasn't long. (Reminder: That works out to three to five seconds between shots).
Mr. DODD. Could it have been a second? What you are telling me it is more like 2, 3, 4 seconds. It wasn't something that happened almost instantaneously?
Mr. CONNALLY. No, it was not. It could not have been 1 second.

So much for your "shortly" argument. I've asked you to cite for that previously. You never did. Here you resurrect the claim but you have never cited for it.

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

Agreed. He put that as the second shot. He said the first one did not strike him. He attributed that to the fact that he was struck with a bullet that went through his body, causing five wounds. He didn't attribute that to a suppressed weapon. Once again, we see you disagreeing with the very witness you cite as your supposed evidence for your claim.

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

Agreed, of the three shots, the second he heard was the one that hit JFK in the head. Note you're citing a guy who didn't say there were two shots to the head to support your claim there were two shots to the head, one from a suppressed weapon.

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

Missed him, yes. And he never wavered from that claim.

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

Of what? That the first shot missed? How would most witnesses know? Many were dozens of yards from the limo thoroughout the shooting sequence, and did have a view INTO the limo. Since all of the Governor's wounds were near or below the side of the limo, they could only judge the wounding by the reactions. Nobody can see a bullet that travels faster than sound. The Z-film couldn't record it. They can only judge the results after they see the reactions. In addition, nobody was expecting a shooting, and some witnesses heard no shots whatsoever.

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.

What "rest of the evidence"? You have none.

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.

Begging the question. This is you trying to shift the burden of proof once more. You're now asking us to cite the evidence for YOUR theory.

Sigh. Conspiracy theorists can't operate without logical fallacies.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I'm unclear. AFAIK, Connolly's statements are perfectly consistent with the narrative.

1) He heard a shot. It didn't hit him.

2) He was hit by a bullet, but he didn't hear it. Not surprising, because he had just been hit by a bullet, fractions of a second before the sound would arrive.

3) He heard another shot. This was after the first two, and was not the shot of the bullet that hit him.

What's the problem? That he didn't hear the second shot? He only heard two shots. The majority of the witnesses heard three, so it's not as if the second shot wasn't made and used a silencer.

Moreover, we have an explanation for why Connolly didn't hear the second shot. A bullet ripped through his body in three places. His body was responding to that, it's not surprising his ears weren't attuned to specific noises.

Meanwhile, other people who weren't responding to the shock of being shot heard three shots fired. Connolly accounts for all three of them. Heard 2, felt 1.

 

[HSienzant]

Some of those "better conditions" objections are pretty specious anyway. For example-

The oak tree was out of the way by, what, Z210? If you want to duplicate LHO's timing and accuracy, then it makes no sense to impose an obstacle on the re-enactors that Oswald didn't have by the time he began his shooting (or at least by the time the first effect of any shot can be seen).

Taking these two together (a little out of order, but the same idea applies to both)- I'll admit, I'm no rifleman, but it seems to me that these "better conditions" are actually worse ones. As a very crude analogy, shooting a fish in a barrel is harder if you make the angle shallower, shooting more across than down. As for the "stationary target" thing- because Oswald was shooting at that steeper angle at a target moving downward and away in effectively a straight line, his target was, in fact, relatively stationary in respect to him- his own movement was minimized. But shooting at actually stationary targets, at different distances at a shallower angle, means that that the rifleman- the re-enactor- had to move to compensate for the target not doing so. And remember, these re-enactors, unlike Oswald, weren't familiar with the action of the bolt of the trigger- from here:

To sum up- re-enactors having to move themselves and a rifle they were unfamiliar with to simulate the movement of a target is not a "better condition" than Oswald firing a rifle he'd practiced with at a target that was in a position throughout which minimized his own movements.

Next "better condition"-

They could have been ten feet square for all the difference this makes- if the issue is accuracy, then the placing of the hits is what matters, not how big the surrounding area is.


This whole "shims" issue is a red herring- from what I can understand, they were placed because the rifle, as received by the labs, was difficult to test in that condition. But (from here, near the bottom of the page):

(My bold)
So the "shims" issue is framed as a "better condition" only on the assumption that the rifle as received, and needing correction for testing, was the same as the way Oswald used it.

Finally-

Gotta love this one. Not only does it assume that the "pressure of killing a President" would have been a significant obstacle to Oswald in achieving what was, after all, his aim- the idea seems to be that the only equitable condition for the re-enactors to duplicate the accuracy and timing required to kill a President would have been for them to kill another one. I can just hear that conversation with LBJ-

"Mr. President, would you mind awfully going back down to Dallas for a bit and riding down Elm St. in that limo?...Well, sir, we need to re-enact as exactly as possible the conditions of the assassination, which requires our enactors to fire at a President in the car...Well, yes sir- live fire, actual bullets and all that...What's that, Mr. President? Suck your what?"

Absolutely. And it should be pointed out that this is not the first time MicahJava has cited the same opinion of the same conspiracy theorist. Nor is it the first time we saw those arguments dismantled.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11876374&postcount=364

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11767387&postcount=2721

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11769818&postcount=2778


It's just him doing his standard fringe reset once more.

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

Here's part two of the interview with Secret Service Agent Mike Howard:

http://www.pressargus.com/news/20180227/secret-service-agent-remembers-jfk-assassination---part-ii

There is some interesting details in here, like being assigned to protect Marina Oswald, and his mother, and brother by LBJ after the assassination.

He makes this allegation:

Part of what they reviewed was Oswald’s notebook. Howard said it contained statements that Oswald would kill FBI agent James Hosty, John Connelly, Gen. Edwin Walker and vice president Nixon.

Followed by this ditty:

Do you have any reservations about the Commission’s findings, I asked? “Oh no. They tried their best with what information they had. They failed to put one thing in there that was a dead ringer and that was what was in his notebook, where someone had torn out the page where he said he was going to kill these people. Someone tore that page out between the time it left our hands and when it got to the Warren Commission. It (the notebook) went through the FBI, which is who we turned it over to.“

I can't speak to the truth of the matter, but this is how you do history; one piece at a time weighed with the larger body of evidence.

There is another story from The Daily Star, a UK publication, dated Feb, 22, 2018, about new technology that - allegedly - can pull finger prints from bullets.

I can't post a link because the source is NSFW due to tons of links to female nudity. So hunt it down with caution.

 

[HSienzant]

Here's part two of the interview with Secret Service Agent Mike Howard:

http://www.pressargus.com/news/20180227/secret-service-agent-remembers-jfk-assassination---part-ii

There is some interesting details in here, like being assigned to protect Marina Oswald, and his mother, and brother by LBJ after the assassination.

He makes this allegation:

Part of what they reviewed was Oswald’s notebook. Howard said it contained statements that Oswald would kill FBI agent James Hosty, John Connelly, Gen. Edwin Walker and vice president Nixon.

Followed by this ditty:

Do you have any reservations about the Commission’s findings, I asked? “Oh no. They tried their best with what information they had. They failed to put one thing in there that was a dead ringer and that was what was in his notebook, where someone had torn out the page where he said he was going to kill these people. Someone tore that page out between the time it left our hands and when it got to the Warren Commission. It (the notebook) went through the FBI, which is who we turned it over to.“

I can't speak to the truth of the matter, but this is how you do history; one piece at a time weighed with the larger body of evidence.

There is another story from The Daily Star, a UK publication, dated Feb, 22, 2018, about new technology that - allegedly - can pull finger prints from bullets.

I can't post a link because the source is NSFW due to tons of links to female nudity. So hunt it down with caution.

Oh, my.

It's certainly a much better story Howard's way. But it's not close to the truth.

That's what 54 years of recollection, hearsay, and rumor does to a story. Plus, I guess, the urge to tell a good story, with the premise that nobody can verify it at this late date.

FBI Agent James Hosty had interviewed Ruth Paine in his attempt to track down where Lee Oswald was living. Hosty was informed Oswald had been living at the Paines, but only Marina and her child were living there.

Oswald had left only a phone number where he could be reached, but forgot to mention that he was living at 1026 North Beckley under an alias.

Hosty left his card with his contact number on it, asking Ruth to call him if she found out where Oswald was living, and Ruth Paine passed it to Oswald. Marina was instructed to write down the license plate if Hosty visited again, and she did the next time Hosty came by. All that information eventually found its way to Oswald's little address book.

The FBI transcribed & translated Oswald's address book (a lot was in Russian) and sent the transcription to the Warren Commission, but omitted the page with Hosty's information in it. Their excuse was the origin of that information and how it got into Oswald's phone book was known, and hence, there was no need for the Warren Commission to investigate that.

When they found out about it, the Warren Commission was rightly suspicious of that as detailed in the notes of one executive meeting: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0224/html/WcEx0224_0004a.htm

This was at a time when the rumor was circulated (started by newsman Alonzo Hudkins in his urge to get a 'scoop') that Oswald was an informant for the FBI. There is no evidence to support that claim. None. But the Warren Commission didn't know that at the time.

The FBI eventually turned over the entire phone book to the Commission and it became a Commission Exhibit. CE18, in fact. No page was torn out.

Here's the page of Oswald's address book with Hosty's name. None of the BS about killing anyone, nothing about Connally, Nixon, Walker, or anyone else (scroll to the bottom of the page):

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0044b.htm

Hank

 

[BStrong]

I'm unclear. AFAIK, Connolly's statements are perfectly consistent with the narrative.

1) He heard a shot. It didn't hit him.

2) He was hit by a bullet, but he didn't hear it. Not surprising, because he had just been hit by a bullet, fractions of a second before the sound would arrive.

3) He heard another shot. This was after the first two, and was not the shot of the bullet that hit him.

What's the problem? That he didn't hear the second shot? He only heard two shots. The majority of the witnesses heard three, so it's not as if the second shot wasn't made and used a silencer.

Moreover, we have an explanation for why Connolly didn't hear the second shot. A bullet ripped through his body in three places. His body was responding to that, it's not surprising his ears weren't attuned to specific noises.

Meanwhile, other people who weren't responding to the shock of being shot heard three shots fired. Connolly accounts for all three of them. Heard 2, felt 1.

I was attempting not to discount Connolly, but to explain for the FSM only knows how many times that using contradictions in earwitness accounts as "evidence" is inherently unreliable. Connolly is an exception because the extent of his involvement as a shooting victim makes his account credible.

 

[MicahJava]

Nobody has to disprove your assertions, you need to prove them. Let's see how you try to do that. You cite the Governor as suggesting that, but only by selecting from the record incompletely and falsely.


Never said that. In fact the Governor said the opposite.

To the Warren Commission:
Governor CONNALLY. It was a very brief span of time; oh, I would have to say a matter of seconds. I don't know, 10, 12 seconds (reminder: he thought there were THREE shots, that works out to five or six seconds between shots).

Hank, that is very, very nasty of you. Here is the full quote from John Connally in context:

Mr. SPECTER. Governor Connally, I hand you a photograph, marked Commission Exhibit 699, which is an overhead shot of Dealey Plaza depicting the intersection of Houston and Elm, and ask you if you would take a look at that photograph and mark for us, if you would, with one of the red pencils at your right, the position of the President's automobile as nearly as you can where it was at the time the shooting first started.

Governor CONNALLY. I would say it would be about where this truck is here. It looks like a truck. I would say about in that neighborhood.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you place your initials, Governor, by the mark that you made there?

Governor, you have described hearing a first shot and a third shot. Did you hear a second shot?

Governor CONNALLY. No; I did not.

Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate as to the timespan between the first shot which you heard and the shot which you heretofore characterized as the third shot?

Governor CONNALLY. It was a very brief span of time; oh, I would have to say a matter of seconds. I don't know, 10, 12 seconds. It was extremely rapid, so much so that again I thought that whoever was firing must be firing with an automatic rifle because of the rapidity of the shots; a very short period of time.

I don't know why I even try with you. You know what, I would laugh so hard if you tried to pull the "I made an honest mistake and conspiracy theorists always think mistakes are malicious" routine right now. I would laugh so hard.

Also, here is Commission Exhibit 699, from the same paragraph you quoted from, where Connally placed the first loud shot occurring with the limousine in the z190-224 area, circled below.

Please fix your first major mistake before we can talk about your others.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Hank, that is very, very nasty of you. Here is the full quote from John Connally in context:

Mr. SPECTER. Governor Connally, I hand you a photograph, marked Commission Exhibit 699, which is an overhead shot of Dealey Plaza depicting the intersection of Houston and Elm, and ask you if you would take a look at that photograph and mark for us, if you would, with one of the red pencils at your right, the position of the President's automobile as nearly as you can where it was at the time the shooting first started.

Governor CONNALLY. I would say it would be about where this truck is here. It looks like a truck. I would say about in that neighborhood.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you place your initials, Governor, by the mark that you made there?

Governor, you have described hearing a first shot and a third shot. Did you hear a second shot?

Governor CONNALLY. No; I did not.

Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate as to the timespan between the first shot which you heard and the shot which you heretofore characterized as the third shot?

Governor CONNALLY. It was a very brief span of time; oh, I would have to say a matter of seconds. I don't know, 10, 12 seconds. It was extremely rapid, so much so that again I thought that whoever was firing must be firing with an automatic rifle because of the rapidity of the shots; a very short period of time.

I don't know why I even try with you. You know what, I would laugh so hard if you tried to pull the "I made an honest mistake and conspiracy theorists always think mistakes are malicious" routine right now. I would laugh so hard.

Also, here is Commission Exhibit 699, from the same paragraph you quoted from, where Connally placed the first loud shot occurring with the limousine in the z190-224 area, circled below.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/AKBIEl1.png[/qimg]

Please fix your first major mistake before we can talk about your others.

Erm... You do realise this fits precisely with the quote Hank posted?

He posted an estimate of 6, 8, or ten seconds between two shots.
You post a different quote suggesting 10 to 12 seconds for all three shots.

Given both are just his subjective estimates, and accounting for variation, all we can conclude is that he thought there was a longer gap between the first and second shot, than the second and third.

None of which helps your vague innuendos of conspiracy.

 

[MicahJava]

Erm... You do realise this fits precisely with the quote Hank posted?

He posted an estimate of 6, 8, or ten seconds between two shots.
You post a different quote suggesting 10 to 12 seconds for all three shots.

Given both are just his subjective estimates, and accounting for variation, all we can conclude is that he thought there was a longer gap between the first and second shot, than the second and third.

None of which helps your vague innuendos of conspiracy.

Connally always said that he was struck only a brief moment after the first loud shot he heard. A few moments after that, the final loud "third" shot (around the time of z313). Hank took Connally's description of the space between the time he was struck and the final loud shot he heard and quoted it as if he was describing the time between the first loud shot and the unheard shot that struck him.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Connally always said that he was struck only a brief moment after the first loud shot he heard. A few moments after that, the final loud "third" shot (around the time of z313). Hank took Connally's description of the space between the time he was struck and the final loud shot he heard and quoted it as if he was describing the time between the first loud shot and the unheard shot that struck him.

We know exactly what was said. Your attempt to skew context doesn't work.

Hank stated the time (for all three shots) was 10 to 12 seconds.
He applied FURTHER context with the HSCA exchange.

Once again you are using a subjective word like "slightly" and trying to make it fit the version of events you want to believe.

You have no interest of actually reading what was said, and considering if Connally said what you claim, or if he *always* said that.

 

[Axxman300]

Hank, that is very, very nasty of you. Here is the full quote from John Connally in context:

This is hilarious...watch as MJ shoots himself in the foot...again...

Governor, you have described hearing a first shot and a third shot. Did you hear a second shot?

Governor CONNALLY. No; I did not.

He didn't hear the second shot because it struck him and JFK.

Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate as to the timespan between the first shot which you heard and the shot which you heretofore characterized as the third shot?

Governor CONNALLY. It was a very brief span of time; oh, I would have to say a matter of seconds. I don't know, 10, 12 seconds. It was extremely rapid, so much so that again I thought that whoever was firing must be firing with an automatic rifle because of the rapidity of the shots; a very short period of time.[/color]

We all know that 10-12 seconds was plenty of time for Oswald to make his shots, so what MJ just did was confirm the Warren Commission's findings while trying to argue against them.

Classic.

I don't know why I even try with you.

We're asking the same question.

Please fix your first major mistake before we can talk about your others.

Another classic, comedy gold.

 

[MicahJava]

I think you have bad reading comprehension.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I think you have bad reading comprehension.

So you're still unable to comprehend questions and answer them?

Sad, really.

 

[bknight]

I think you have bad reading comprehension.

I think you have logical decision making abilities, posted from all your logical fallacies. As Axxman300 and Tomtomkent have posted your version of the proceedings and Hank's are nearly identical and fall inline with the actual events.

Given the timespan that JBC looked the image, any of the vehicles could have marked where they were. Memories fade as time passes, get this through your CT mind.

 

[smartcooky]

Erm... You do realise this fits precisely with the quote Hank posted?

He posted an estimate of 6, 8, or ten seconds between two shots.
You post a different quote suggesting 10 to 12 seconds for all three shots.

Given both are just his subjective estimates, and accounting for variation, all we can conclude is that he thought there was a longer gap between the first and second shot, than the second and third.

None of which helps your vague innuendos of conspiracy.

Not to mention that people hugely under and over estimate very short periods of time. I've heard people claim that things took several seconds, when in fact they took less that a second. For example for anyone who knows about American Football, back in 1994 there was a QB called Kordell Stewart (Colorado) who threw a 79 yard (in the air) "Hail Mary" 64 yd TD pass against Michigan. When you ask people who have previously seen the video, how long the pass was in the air, most people answer in the 7 to 10 second region. The actual pass was in the air less less than 3 seconds.

However, there is another simple reason why 12 seconds is simply out of the question. The Presidential Limo was travelling at 12 mph (established fact). That is 17.6 feet per second. If there was a 12 second gap between the first and second shots (no matter where those shots came from) the Limo would have travelled 12 x 17.6 = 211 feet. This would put it near the entrance to the triple underpass, and just about inside two seconds (35 ft) later for the kill shot.

 

[MicahJava]

Not to mention that people hugely under and over estimate very short periods of time. I've heard people claim that things took several seconds, when in fact they took less that a second. For example for anyone who knows about American Football, back in 1994 there was a QB called Kordell Stewart (Colorado) who threw a 79 yard (in the air) "Hail Mary" 64 yd TD pass against Michigan. When you ask people who have previously seen the video, how long the pass was in the air, most people answer in the 7 to 10 second region. The actual pass was in the air less less than 3 seconds.

However, there is another simple reason why 12 seconds is simply out of the question. The Presidential Limo was travelling at 12 mph (established fact). That is 17.6 feet per second. If there was a 12 second gap between the first and second shots (no matter where those shots came from) the Limo would have travelled 12 x 17.6 = 211 feet. This would put it near the entrance to the triple underpass, and just about inside two seconds (35 ft) later for the kill shot.

Not to mention that ignoring Connally's statements can't undue them.