single bullet theory is not true says Soily

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Soily, how many bullets did Oswald fire?

 

[Soily]

Soily, how many bullets did Oswald fire?

Well we know Oswald himself almost certainly did not fire a rifle that day. A gun powder residue test was done of his face and was negative. Whilst the test is often critised as flawed, that is because it can in some circumstances produce false positives, ie nitrates can get on the skin in other innocent ways. It does not however produce false negatives, you can't have gun powder residue on your skin and it remain undetected. Furthermore, the FBI, frustrated at not finding nitrates on Oswald's cheek, subjected the paraffin cast to a whole slew of more advanced tests. All of them were negative. These tests were suppressed by the FBI and not shown to the Warren
Commision. Some lone nuts, like Bugliosi, have claimed that Oswalds cheap WW2 rifle was actually so finely tooled that it was airtight and no gun powder residue could escape. Unfortuntely, both the FBI and later American jurisprudence did a series of tests with the rifle. On every occasion test shooters were left with abundant gun powder residue on their cheeks.

So whilst you can construct a flimsy circumstantial case that Oswald fired the rifle, the hard physical evidence suggests he did not.

 

[dafydd]

Evidence that these supposed tests were suppressed by the FBI?

 

[Soily]

Evidence that these supposed tests were suppressed by the FBI?

I think the other tests on the cast were briefly mentioned at the WC but the implications are not mentioned at all. Instead the WC concentrates on the opinion of a few FBI agents who say they wouldn't even expect nitrates to be found on a cheek cast when Oswald's rifle was fired, an opinion their own tests showed was wrong. The point is the FBI knew their own tests were strongly exculpatory of Oswald and made false and misleading statements to the WC to hide this. Pat Speer has a very long and detailed article on all this on his website that well worth reading.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well we know Oswald himself almost certainly did not fire a rifle that day. A gun powder residue test was done of his face and was negative. Whilst the test is often critised as flawed, that is because it can in some circumstances produce false positives, ie nitrates can get on the skin in other innocent ways. It does not however produce false negatives, you can't have gun powder residue on your skin and it remain undetected. Furthermore, the FBI, frustrated at not finding nitrates on Oswald's cheek, subjected the paraffin cast to a whole slew of more advanced tests. All of them were negative. These tests were suppressed by the FBI and not shown to the Warren
Commision. Some lone nuts, like Bugliosi, have claimed that Oswalds cheap WW2 rifle was actually so finely tooled that it was airtight and no gun powder residue could escape. Unfortuntely, both the FBI and later American jurisprudence did a series of tests with the rifle. On every occasion test shooters were left with abundant gun powder residue on their cheeks.

So whilst you can construct a flimsy circumstantial case that Oswald fired the rifle, the hard physical evidence suggests he did not.

All that to defend your inability to count. Excellent. You get five chew-toy points.

 

[Soily]

All that to defend your inability to count. Excellent. You get five chew-toy points.

You asked me a direct question - how many bullets did Oswald fire? The physical evidence in the case suggest Oswald didn't fire a rifle so that's my answer to your question. Did you mean to ask how many shots were fired?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You asked me a direct question - how many bullets did Oswald fire? The physical evidence in the case suggest Oswald didn't fire a rifle so that's my answer to your question. Did you mean to ask how many shots were fired?

I wrote what I meant to write. Your denial of reality kicked in at that point.

 

[Soily]

I wrote what I meant to write. Your denial of reality kicked in at that point.

I think pretending the tests that suggest Oswald had not fired a rifle that day don't exist is denying reality.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think pretending the tests that suggest Oswald had not fired a rifle that day don't exist is denying reality.

Well, if you resolutely ignore the sum total of the evidence in a furious effort to rewrite history to suit your personal delusions you would be an expert at spotting denial of reality. But I doubt you'd recognize it when you spotted it.

 

[Soily]

Well, if you resolutely ignore the sum total of the evidence in a furious effort to rewrite history to suit your personal delusions you would be an expert at spotting denial of reality. But I doubt you'd recognize it when you spotted it.

A man, a gun, a dead body. It's obvious Oswald did it. Occam's razor? The simplest explanation is always the best right? The law of parsimony tends to appeal to the hard of thinking and the uninqisitive and all things been equal, the simplest solution is usually favourable, but correct solutions have to consider all the data, and not exclude dissenting information. A circumstantial case certainly can be constructed in favour of Oswald as a lone assassin, but only by excluding a whole slew of contradictory evidence. So all the witnesses that contradict your circumstantial case are wrong because they contradict. All the hard evidence that contradicts your circumstantial case is wrong because it contradicts. All the circumstantial evidence that contradicts your circumstantial case is wrong because it contradicts.

Sorry but that's not logic, it's dishonesty and prejudice.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sorry but that's not logic, it's dishonesty and prejudice.

So you're logical fallacies, as repeatedly explained to you, aren't dishonest and prejudiced? You are the last person to claim the moral high ground here, your agenda is obvious and pretty sad.

 

[JimBenArm]

Accusations of dishonesty and prejudice from a JFK conspiracy nut?
Next we'll have accusations of insanity from 9/11 conspiracy nuts.
Or accusations of stupidity from chemtrail nuts.

Gotta love the nutters.

Damn, now I'm all hungry for a Payday bar!

 

[RoboTimbo]

A man, a gun, a dead body. It's obvious Oswald did it. Occam's razor? The simplest explanation is always the best right? The law of parsimony tends to appeal to the hard of thinking and the uninqisitive and all things been equal, the simplest solution is usually favourable, but correct solutions have to consider all the data, and not exclude dissenting information. A circumstantial case certainly can be constructed in favour of Oswald as a lone assassin, but only by excluding a whole slew of contradictory evidence. So all the witnesses that contradict your circumstantial case are wrong because they contradict. All the hard evidence that contradicts your circumstantial case is wrong because it contradicts. All the circumstantial evidence that contradicts your circumstantial case is wrong because it contradicts.

Sorry but that's not logic, it's dishonesty and prejudice.

How did Oswald's rifle get into the building to begin with? Why did Oswald leave the book depository building after the shooting? Why did he try to shoot the officers in the theater? Why did he kill the other officer who stopped him in the street?

 

[Soily]

How did Oswald's rifle get into the building to begin with?

We don't know for sure. Whatever the answer it doesn't mean Oswald took the shots.

Why did Oswald leave the book depository building after the shooting?

Unknown.

Why did he try to shoot the officers in the theater?

No evidence he did. In a mealy and a tangled mess of arms and hands all trying to get hold of the revolver it may has appeared that way to some witnesses. However examination of the gun and bullet could find now evidence of any misfire.

Why did he kill the other officer who stopped him in the street?

If he did, it doesn't automatically follow he was the lone assassin of Kennedy. It's entirely consistent with other scenarios, such as Oswald realising he was set up.

 

[RoboTimbo]

How did Oswald's rifle get into the building to begin with?

We don't know for sure. Whatever the answer it doesn't mean Oswald took the shots.

Yes we do know for absolutely sure. Oswald carried it in wrapped in a bundle claiming them to be curtain rods. The empty wrapper was found on the sixth floor of the book depository. The wrapper had his palmprint on it and a fiber was found consistent with fibers from the blanket he kept his rifle wrapped in at Marina's home.

Why did Oswald leave the book depository building after the shooting?

Unknown.

Correct. We can't know the exact motivation without Oswald telling us but it would make sense that he would try to get far away from the scene of his crime.

Why did he try to shoot the officers in the theater?

No evidence he did. In a mealy and a tangled mess of arms and hands all trying to get hold of the revolver it may has appeared that way to some witnesses. However examination of the gun and bullet could find now evidence of any misfire.

Yes, there is evidence that he did. Oswald hit officer McDonald with his left hand while drawing the revolver out of his waistband with his right.

Why did he kill the other officer who stopped him in the street?

If he did, it doesn't automatically follow he was the lone assassin of Kennedy. It's entirely consistent with other scenarios, such as Oswald realising he was set up.

There is no 'if' about it. He killed officer JD Tippit with the same revolver that he was apprehended with in the theater. Four spent casings were found at that crime scene and identified as being fired from that revolver.

What else do you have to deny to make your story plausible?

 

[tsig]

Evidence that these supposed tests were suppressed by the FBI?

You didn't know about them so obviously they were suppressed.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Well we know Oswald himself almost certainly did not fire a rifle that day.

On the contrary, we know to an almost absolute certainty that Oswald fired the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle killing President Kennedy.

A gun powder residue test was done of his face and was negative. Whilst the test is often critised as flawed, that is because it can in some circumstances produce false positives, ie nitrates can get on the skin in other innocent ways. It does not however produce false negatives, you can't have gun powder residue on your skin and it remain undetected.

This is a red herring fallacy. The question isn't whether the test picks up on nitrates that are on the skin but whether someone firing the rifle would get nitrates on their cheek.

Furthermore, the FBI, frustrated at not finding nitrates on Oswald's cheek, subjected the paraffin cast to a whole slew of more advanced tests. All of them were negative. These tests were suppressed by the FBI and not shown to the Warren Commision.

Except for where they are discussed in detail in Appendix 10 pages 561-562 in the Report. I specifically direct you to a test done by the FBI:

In a third experiment, performed after the assassination, an agent of the FBI, using the C2766 rifle, fired three rounds of Western 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition in rapid succession. A paraffin test was then performed on both of his hands and his right cheek. Both of his hands and his cheek tested negative.

Pretty definitively you can fire a rifle and not get powder residue on your cheek.

Some lone nuts, like Bugliosi, have claimed that Oswalds cheap WW2 rifle was actually so finely tooled that it was airtight and no gun powder residue could escape. Unfortuntely, both the FBI and later American jurisprudence did a series of tests with the rifle. On every occasion test shooters were left with abundant gun powder residue on their cheeks.

I refer you again to the above Appendix.

So whilst you can construct a flimsy circumstantial case that Oswald fired the rifle, the hard physical evidence suggests he did not.

On the contrary, the hard physical evidence overwhelmingly points to him doing it.

 

[riptowtan]

Well we know Oswald himself almost certainly did not fire a rifle that day. A gun powder residue test was done of his face and was negative. Whilst the test is often critised as flawed, that is because it can in some circumstances produce false positives, ie nitrates can get on the skin in other innocent ways. It does not however produce false negatives, you can't have gun powder residue on your skin and it remain undetected. Furthermore, the FBI, frustrated at not finding nitrates on Oswald's cheek, subjected the paraffin cast to a whole slew of more advanced tests. All of them were negative. These tests were suppressed by the FBI and not shown to the Warren
Commision. Some lone nuts, like Bugliosi, have claimed that Oswalds cheap WW2 rifle was actually so finely tooled that it was airtight and no gun powder residue could escape. Unfortuntely, both the FBI and later American jurisprudence did a series of tests with the rifle. On every occasion test shooters were left with abundant gun powder residue on their cheeks.

So whilst you can construct a flimsy circumstantial case that Oswald fired the rifle, the hard physical evidence suggests he did not. .

Paraffin tests don't prove squat. They are about as useful if not less than a lie detector test. It is simply untrue that that paraffin tests do not produce false negatives. To rely upon the least reliable evidence and to ignore very good evidence is absurd. What do you think about the three construction workers on the 5th floor who heard the shells hit the ground right above their heads? What about the witnesses who saw a man sitting in the window with a rifle. Then there is all the physical evidence. Palm prints, finger prints, clothing fibers matched to the shirt Oswald was wearing, the fact that it was Oswald's rifle, the matching of the bullets to Oswald's gun to the exclusion of all other weapons. etc.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ptest.txt
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm

 

[RoboTimbo]

Paraffin tests don't prove squat. They are about as useful if not less than a lie detector test. It is simply untrue that that paraffin tests do not produce false negatives. To rely upon the least reliable evidence and to ignore very good evidence is absurd. What do you think about the three construction workers on the 5th floor who heard the shells hit the ground right above their heads? What about the witnesses who saw a man sitting in the window with a rifle. Then there is all the physical evidence. Palm prints, finger prints, clothing fibers matched to the shirt Oswald was wearing, the fact that it was Oswald's rifle, the matching of the bullets to Oswald's gun to the exclusion of all other weapons. etc.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ptest.txt
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm

Sorry for being late to the party, I don't normally monitor CT. Did I miss anything good?

 

[Soily]

Yes we do know for absolutely sure. *Oswald carried it in wrapped in a bundle claiming them to be curtain rods. *The empty wrapper was found on the sixth floor of the book depository. *The wrapper had his palmprint on it and a fiber was found consistent with fibers from the blanket he kept his rifle wrapped in at Marina's home.

No we do not know it for sure. You can quote Frazier's story about the cutain rods if you like, but he was also adamant the bag he glanced at that day was much too small to hold the disassembled rifle. Forgotten witness Essie Mae Williams was actually the first *to see oswald that day as he arrived at Wesley Frazier's house. She noticed no bag. Jack Dougherty who saw Oswald arrive at the TSBD noticed no bag. The crime scene photos right were the bag should be...there is no bag. The investigating offers who supposedly found the bag offer nothing but a hopelessly*confused miasma of contradictory statements about it's discovery. The paper photographed been taken out of the TSBD appears to be a different size and shape from the one in evidence. The bag in evidence contained no signs of there ever been anything in it, scratches, abrasions, oil, grease, dirt etc. This is despite it having several bits of a disassembled rifle rattling about in it for 5 miles on the back of Fraziers car.*

And let's just back up for a second and remember something. This bag was huge. just shy of 3 foot in length, it was more than half Oswald's own height. Oswald simply would not have been able to carry such a large package without it been incredibly conspicuous. It'd either go right over his head or be scraping along the floor. If someone was carrying such a weirdly large bag, causing them to struggle to carry it people would notice it. Yet he strolls into the TSBD, past witnesses, and nobody notices or remembers it. And Frazier himself could not see such a conspicuously enormous bag and mistake it for a smaller one, as he still maintains to this day.*

Yes, there is evidence that he did. *Oswald hit officer McDonald with his left hand while drawing the revolver out of his waistband with his right.

Sorry but we just don't know what happened with any certainty. It was a melée, punches were flying, a tangled mess of bodies. Understandably the witness statements tell many different stories and are just not reliable. The pysical evidence shows there was no misfire, everything else is conjecture, so the statement that oswald*tried to shoot a policeman at the theatre is tendentious nonsense. *

There is no 'if' about it. *He killed officer JD Tippit with the same revolver that he was apprehended with in the theater. *Four spent casings were found at that crime scene and identified as being fired from that revolver.

Sorry there are plenty of ifs about that. There are all sort of problems with the case against oswald in the tippit murder, but on balance i think he probably did shoot Tippit. I can't have my gunshot residue evidence that is excuplary of Oswald shooting Kennedy if I don't also accept that that same evidence shows he fired a handgun that day. But as a case, there are so many problems with it I think you would struggle if it had ever gone to court.*