single bullet theory is not true says Soily

[Soily]

Incredible as it sounds, there are steel jacketed bullets and copper jacketed bullets and they can both be fired from the same gun. Which part of history did you have me rewriting?


Cite?

Here's the WC photo of the Walker bullet http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Ce573.gif

Is that steel jacketed as the contemporary reports show?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Here's the WC photo of the Walker bullet http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Ce573.gif

Is that steel jacketed as the contemporary reports show?

There's that red herring (or pink salmon if you prefer) fallacy. I can't tell from the photo. It doesn't matter.

 

[Soily]

There's that red herring (or pink salmon if you prefer) fallacy. I can't tell from the photo. It doesn't matter.

It's not a pink salmon fallacy, it's more copper coloured. Please explain to everyone how steel, a silver coloured metallic compound, becomes copper coloured?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'm going to give you some time to catch up on your citations that have been asked for. No idea where you're going with steel and copper.

 

[riptowtan]

The Dallas Police Department's "General Offense Report," on April 10,1963, its first report on the Walker shooting, described the bullet as having a "steel jacketed bullet", whereas the 6.5 mm Mannlicher Carcano bullets were copper jacketed. Frazier told the Warren Commission that "some individuals commonly refer to rifle bullets as steel-jacketed bullets, when they actually in fact just have a copper alloy jacket"

Source: Reclaiming History pg. 695

 

[riptowtan]

We can know that Oswald attempted to murder General Walker because he confessed to Marina that he did so. Along with letters of instruction that Oswald left behind for Marina, and the photos he took of Walker's house, we have a pretty solid case linking Oswald to the assassination attempt of Walker.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The Dallas Police Department's "General Offense Report," on April 10,1963, its first report on the Walker shooting, described the bullet as having a "steel jacketed bullet", whereas the 6.5 mm Mannlicher Carcano bullets were copper jacketed. Frazier told the Warren Commission that "some individuals commonly refer to rifle bullets as steel-jacketed bullets, when they actually in fact just have a copper alloy jacket"

Source: Reclaiming History pg. 695

Ah, that makes sense now. Amazing how thin the threads they will grasp at become. So, red herring, as I said.

 

[Soily]

Source: Reclaiming History pg. 695

Haa nice, a classic example of Bugliosi waving away multiple contemporary police documents with an unverifiable personal opinion. That something that is coppered coloured would be described as steel, a silver coloured material is wishful thinking of the highest order. And besides, there are other aspects of the walker shooting that you are wishing away in your desperate attempts to have Oswald as the lone nut. From the HSCA final report:

According to a general offense report of the Dallas police, Walker reported at approximately 9:10 p.m. on April 10 1963, that a bullet had been fired through a first floor window of his home at 4011 Turtle Creek Boulevard, Dallas. Detectives subsequently found that a bullet had first shattered a window, then gone through a wall and had landed on a stack of papers in an adjoining room. In their report the detectives described the bullet as steel-jacketed of unknown caliber.

Police located a 14-year-old boy in Walker's neighborhood who said that after hearing the shot, he climbed a fence and looked into an alley to the rear of Walker's home. The boy said he then saw some men speeding down the alley in a light green or light blue Ford, either a 1959 or 1960 model. He said he also saw another car, a 1958 Chevrolet, black with white down the side, in a church parking lot adjacent to Walker's house. The car door was open, and a man was bending over the back seat, as though he was placing something on the floor of the car.

On the night of the incident, police interviewed Robert Surrey, an aide to Walker. Surrey said that on Saturday, April 6, at about 9 p.m., he had seen two men sitting in a dark purple or brown 1963 Ford at the rear of Walker's house. Surrey also said the two men got out of the car and walked around the house. Surrey said he was suspicious and followed the car, noting that it carried no license plate.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1c.html

And as Gerald McKnight points out in breach of trust Walker, an army general, actually held the bullet in his hand and didn't think it was the same bullet. He was so outraged that he wrote to the HSCA:

“The bullet before your Select Committee called the “Walker bullet” is not the Walker bullet. It is not the bullet that was fired at me and taken out of my house by the Dallas City Police on April 10, 1963.”

That the endlessly unreliable Marina Oswald said much later that Oswald told her he shot at Walker, and that a note of dubious provence that makes no mention of Walker turned up prove nothing.

Oswald may well have shot at Walker, but all the evidence shows us that if he did he had confederates and if he did the FBI 'finessed' the evidence somewhat. Obviously the lone nuts simply cannot accept this and have to cherry pick the evidence to fit the conclusion rather than have a conclusion that fits the totality of the evidence.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Source: Reclaiming History pg. 695

Original testimony:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0224a.htm

Mr. EISENBERG - Can you think of any reason why someone might have called this a steel-jacketed bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; except that some individuals commonly refer to rifle bullets as steel-jacketed bullets, when they actually in fact just have a copper-alloy jacket.

 

[Soily]

Original testimony:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0224a.htm

That's an unverifiable personal opinion been used to wave away contemporary police reports. This case wasn't investigated by a passing colour blind traffic cop, but trained homicide detectives. Walker held the bullet in his hand and said it wasn't the same bullet. Contemporary eyewitnesses describe men fleeing the scene in cars. The available evidence just does not support the WC conclusion.

 

[RoboTimbo]

That's an unverifiable personal opinion been used to wave away contemporary police reports. This case wasn't investigated by a passing colour blind traffic cop, but trained homicide detectives. Walker held the bullet in his hand and said it wasn't the same bullet. Contemporary eyewitnesses describe men fleeing the scene in cars. The available evidence just does not support the WC conclusion.

A 14 year old boy saw two different cars with three different people in them in two different locations. Why do you now describe them as "fleeing"? How were they related to the crime? Did you even read the citation given to you? You've been pretty lax at giving citations yourself.

 

[Soily]

A 14 year old boy saw two different cars with three different people in them in two different locations. Why do you now describe them as "fleeing"? How were they related to the crime? Did you even read the citation given to you? You've been pretty lax at giving citations yourself.

From your cherished Mcadams:

A Dallas Police report stated: "A witness by ear, Kirk Coleman, w/m 14 states he was sitting in the back room of his home and heard what sounded like a shot. (Illegible) up over the backyard fence and he looked onto the church parking lot he saw some unknown white male speed down the driveway towards Turtle Creek, in either 1949 or 1950 Ford, light green

General Edwin Walker believed OSWALD had accomplices: "There were two people in the alley and they were seen by a 15-year-old boy, that was a-carpenterin' with his daddy. The kid saw them sitting in the church parking lot, the two men got into their cars and sped away." [FBI DL-100-10461-6.8.64 Barrett & Lee; 11WH404; WCD 1124]

In May 1977 I questioned General Edwin Walker: "I don't think the Warren Commission would have found out if it was OSWALD unless they had to and were sure of that. He did not deliberately miss. He was dead on me with a telescopic sight. I didn't move. He hit the window framework and the bullet was deflected. There were two people in the alley and they were seen by a kid out in the alley 15 years old that was carpentering with his daddy and he told the police there were two men in the alley...there were two cars. The kid saw them sitting in the church parking lot, the two men got in the cars and drove away. I never heard of OSWALD or knew he was at a DRE meeting."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/nodule10.htm

Another problem you have is if, as you appear to, believe Marinas story. Because she said Oswald didn't know if he'd hit Walker or not and didn't find out until he heard about it on the radio. But Oswald's got a static target, Walkers head, in his telescopic sights at less than 30 metres. How could he possibly not know if he'd hit? The Kennedy shooter knew full well he hadn't killed him after the first shot and carried on firing, why didn't Oswald do that here?

 

[RoboTimbo]

From your cherished Mcadams:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/nodule10.htm

I've never quoted McAdams. Why were the cars speeding away? And why did you change it to "fleeing"?

Another problem you have is if, as you appear to, believe Marinas story. Because she said Oswald didn't know if he'd hit Walker or not and didn't find out until he heard about it on the radio. But Oswald's got a static target, Walkers head, in his telescopic sights at less than 30 metres. How could he possibly not know if he'd hit? The Kennedy shooter knew full well he hadn't killed him after the first shot and carried on firing, why didn't Oswald do that here?

That's actually a problem for you. Why did anyone miss, regardless of who the shooter was? We know Oswald was capable of missing. More problems for you, we still have Marina's testimony about Oswald's confession to it. We still have the note. We still have the bullet consistent with a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano.

 

[manxman]

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.

And so is yours.

Interesting stuff soily, never really taken much notice of jfk stuff, carry on son.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Your lucky day, Soily! You now have manxman on your side and you both seem to possess equal knowledge of the JFK assassination.

 

[manxman]

Who is Pat Speer, and why should I take his word? Is he a scientist? Does he specialize in ballistics? Like I've said, paraffin tests are a joke and do not prove anything. Address the very clear evidence I've presented you and try to answer some of the questions about the curtain rods i raised.

"Dr. Rachel Fortun, a forensic pathologist from the University of the Philippines (UP), told GMA news Friday night that experts debunked the paraffin test decades ago, saying other advanced countries currently use other methods.

The Supreme Court (SC), on the other hand, has repeatedly ruled that paraffin tests are inconclusive and cannot be solely used as basis in determining whether or not the subject in question actually fired a weapon."
http://archives.sunstar.com.ph/cebu/sc-finds-limited-value-paraffin-tests-evidence

Thats all handwaving rubbish.

All that matters is whether the rifle in question could be fired without leaving residue, it could not be fired at any point after its retrieval without leaving residue, its real easy.

It matters not one iota about other guns and other situations, only that rifle and that situation.

If oswald fired the rifle in question he would have had residue on him, no ifs or buts, the rifle could not be fired without leaving a residue.

All the handwaving in the world will not overcome that simple fact.

 

[Soily]

I've never quoted McAdams. Why were the cars speeding away? And why did you change it to "fleeing"?


That's actually a problem for you. Why did anyone miss, regardless of who the shooter was? We know Oswald was capable of missing. More problems for you, we still have Marina's testimony about Oswald's confession to it. We still have the note. We still have the bullet consistent with a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano.

Thats not a problem for me at all, because i'm not arguing Oswald wasn't involved. I'm arguing, based on the totality of the evidence that if he was involved he had confederates, who used different ammunition. I think the shot was much much easier than the jfk shooting - less than half the distance, a static target. Indicating either the shooter was very poor (which LNs can't argue), or they intended to miss and it was a stunt or an attempt to scare walker. And I still don't understand how if Oswald was the actual shooter, rather than just there, he didn't know if he'd hit Walker, despite having his head in his sights when he fired. Unless he was lying to Marina about not knowing? Oswald also supposedly told Marina he buried the rifle after trying to shoot Walker, another highly dubious detail. An assassin with a spade?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Do you do any homework at all on this?

Page 186

A fourth photograph, showing a stretch of railroad tracks, was also identified by Marina Oswald as having been taken by her husband, presumably in connection with the Walker shooting.725 Investigation determined that this photograph was taken approximately seven-tenths of a mile from Walker's house.726 Another photograph of railroad tracks found among Oswald's possessions was not identified by his wife, but investigation revealed that it was taken from a point slightly less than half a mile from General Walker's house.727 Marina Oswald stated that- when she asked her husband what be had done with the rifle, he replied that he had buried it in the ground or hidden it in some bushes and that he also mentioned a railroad track in this connection. She testified that several days later Oswald recovered his rifle and brought it back to their apartment.728

That's from Chapter 4. You should read it.

 

[Soily]

Do you do any homework at all on this?

That's from Chapter 4. You should read it.

Well which is it? Hidden in some bushes sounds more believable, albeit highly risky. 'Buried' sounds highly fanciful, that means he has to bury and dig up the rifle 4 times, without tools and without been seen. Still this is a petty detail, you have not addressed the more substantive points.

 

[Ranb]

The only evidence ever offered by the warren commission for the single bullet theory was essentially the endorsment of the reputable and respected men on the committee that it was likely.

This is incorrect. There was ballistic evidence and tests to support the theory. This is much more than the opinion of the men on the committee.

Neither the 3 civilians who found the bullet at parkland or the 2 secret service agents they gave it could ever identify CE399 as the bullet they found. Nathan Pool, Darrel Tomlinson and OP wright, the men who actually found the bullet all seperetly described the bullet they found as a point nose hunting round, not CE399.

I read that Tomlinson said it “appears to be the same one”. A failure to positively identify a small bullet does not mean it was not the one they found. Unless they had plenty of time to examine the bullet or take a photo, it is not surprising that they would not be sure of their identification. Where are you finding the statements made by these people?

The single bullet theory is an entirely evidence free fantasy that is utterly unbelievable on every single level.

That a 6.5mm bullet with a high cross sectional density can pass through two bodies and stay together for the most part is not utterly unbelievable. FMJ bullets are able to stay together and penetrate well. This part is very believable to those with some knowledge of ballistics.

Concerning the condition of fired test bullets;

Well Josepth Dolce, the warren commissions own expert's tests conclusively show otherwise.

Have more info on these tests?

The first bullet, which Oswald had the most time to set up, missed by an entire city block and disappeared into thin air, never to be seen again.

This is more than “misquoting” the Warren Commission. They quite plainly said “it follows that one shot probably missed the car and its occupants.” And “If the first shot missed, the assassin perhaps missed in an effort to fire a hurried shot before the President passed under the oak tree, or possible he fired as he President passed under the tree and, the tree obstructed his view.”

http://www.history-matters.com/archi...Vol3_0219a.htm pgs 428-440

You are misrepresenting what your source says about the presence of material on CE399. You should read it again and quote from it instead of just making up a statement about what it says.

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.

A paraffin test picks up nitrates and other chemicals from the pores of the skin. Testing the paraffin with diphenylamine or diphenylbenzidine to make the nitrates (or other substances) turn blue gives us a positive or negative result. Claiming that the paraffin test cannot give a false positive is foolish. Do you have anything to support this claim?

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. 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.

Several bits? Don’t you mean two? Remove four small screws and the action/barrel/scope separates from the stock. The small pieces and screws readily attach to the stock and action to prevent their loss, something a former Marine like Oswald would probably be familiar with. There is no reason to believe that grease or oil would be present on the paper. Although the rifle was described as well lubricated, I know from experience with my own Carcano that it only takes a single drop of oil on the bolt to make it operate smoothly.


If you spent as much time researching as you do saying sorry, then your arguments would make more sense.

Ranb