single bullet theory is not true says Soily

[RoboTimbo]

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.

You didn't have a substantive point.

 

[riptowtan]

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?

Just because there were cars that took off after the shooting, it doesn't follow that they were connected to the crime. They could have taken off because they heard or saw someone with a gun. Who would Oswald's confederates even be? Oswald's shot missed because the bullet hit part of the window frame. If it weren't for that deflection of a few inches, he would have hit him.

 

[bynmdsue]

That something that is coppered coloured would be described as steel, a silver coloured material is wishful thinking of the highest order.

I'm looking at a box of steel jacketed ammo right now that are copper colored.

 

[uk_dave]

I'm looking at a box of steel jacketed ammo right now that are copper colored.

Don't do it!! You have so much to live for.....

 

[Soily]

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.

No, the whole Specter theory was concocted on the basis of fraudulently moving the back wound up by 6 inches - http://i47.tinypic.com/fpbkt4.jpg and lying about the position of Kennedy. Indeed the autopsy didn't even bother to find out of the back and neck wound were linked, instead suggesting that the back wound was shallow. Later 3d cartoon recreations acknowledge this lie and turn kennedy into a hunchback tieing his shoelaces in order to ram the facts into the theory.

I read that Tomlinson said it “appears to be the same one”.

That's from the fictitious FBI memo to the Warren Commission that details events that never happened. None of the 3 civilians or the FBI agents who handed it that day could ever identify the bullet as CE399. Its all in that Garry Aguilar and Josiah Thompson article I posted earlier. There genuinely isnt any evidence that CE399 was found at Parkland or fired at Kennedy.

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.

Where's the bullet that did this and what evidence is there that it was ever fired at Kennedy and Connelly, was ever in either of their bodies and could in anyway be linked to them?

Concerning the condition of fired test bullets;

Have more info on these tests?

The ballistics test were done by the WCs expert, I posted a link early to an interview with him. Wecht goes through it with the test bullets here http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7482146129368381942 And even if the tests were not 100% accurate as some on here have claimed the argument that that highly dubious bullet did those wounds its still completely and utterly ridiculous on every level.

Regarding the paraffin tests, as I said before these weren't 'the paraffin test' but more advanced tests including NAA which are still used today. The Pat Speer chapter I posted earlier is the most detailed article I've ever read on the subject and goes through the whole thing with multiple references and original test results. The FBI did tests with the same rifle - nitrates on face every time and Vincent Guinn did some tests.

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.”

Wow, incredible amount of conjecture. Why can't they just admit they haven't got a clue? Also doesn't explain why Oswald didn't just shoot Kennedy when he was right in front of him before the turn. Also doesn't explain why the FBI, who actually did the investigation for the Warren commission, had a different shooting pattern with no missed shots. Doesn't explain how, even amongst the WC supporters, they have a million and 1 completely different scenarios for the shot pattern. Or how most of the witnesses have two of the shots right on top of each other. The SBT is an act of faith, because in truth nobody has got a bloody clue what the shooting pattern was beyond the fatal headshot.

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.

It says there was nothing on the bullet, it was 'clean'. Indeed the reason for this would probably be because that was not the bullet found at parkland.

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?

I've already gone through this. You need to read the links. We don't need the science lesson, we know what it does. And the tests conducted were actually not prone to false negatives or positives:

According to Larry Ragle, a retired Director of Forensic Sciences for Santa Ana, California, in his 1995 book Crime Scene, as NAA grew in acceptance, "the historical method of painting heated paraffin on the hands of the suspect shooter was selected as the method of choice" for collecting the residue. While this method of gunshot reside detection was prohibitively costly, and replaced almost entirely by the use of Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometers (AA) in the 70's and Scanning Electron Microscopes (SEM) in the 90's, I have found nothing to indicate that NAA tests for gunshot residue were prone to false positives or negatives, as would often occur with the standard paraffin test for nitrates performed in Dallas. A September 1990 article in the Journal of Forensic Science by Havekorst, Peters and Koons, for example, describes a study in which 267 random sets of hands were sampled using NAA or AA (which was generally considered a cheaper and slightly inferior alternative to NAA). Less than 2 percent of these came up positive.

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.

Ian Griggs has an identical rifle to the Oswald rifle and he actually did an experiment with it and a paper bag here in the article I posted earlier - http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/15th_Issue/pbag2.html

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

Ranb

Mmm may I cordially suggest you actually do a bit more research yourself, or at the very least have the courtesy to read the things I'm posting, which you quite obviously aren't because you keep asking questions that are addressed in those articles and links. You're perfectly entitled to disagree with anything I say, but at least read the arguments before you do.

 

[sadhatter]

So you, like many CTers i've encountered, think that people, when asked to recall something they experienced during a traumatic situation, never ever make mistakes when asked to describe what they remember?

Hate to bust your bubble, but they simply could have been mistaken. It's not a big secret these days that peoples recollections and witnesses perceptions are more often flawed than not, especially when the experience was stressful and chaotic or happened very quickly.

i hate when the cters use this logic, my only explanation is that they have never experienced a traumatic situation.

About 2 years ago i got into a car wreck ( it was actually in a swift article) and first off i find when i tell the story, if i have anyone else that was with me, our descriptions vary a bit. And not only that but during the wreck itself i was so disoriented i thought i lost a leg, and an eye at one point.

a traumatic situation is the worst possible place to expect consistency of statements. I think if cters would realize this it would clear up a lot of problems.

 

[Soily]

I'm looking at a box of steel jacketed ammo right now that are copper colored.

Out of interest, would you describe this as steel jacketed?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Ce399-1.gif
Also, according to Sylvia Meagher, Ira Van Cleave one of the detectives on the Walker case told the press it was a 30.06 http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/the_critics/meagher/Notes_for_a_new_investigation.html
What about Walker, do you think a former General would be familiar with ammo?

 

[Soily]

i hate when the cters use this logic, my only explanation is that they have never experienced a traumatic situation.

About 2 years ago i got into a car wreck ( it was actually in a swift article) and first off i find when i tell the story, if i have anyone else that was with me, our descriptions vary a bit. And not only that but during the wreck itself i was so disoriented i thought i lost a leg, and an eye at one point.

a traumatic situation is the worst possible place to expect consistency of statements. I think if cters would realize this it would clear up a lot of problems.

The total lack of self awareness there is absolutely hilarious.

LNs are perfectly happy to accept as accurate the testimony of people in exactly the same circumstances you describe when it supports what they argue. Like Brennan, Helen Markham, the police at the Texas Theatre etc? Even when its incredibly contradictory.

You can't have it both ways.

Would you also agree that witness testimony that is corroborated by something else is a lot more sound? So when Bardwell Odum says categorically that he never interviewed the men at the hospital about CE399 and indeed never even had the bullet in his possession and this account is backed up by the complete absense of any FBI reports, even though the reports are listed numerically with no gaps? And when their contemporary inability or unwillingness to identify the bullet are recorded in suppressed FBI memos?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Out of interest, would you describe this as steel jacketed?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Ce399-1.gif

Nope, that's copper jacket. Looks like the one that went through Kennedy and then Connelly that Oswald shot them with.

Also, according to Sylvia Meagher, Ira Van Cleave one of the detectives on the Walker case told the press it was a 30.06 http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/the_critics/meagher/Notes_for_a_new_investigation.html

Which, as I earlier explained, is a silly ass thing to tell the press. It wasn't .30 caliber and even if it were, you wouldn't know which .30 caliber it was. Refer back to my earlier explanation if you're still unsure about it.

out Walker, do you think a former General would be familiar with ammo?

What about Robert Frazier? I gave his qualifications earlier. You must have missed them.

 

[sadhatter]

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?

Um, you realize this statement does not do much for people's opinion of your intellect right? You need to make it more specific or some smart ass like myself is going to post the process for forming rust. I would suggest naming the compound, and defining what you mean by " becomes copper coloured".

Blanket statements may make you sound more assertive to the ct crowd but they just get you laughed at but the skeptics.

 

[Ranb]

Soily,

In my previoius post (#160) I was commenting on the claims you made. Instead of defending your claims, you simply ask more questions which means you are not interested in being accurate. Why are you doing this?

Ranb

 

[sadhatter]

The total lack of self awareness there is absolutely hilarious.

LNs are perfectly happy to accept as accurate the testimony of people in exactly the same circumstances you describe when it supports what they argue. Like Brennan, Helen Markham, the police at the Texas Theatre etc? Even when its incredibly contradictory.

You can't have it both ways.

Would you also agree that witness testimony that is corroborated by something else is a lot more sound? So when Bardwell Odum says categorically that he never interviewed the men at the hospital about CE399 and indeed never even had the bullet in his possession and this account is backed up by the complete absense of any FBI reports, even though the reports are listed numerically with no gaps? And when their contemporary inability or unwillingness to identify the bullet are recorded in suppressed FBI memos?

I would if you sourced your information instead of hoping i will take your word what another person has said. Due to your track record i would have to see the quote, in context , in full before i made any decision.

And your making a basic mistake when discussing the issues of eyewitness testimony in a traumatic situation. Let's take the car accident for example.

While the reports form those there differ, when they are synched up with known information from other sources we can tell what actually happened. Which is the key difference between saying " tim and fred said something different CONSPIRACY!" and " Tim said the car was black, when we see the paint streaks on the other car we can see black paint, so the evidence would point toward tim being right. ."

 

[Soily]

Nope, that's copper jacket. Looks like the one that went through Kennedy and then Connelly that Oswald shot them with.

Which, as I earlier explained, is a silly ass thing to tell the press. It wasn't .30 caliber and even if it were, you wouldn't know which .30 caliber it was. Refer back to my earlier explanation if you're still unsure about it.

What about Robert Frazier? I gave his qualifications earlier. You must have missed them.

Robert Frazier didn't hold the actual bullet in his hand on the night of the shooting.

So you agree that the ammo Oswald supposedly used could not be described as steel jacketed, yet that's exactly what were asked to believe.

 

[Soily]

I would if you sourced your information instead of hoping i will take your word what another person has said. Due to your track record i would have to see the quote, in context , in full before i made any decision.

And your making a basic mistake when discussing the issues of eyewitness testimony in a traumatic situation. Let's take the car accident for example.

While the reports form those there differ, when they are synched up with known information from other sources we can tell what actually happened. Which is the key difference between saying " tim and fred said something different CONSPIRACY!" and " Tim said the car was black, when we see the paint streaks on the other car we can see black paint, so the evidence would point toward tim being right. ."

I see didn't bother to read the article by Gary Aguilar that has scans of the actual declassified FBI memos and an interview with an FBI agent involved in the investigation? How's that for sources eh?

You make an excellent point about witness evidence, but for some unknown reason you're so blinded by prejudice you can't see that is applies to both sides. Brennan said the shooter was stood up and wearing a white shirt, unsupported by any other evidence, yet because he helps nail Oswald he's miraculously a reliable witness.

Markham and Bledsoe both made a whole series of completely ridiculous and unsportable claims, yet they help nail Oswald so they're reliable.

Absolutely laughable.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robert Frazier didn't hold the actual bullet in his hand on the night of the shooting.

So you agree that the ammo Oswald supposedly used could not be described as steel jacketed, yet that's exactly what were asked to believe.

I now see where you are seeing a conspiracy. It's that Oswald could have used two types of ammo. I'll agree with you on that one. Or someone simply used the term "steel-jacketed bullet" when in fact it was copper jacket. Or you are saying anyone else in the world could have used steel jacketed bullets as long as their name wasn't Oswald. Funny how the bullet was a 6.5 mm though.

 

[Ranb]

Ian Griggs has an identical rifle to the Oswald rifle and he actually did an experiment with it and a paper bag here in the article I posted earlier - http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/15th_Issue/pbag2.html

Griggs claims Fraszer said Oswald was carrying the package in his right hand "parallel to his body" with one end of it "under the armpit" and the "other part with his right hand." and that Oswald would "require a body height in excess of seven feet and arms like an orang-utan"

I am 5'9" and can easily hold a bagged Carcano with one end up my armpit and my hand on the bag near the middle. Fraizer did not say Oswald's hand was grasping the lower end of the bag. No need to be seven feet tall to hold the bag easily. I can provide a pic if this makes it clearer to you.

While Griggs gets most of the description of the Carcano right, he makes mistakes. He claims the bagged disassembled rifle as "they do not make a smooth, easily-handled item." I think it is easily handled when bagged.

Griggs also claims that the stock would signs of "severe scoring and scratching" if carried this way. I find that this is not so when I packaged mine. In any case a simple way to avoid scratching the stock is to wrap the end of the barrel with more paper, tape or cloth to avoid it ripping through the bag. While I cannot show this was done, it is a simple solution and could have been done.

Griggs goes to great lengths to explain how the bag could not have been made by Oswald at the TSBD, but he omits something very important. While it was made from the type of paper and tape available at the TSBD, it does not mean it was made with the same material obtained elsewhere.

Ranb

 

[Soily]

Griggs claims Fraszer said Oswald was carrying the package in his right hand "parallel to his body" with one end of it "under the armpit" and the "other part with his right hand." and that Oswald would "require a body height in excess of seven feet and arms like an orang-utan"

I am 5'9" and can easily hold a bagged Carcano with one end up my armpit and my hand on the bag near the middle. Fraizer did not say Oswald's hand was grasping the lower end of the bag. No need to be seven feet tall to hold the bag easily. I can provide a pic if this makes it clearer to you.

While Griggs gets most of the description of the Carcano right, he makes mistakes. He claims the bagged disassembled rifle as "they do not make a smooth, easily-handled item." I think it is easily handled when bagged.

Griggs also claims that the stock would signs of "severe scoring and scratching" if carried this way. I find that this is not so when I packaged mine. In any case a simple way to avoid scratching the stock is to wrap the end of the barrel with more paper, tape or cloth to avoid it ripping through the bag. While I cannot show this was done, it is a simple solution and could have been done.

Griggs goes to great lengths to explain how the bag could not have been made by Oswald at the TSBD, but he omits something very important. While it was made from the type of paper and tape available at the TSBD, it does not mean it was made with the same material obtained elsewhere.

Ranb

Thanks for the considered reply. Here's a picture of the alleged bag

As you can see it's a bit of a monster, more than half of Oswalds own height. The WC said it was 38 by 8 inches. Do you think Oswald could have carried such a large bag without it been quite conspicuous? Would your rifle leave any marks in the bag if it'd rattled about on the backseat of a car for 5 miles? The WC said the rifle was well oiled. And I believe the WC also stated Oswald made the bag using materials at the TSBD, although i'm not sure why they came to that conclusion when for a variety of reasons it's quite hard to believe.

 

[bynmdsue]

"well oiled" does not mean slathered in oil.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Here's a picture of the alleged bag

Why did you try to lead people to believe that there was no bag at all earlier?

No, the WC did not come to the conclusion that it was made with the same materials at the TSBD. You really should research some of the things you say rather than making them up on the spot.

 

[jargon buster]

"well oiled" does not mean slathered in oil.

Could it possibly mean that it was oiled well, as in oiled properly?

JB