Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[BazBear]

This seems surreal to me. Not wanting to wade through the post after this. Has the poster acknowledge the damage could have been caused after it was fired? If not..............WOW.

Yes, and then came the obligatory moving of goal posts, and the amended claim that no one could make a dent quite like the one seen on CE 543

 

[Nick Terry]

Seen right here. In order to create the illusion that there is a consensus among JFK conspiracy theorists, one of our resident conspiracists has recently had to boil down the conspiracy narrative(s) to an unrecognizable gray mush of vague memes and MacGuffins. Occasionally you will see one author gently disagreeing with another on an individual point, such as the utility of the Hunt confession. But I have yet to see an admission or accusation that such gaffes arise out of a fundamentally broken methodology.

Literature reviews are conspicuous by their absence from fringe genres. More often than not, one finds a kind of anti-literature review, consisting of the selective boosterism of a list - almost always a list - of other fringe authors who contributed to the 'awakening' of the conspiracist or who are especially praiseworthy/groundbreaking etc. Nicholas Hagger evidently did this with other NWO authors in his book The Syndicate, according to this scathing rebuttal from Will Banyan. The list trick is also widely used by Holocaust deniers.

A partial exception to this rule, however, are the 9/11 Truthers, mainly because the competing factions (generic controlled demolition vs nanothermite vs mini-nukes vs DEW; no planers vs the rest) have escalated their slanging matches to the point where one sees lists of anathematised Truthers cast into darkness for advocating one form of silliness instead of another form of silliness.

Oh, and David Icke is almost always fair game; his main function in CT-land is now to provide an alibi, so that conspiracists can say 'but I'm not as whacky as that guy!'.

 

[JayUtah]

Literature reviews are conspicuous by their absence from fringe genres. More often than not, one finds a kind of anti-literature review, consisting of the selective boosterism of a list - almost always a list - of other fringe authors who contributed to the 'awakening' of the conspiracist or who are especially praiseworthy/groundbreaking etc.

It took me a while to figure out what James Fetzer meant by that. He sometimes chides his critics for not having done an appropriate "literature search" on some JFK subject. It was especially confusing to me when the critic was legitimately qualified on some specific topic and Fetzer was just waving his PhD on general principles. I couldn't figure out why Fetzer believed his critic wasn't suitably informed. Turns out what he was really saying by misusing that bit of academic jargon was that his critics hadn't comprehensively read all the conspiracy books.

 

[Nick Terry]

It took me a while to figure out what James Fetzer meant by that. He sometimes chides his critics for not having done an appropriate "literature search" on some JFK subject. It was especially confusing to me when the critic was legitimately qualified on some specific topic and Fetzer was just waving his PhD on general principles. I couldn't figure out why Fetzer believed his critic wasn't suitably informed. Turns out what he was really saying by misusing that bit of academic jargon was that his critics hadn't comprehensively read all the conspiracy books.

Fetzer's "do a literature search" is no different to junior conspiracy theorists saying "do a google search"; it's a pure cop-out. With the JFK literature, it's also a recipe for intellectual disaster, because there are so many mutually incompatible theories, both regarding the nuts and bolts of the assassination as well as the conspirators. One needs to know whether the conspiracist accepts the insanities of Popkin, Lifton and indeed, Fetzer himself - was there a 'second Oswald', a body switch, or was the Zapruder film hoaxed? Or are all three zany theories to be advocated?

Since Fetzer is most notorious for promoting the notion of a Zapruder film hoax, then it would seem that most of the JFK literature is redundant, as theorists spent decades arguing that the Zapruder film was the best evidence of a second shooter, and still do (as we've just seen in this very thread).

 

[HSienzant]

I also remember the Warren Commissions guess as to the order of shots (hit, miss, hit - if I recall correctly), did tighten the time frame for the shots. The later analysis of miss, hit, hit made more sense. I may have this bit all wrong, but that is what my memory is telling me - if I am wrong please let me know.

You're wrong, but it's not your fault.

The Warren Commission, having access to films that had no sound, and the autopsy report, was able to determine there were two shots that struck the President. They determined the shot that first shot the President went on to cause all the Governor's wounds (which may or not have been the first shot fired).

They also knew that most of the witnesses remembered three shots, no more, no less.

That implies one miss. They didn't know whether the miss was the first shot fired, the second shot fired, or the third shot fired. And they said that in a portion of Chapter Three called The Shot That Missed.

You can read it here:
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#missed

They gave both pros and cons for each possibility, but never decided which shot missed.

But like I said, it's not your fault. That's because the first shot miss or the last shot miss by Oswald aren't easy to rebut, because they each allow Oswald eight or nine - or more - seconds to fire three shots (and the clock starts with the first shot, so it's really eight or nine - or more - seconds to fire TWO more shots).

So the conspiracy theorist book authors cheat, and quickly dismiss or totally ignore the other two scenarios, and only rebut the easiest scenario to rebut, the scenario with a second shot miss (which allows only 5.6 seconds to fire three shots). They pretend that's the scenario the Warren Commission decided up, but if you read the above, you'll see that's not true.

And that's the only reason why you think the Warren Commission decided on the second shot miss, because it was the easiest for the conspiracy theorist book authors to argue against, and only for that reason.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

"Scattered around"? They were "scattered" in a small area close to the window, were in plain view, and could have been easily picked up. Why oh why would he hide the rifle but leave his shells in plain view to be found by police?

Indeed, it would have been much, much easier to have hidden the shells than to hide the rifle. He could have stuck the shells in his pocket and thrown them away at any point between the TSBD and his house. Or, he could have dropped the shells into one of the hundreds of boxes on the sixth floor, where they most likely never would have been found.

And, to get back to the main point, the dented shell could not have fired a bullet that day. Go read ballistics expert Howard Donahue's discussion on this. There is simply no way on this earth that that shell could have been used by the sixth-floor gunman to fire a bullet. Among other things, experts have noted that not one--not a single one--of the shells fired from Carcano rifles in the various reenactments, including the HSCA's, emerged with anything close to the kind of dent--and marks--seen on CE 543.

Arguing that it would have been better to do it another way doesn't mean it wasn't done the way you don't like.

And more to the point, you're wrong:

Quoting from the HSCA:

(155) Figure 8B shows a dent on the mouth of the CE 543 cartridge case which Josiah Thompson, a critic of the Warren Commission, said would prevent CE 543 from being fired in any rifle.(79)

(156) It is the opinion of the panel that the dent on the mouth of the CE 543 cartridge case was produced when the cartridge case was ejected from the rifle. This condition was duplicated during test-firing of the CE 139 rifle by the panel. (See fig. 2.) The dent had nothing to do with loading the bullet during the manufacturing process, nor is it the type of deformation expected if the case were stepped on.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/firearms_hsca.htm

Edit: I see these points were raised already five pages back.

 

[Ranb]

It's not, I just don't believe that Oswald was the singular shooter. He certainly shot the President, but he didn't deliver the head shot. Evidence for that is the Zapruder film and the President falling back and to the left and not going forward where the momentum of the greater force was allegedly going. It makes sense given what we can all clearly see in the video that the head shot comes from the front because his body succumbs to the greater force and is pushed back from the violent high-spreed collision.

Just because the head (or other liquid containing vessel) moves a certain way, this does not mean the projectile that hit it was moving in the same direction. I have video of a pumpkin I shot with a 50 caliber rifle; the bullet weighed 700 grains and was moving 2800 fps with over 12,000 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle. At 100 yards the pumpkin actually fell forward towards me. The contents of the pumpkin which followed the bullet out of the exit hole propelled it. Heads are not pumpkins, but "back and to the left" is not really evidence of a shooter in the front.

Ranb

 

[JayUtah]

At 100 yards the pumpkin actually fell forward towards me. The contents of the pumpkin which followed the bullet out of the exit hole propelled it.

This effect is familiar to others who have experience with high-powered projectiles. Especially with many types of rifle rounds, only a very little energy is transferred to the target in a direct linear fashion that creates momentum. This is a common effect in high-velocity collisions and generally not appreciated by laymen. The damage the bullet does to a soft target is typically from temporary cavitation, an effect observed in Kennedy's case, and which is particularly devastating for head shots because the cranium is not sufficiently elastic and evulses rather than rebounds in response to the cavitation pressure wave.

Axial transfer of energy does not dominate the physics here. Instead, energy is initially diverted transversely as a result of the fluid response, much the way a boat's wake moves laterally. Then other properties of fluid dynamics entrain (draws along) fluid material behind it. The bullet that struck Kennedy had a relatively high sectional density, thus decreasing the primary effect and increasing the cavitation and entrainment. The rearward component of the President's motion is the Newtonian response to the ejecta entrained by the bullet. The leftward component is the Newtonian response to the momentum of the evulsion resulting from the asymmetrically uncontained cavitation.

During the first half of the 20th century, the design of infantry rifles and their ammunition favored a high power, high velocity, high sectional density round. The infantryman was considered little different from a big-game hunter. He needed an rifle that was accurate and had plenty of penetrating power. This was the equipment Oswald was able to obtain privately.

Had Oswald chosen a "modern" 7.62 millimeter slug (especially a fragmentation bullet) and an assault rifle of the 1960s, the results might have been different. More of the energy would have been transferred in the primary bullet channel, and the supposed Newtonian reaction "back and to the left" would have more justification in physics. But the missile that hit Kennedy was slim, heavy, and moving very fast. The skull responded to the impact not by absorbing it elastically but by shattering. No momentum created there. The cerebral matter responded not by spongily absorbing it but by being deflected to the sides (pressurization, but little net momentum except where the already-weakened cranium failed) and then being entrained (lots of momentum). The Newtonian reaction to this phenomenon creates "back and to the left."

The conspiracy theorists generally first applied only pidgin physics to this problem. Hence the "back and to the left" observation in the Zapruder film necessitated a shooter in front of Kennedy and to his right, which suggested some location variously along the Grassy Knoll. (Only a very few locations within this area would have concealed a shooter, none of them especially conducive to the purported fatal shot from the front.) However, nowadays the pidgin physics have largely fallen by the wayside and conspiracy theorists now focus on trying to discredit the Zapruder film as a forgery.

 

[Syameese]

They gave both pros and cons for each possibility, but never decided which shot missed.

Thanks for the link. On reading it I am sure my memory was based on their speculation that a first miss was unlikely, together with Governor Connally's belief that he heard a shot before he was hit.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Just because the head (or other liquid containing vessel) moves a certain way, this does not mean the projectile that hit it was moving in the same direction. I have video of a pumpkin I shot with a 50 caliber rifle; the bullet weighed 700 grains and was moving 2800 fps with over 12,000 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle. At 100 yards the pumpkin actually fell forward towards me. The contents of the pumpkin which followed the bullet out of the exit hole propelled it. Heads are not pumpkins, but "back and to the left" is not really evidence of a shooter in the front.

Ranb

Also, remember that JFK wore a rigid back brace. Even if the momentum had carried the head forwards to begin with, there would be a snap back when the brace stopped JFK lurching forwards.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

I thought it was miss, hit, HIT.

 

[Belz...]

Can't believe people in this day and age still can't be arsed to actually look up this sort of stuff, like JFK's head going backwards.

This is like moon hoaxers who don't know the first thing about photography and think the lack of stars in the moon pictures is the most damning piece of evidence, as if nobody ever noticed that before.

 

[turingtest]

Can't believe people in this day and age still can't be arsed to actually look up this sort of stuff, like JFK's head going backwards.

This is like moon hoaxers who don't know the first thing about photography and think the lack of stars in the moon pictures is the most damning piece of evidence, as if nobody ever noticed that before.

At this point, "back and to the left" is not much more than a shibboleth, and a mantra that is passed down from one generation of True Believers to the next. You don't question the things that are the foundations of your faith, or the things that distinguish you from non-believers. It's like asking fundie Christians to go beyond "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

"Jim Garrison The Bible says it, I believe it, and that's all there is to it."

 

[Willy Ekerslike]

At this point, "back and to the left" is not much more than a shibboleth, and a mantra that is passed down from one generation of True Believers to the next. You don't question the things that are the foundations of your faith, or the things that distinguish you from non-believers. It's like asking fundie Christians to go beyond "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

"Jim Garrison The Bible says it, I believe it, and that's all there is to it."

The world must be a bewildering place to fundamentalist or dogmatic adherents to any faith, be it religion or conspiracy theory. Is it any wonder they can turn to angry outbursts when vainly attempting to make their strict creed fit into the real world?
I wonder if, in 100 or 200 years time the regular people of that era will be likely to see any difference at all between a Southern Baptist and a No-Planer, for instance?

 

[CORed]

Yes, you're right, being shot in body armor is entirely the same thing as being shot in the back of the completely exposed head. I can't believe I did not recognize that earlier.

The mass and velocity of the bullet, and of the target are the same. That is all we need to know to show that the body of the victim doesn't actually move much at all in response to a shot. Basic physics: conservation of momentum.

You are right in one sense, though. The "back and to the left" motion of JFK's body was likely a neurological response to the bullet (fired by Oswald) penetrating his brain, and wouldn't have happened if the back of his head was protected by armor..

 

[JayUtah]

"Jim Garrison The Bible says it, I believe it, and that's all there is to it."

To steal another acerbic analogy, most advocates of conspiracy theories seem to treat them like software license agreements -- they just scroll to the bottom and click Agree.

I say this only partly in jest. How many times has a new conspiracy advocate shown up in this thread (or elsewhere, for that matter) and assumed his critics didn't know anything about the theory he's espousing? Newcomers seem unable to consider the prospect that not only do their critics know the conspiracy theories, they often know more about them than the advocate!

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Similar to those videos I see on YouTube all the time "10 Things That Will Blow an atheist's mind!" or "Questions an atheist can't answer!". Invariably, it's always the same stuff I've heard for years.

CTers do the same thing.

 

[turingtest]

The world must be a bewildering place to fundamentalist or dogmatic adherents to any faith, be it religion or conspiracy theory. Is it any wonder they can turn to angry outbursts when vainly attempting to make their strict creed fit into the real world?
I wonder if, in 100 or 200 years time the regular people of that era will be likely to see any difference at all between a Southern Baptist and a No-Planer, for instance?

Especially so when the underlying CT (or faith) being confronted is all of such a fundamental piece that it requires you to ignore when the pieces of it don't fit reality, or outright contradict each other. Jango's basic thesis is that Bad Governments do Bad Things; JFK's assassination was a Bad Thing; therefore it was something done by Bad Government. With that overall premise driving the CT, it doesn't even matter that the specifics of the case don't support it- if "back and to the left" doesn't work, you shift mantras to "pristine bullet!" And when that one gets shot down, the ultimate resort is a circular one to a sort of magical thinking- "it was the CIA (or whoever), man! Don't you think they would have had the means to fake all this?"- in which the entity responsible (in religious terms, the deity) is simply assumed to have whatever qualities or properties it needs to be the entity responsible (or the deity).

Sadly, I don't think a few hundred years will change anything- faith, and its rationalizing, is instinctive and (possibly) eternal in people. They may snort at No-Planers and the SBs, but they will most likely have just replaced it with a different CT or religion on the same failed basis.

 

[turingtest]

To steal another acerbic analogy, most advocates of conspiracy theories seem to treat them like software license agreements -- they just scroll to the bottom and click Agree.

I say this only partly in jest. How many times has a new conspiracy advocate shown up in this thread (or elsewhere, for that matter) and assumed his critics didn't know anything about the theory he's espousing? Newcomers seem unable to consider the prospect that not only do their critics know the conspiracy theories, they often know more about them than the advocate!

And, as I've said, they also seem never to consider the idea that some of us, at least, have been them, that we know the theories as well as they do because we once believed in them as ardently. For me, the conversion (for lack of a better word) was a result of looking at all the evidence, not just what supported a preferred belief. And it's a conversion that usually only goes one way- once you've seen all that evidence, it's hard to unsee it.

 

[JayUtah]

For me, the conversion (for lack of a better word) was a result of looking at all the evidence, not just what supported a preferred belief.

If not for you, then certainly for others, the conversion would really have begun when you abandoned the goal of simply blaming the designated enemy and focused instead on trying to determine what really happened. That shift naturally leads to broadening your sources of information.

And it's a conversion that usually only goes one way- once you've seen all that evidence, it's hard to unsee it.

Which is why most conspiracy theories, this one included, rely heavily on controlling what information the reader sees. If the goal is to make people question the conventional narrative, that creates a desire to portray the conventional narrative in as poor a light as possible. If the conventional narrative here is embodied in the Warren Commission report etc., then HSeizant has noted that what most conspiracy advocates think they know about the commission's activities is wrong. That's because they get their information about the commission from the half-truths and misrepresentations of it that appear as straw men in conspiracy books.