Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[BStrong]

You don't get it do you? I'm not asserting that 'testimonies' of smell of gunpowder in and around the grassy knoll and the motorcade is evidence of shooting in this same areas. I'm proposing that (with this in mind) it is peculiar that no testimony, - or talk of testimony of smell of gunpowder on 6th floor of the TSBD has been reported. Get it?

Here is a reference to "lots of testimonies ... " ...



... and as I said, I have no opinion on the quality of this testimonies. I'm stating that, with this testimonies in mind (false or true), I find it peculiar that there is no mention of the same in the TSBD, nor was it investigated. Why?

I've got a lifetime behind me spent on the firing line and short of a tight sealed room, modern smokeless powder residue doesn't hang around and dissipates quickly.

If you wipe down a fouled piece with a rag or towel you'll get material that has a distinct smell of burned nitrates, but in the open air unless you're on the firing line of a company level mad minute you won't smell much of anything.

The old chestnut "the smell of cordite" in popular fiction is nonsense too - having smelled everything from HE to black powder, it's damn near impossible for a human to tell one burned nitrate from another, although trained dogs can detect the presence of unburned nitrates.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I've got a lifetime behind me spent on the firing line and short of a tight sealed room, modern smokeless powder residue doesn't hang around and dissipates quickly.

If you wipe down a fouled piece with a rag or towel you'll get material that has a distinct smell of burned nitrates, but in the open air unless you're on the firing line of a company level mad minute you won't smell much of anything.

The old chestnut "the smell of cordite" in popular fiction is nonsense too - having smelled everything from HE to black powder, it's damn near impossible for a human to tell one burned nitrate from another, although trained dogs can detect the presence of unburned nitrates.

manifesto seems to have gotten his "common knowledge" from watching television.

 

[manifesto]

Ok, I have looked around the net for information on the_smell_of_gunsmoke_issue, but have not got any wiser.

To conclude.

1. I was wrong to state that there 'should' be a smell of gunpowder minutes after the alleged shooting.

2. I am still not convinced that it should not.

3. I am still puzzled why this issue have not been discussed or adressed, neither by formal investigators or their critics.

I leave it at that.

 

[Tomtomkent]

1. kind of explains 3.

In the absence of a reason there should have been a smell, and in the utter absence of evidence any investigation would have to waste resources on the presence or absence of a smell, or that the smell was a regular feature of any other investigation suspicious by it's absence here... the universal response will still be "So what"?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Not to mention:

all 'testimony' of smell should be treated with caution.

 

[JohnG]

Ok, I have looked around the net for information on the_smell_of_gunsmoke_issue, but have not got any wiser.

To conclude.

1. I was wrong to state that there 'should' be a smell of gunpowder minutes after the alleged shooting.

2. I am still not convinced that it should not.

3. I am still puzzled why this issue have not been discussed or adressed, neither by formal investigators or their critics.

I leave it at that.

You also seem to have dodged the point that even if firing a rifle inside an enclosed space (e.g., a warehouse) should have left a noticeable smell "minutes after" being fired, the rifle in question was fired out an open window...a window that IIRC was left open following the shooting and therefore the ventilation would have resulted in even less of a noticeable smell inside said enclosed space.

Still, you admitted to an error, which puts you head and shoulders over most CTists who have posted here, so credit where credit is due

 

[JayUtah]

Ok, I have looked around the net for information on the_smell_of_gunsmoke_issue, but have not got any wiser.

To conclude.

1. I was wrong to state that there 'should' be a smell of gunpowder minutes after the alleged shooting.

2. I am still not convinced that it should not.

3. I am still puzzled why this issue have not been discussed or adressed, neither by formal investigators or their critics.

I leave it at that.

Leaving it at that is tantamount to recanting your premise, yet still holding to the conclusion. This indicates it is simply a desired belief, not the product of any form of tractable reason.

If no facts support the expectation that Oswald's nest should have smelled like gunpowder, then that's why the subject generates no discussion. It's no different than the lack of discussion for any other condition that facts do not suggest should be expected. Logically speaking, you might just as well ask why there was no discussion of disco lights in the TSBD: the expectation of disco lights has no factual support.

 

[Mark6]

Title of the thread made me wonder -- when WILL it end? At what point in the future will nobody in the world care enough about the historical figure known as John F. Kennedy to bother with theories about his assassination?

I am pretty sure it will take more than 100 years, considering there ARE conspiracy theories about assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, but they do seem to be dying out.

 

[vtbub]

Title of the thread made me wonder -- when WILL it end? At what point in the future will nobody in the world care enough about the historical figure known as John F. Kennedy to bother with theories about his assassination?

I am pretty sure it will take more than 100 years, considering there ARE conspiracy theories about assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, but they do seem to be dying out.

Since the Kennedy shooting has such a volume of film and paperwork attached to it, I don't see CT interest ending anytime soon. Of all the CT's bounced around this board, the general public is most likely to believe this one.

Fifty years after the fact, we STILL cannot rule out 100% that LHO acted alone. (Not implying I believe in any CT.)

As technology improves, every few years the films will be trotted back out and new tests will be done to try and prove once and for all what happened that day. The results are not going to change. The evidence against LHO would convict him.

If only the camera pointed towards the TBSD (Harris film?) focused a bit higher up for a second. A lot of the doubters would be silenced.

 

[JayUtah]

Of all the CT's bounced around this board, the general public is most likely to believe this one.

The opinion polls brought up here occasionally seem to confirm this. I've spoken at length about the psychology behind them, so I won't belabor that. But I find it interesting in terms of what people believe and why. Conspiracy theorists cite those figures as proof that their theories are credible. Since the polls don't go into detail about why the respondents answered as they did, that conclusion is premature. I find it more indicative of how not to write a poll if you want usable data.

Fifty years after the fact, we STILL cannot rule out 100% that LHO acted alone. (Not implying I believe in any CT.)

You can never achieve 100% confidence on the result of any investigation. The inductive leap is omnipresent. However, it is quite possible to achieve supreme confidence above any other material alternative, and unquestionably above any speculative alternative.

Thence arises the rhetorical framework of nearly every conspiracy theory. Conspiracists maintain that the advocates of the prevailing theory must not only establish it to some arbitrary high standard of proof, but also above any speculative possibilities. In other words, conspiracists insist that their alternatives must be shown not just to be implausible, but rather impossible.

 

[vtbub]

Jay,

IMHO, the placing of JFK on his "Camelot" pedestal is the most likely reason why this CT has legs while Apollo and 9/11 have cults. If you were to poll kids of that generation, the idea of a silly, little communist taking down the Kennedy machine is too simple an explanation.

Until I took the time to really study the subject, I had no idea of the volume of information already out there that easily tries and convicts LHO. The Walker incident speaks volumes on LHO's intent.

The Warren Commission Report is not perfect, but it's close. After years of casual observers being told the WC out-and-out fibbed, it is understandable why there is such deep skepticism of the contents. (I read an on-line copy during the Robert Prey-era. They did their homework.)

What fascinates me about this and other CT's is that no two people have the same theory in common. Altered films, a virtual sniper squadron on the knoll, shots from all directions and a hurried study of a dictabelt that tells people what they want to hear instead of accepting what actually happened.

A politician in an open-limo was shot by a disturbed loon. Said loon then kills a cop, refuses legal help and gets killed because the police protecting him were in over their heads. Not a glamorous way to end the story, but the truth is never convenient.

 

[I Ratant]

I hadn't paid much attention to the JFK thing, until picking up a book by Livingstone and Groden, which had a picture of the bullet wound in the back of JFK's head... which they said was not there!
I then looked at other books, and Lordy, the craziness!
One of the CTers I got to talking to on the Compuserve Conspiracy Forum got himself accredited to the National Archives, and after looking at what they have there, abandoned CT.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I think a key indicator of how far a CT travels from reality is the weird way real people have to be inflated to fit. LHO goes from ex-marine to intelligence trained to full blown CIA AField Agent. Jack Ruby goes from popular local strip joint owner, to mob connected to The Mobs Man In Dallas... Tramps go from looking suspicious to black ops ninjas.

Oh and every witness who supports your claim is a paragon of vietue noted for their perfect memory.

 

[JayUtah]

IMHO, the placing of JFK on his "Camelot" pedestal is the most likely reason why this CT has legs while Apollo and 9/11 have cults.

I agree; I cover some aspects of this above, albeit in a more practical sense. We find it hard to believe that great men can be killed by a nobody with a rifle. We find it hard to believe that great ships can be sunk by icebergs. We find it hard to believe that great airplanes can be brought down by simple mechanical failures. Some part of us wants to believe in an equity that says great things can only be destroyed by herculean effort.

But in fact Kennedy was no more difficult a target that day at that time than any of the other people in Dealey Plaza. Oswald could literally have shot at anyone else in the plaza with equal chance of killing them. Kennedy was simply another human being there, in the sights of someone familiar with firearms and motivated to turn them against his fellow man. Trying to pollute those simple facts with ideas that come from what these men represent is motivated by a psychological need, not a rational examination of fact.

The Warren Commission Report is not perfect, but it's close.

Indeed, what most conspiracy believers know about what the Warren Commission did and said comes from summaries provided by the conspiracy authors, not from a careful reading of the findings and testimony themselves.

Some people expect the Commission report to be tantamount to a prosecutor's court case, but that was not the commission's mandate.

What fascinates me about this and other CT's is that no two people have the same theory in common.

That's because they aren't trying to solve the Kennedy murder. They're just trying to show that the Warren Commission got it wrong, was corrupt, propounded a coverup, and generally did all the evil things that Powers That Be -- according to conspiracy theorists -- are supposed to do. Conspiracism is not about repairing history; it's about accusing powerful interests of misbehavior.

 

[Traveler Steve]

I agree; I cover some aspects of this above, albeit in a more practical sense. We find it hard to believe that great men can be killed by a nobody with a rifle. We find it hard to believe that great ships can be sunk by icebergs. We find it hard to believe that great airplanes can be brought down by simple mechanical failures. Some part of us wants to believe in an equity that says great things can only be destroyed by herculean effort.

But in fact Kennedy was no more difficult a target that day at that time than any of the other people in Dealey Plaza. Oswald could literally have shot at anyone else in the plaza with equal chance of killing them. Kennedy was simply another human being there, in the sights of someone familiar with firearms and motivated to turn them against his fellow man. Trying to pollute those simple facts with ideas that come from what these men represent is motivated by a psychological need, not a rational examination of fact.



Indeed, what most conspiracy believers know about what the Warren Commission did and said comes from summaries provided by the conspiracy authors, not from a careful reading of the findings and testimony themselves.

Some people expect the Commission report to be tantamount to a prosecutor's court case, but that was not the commission's mandate.



That's because they aren't trying to solve the Kennedy murder. They're just trying to show that the Warren Commission got it wrong, was corrupt, propounded a coverup, and generally did all the evil things that Powers That Be -- according to conspiracy theorists -- are supposed to do. Conspiracism is not about repairing history; it's about accusing powerful interests of misbehavior.

Excellent post - I admit to only a casual interest in reading this thread, I have no knowledge of the JFK conspiracy.

To be fair, powerful interests HAVE misbehaved all through history, so at least this small point is true. But that, obviously, does not spiral out of control to a full-blown conspiracy.

My thought is of 9/11. Not now, but perhaps 60-70 years in the future, while it is not still (relatively) fresh nor part of the gestalt of modern culture. I wonder if 9/11 will be more likely to join the JFK in popularity on the conspiracy front. "Do you really want us to believe that a handful of people managed to steal more than one airplane and took down 2 skyscrapers AND almost got to the Pentagon?!"

Don't get me wrong - I'm satisfied that this was the case. But time and changing history may bring this to the fore in the future.

 

[BStrong]

I think a key indicator of how far a CT travels from reality is the weird way real people have to be inflated to fit. LHO goes from ex-marine to intelligence trained to full blown CIA AField Agent. Jack Ruby goes from popular local strip joint owner, to mob connected to The Mobs Man In Dallas... Tramps go from looking suspicious to black ops ninjas.

Oh and every witness who supports your claim is a paragon of vietue noted for their perfect memory.

The perfection fallacy at work full throttle.

I'm still waiting for one of these CTist to explain to me how the evil gov.org can kill all manner of innocent folks anywhere and everywhere from pauper to President and the CO of the 5th SFG can't get away clean on killing one little ol' VC double agent in the middle of a war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_B._Rheault

Inquiring minds and all that.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The perfection fallacy at work full throttle.

I'm still waiting for one of these CTist to explain to me how the evil gov.org can kill all manner of innocent folks anywhere and everywhere from pauper to President and the CO of the 5th SFG can't get away clean on killing one little ol' VC double agent in the middle of a war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_B._Rheault

Inquiring minds and all that.

Yeah, I just submitted an article to a magazine about it. I took one example, the "fake palm print" and explained that far from being just three guys with an ink pad, it must have taken incredible resources to make a print that looks like a latent print, sneak it into the evidence locker then get both the FBI and Dallas PD to confirm it was real.
ETA: But then they go and include all kinds of flaws that according to a CT remove all doubt it was a fake?

 

[Axxman300]

My thought is of 9/11. Not now, but perhaps 60-70 years in the future, while it is not still (relatively) fresh nor part of the gestalt of modern culture. I wonder if 9/11 will be more likely to join the JFK in popularity on the conspiracy front. "Do you really want us to believe that a handful of people managed to steal more than one airplane and took down 2 skyscrapers AND almost got to the Pentagon?!"

Don't get me wrong - I'm satisfied that this was the case. But time and changing history may bring this to the fore in the future.

No. Here's why:

I used to be a JFK CT-Loon. The difference between JFK and 9-11 was that it didn't happen on live TV. The conspiracy itself didn't spin up until 1966-67 with Mark Lane. By then we'd been in Vietnam for 2 years (in a big way). By 1969 the US Government had begun to lose credibility with the Baby Boomers, and at the same time the belief arose that had JFK lived we wouldn't be in Vietnam. Then you had the Church Hearings about the CIA, then Watergate, and by 1976 the JFK CT was a cottage industry.

9-11 is almost 100% internet fueled, and 95% anti-Semitic at its roots. The difference is that there are men and women like us to get in their faces. There was never anything like that for the JFK CTs. We have had Wikileaks, and we have endured Snowden, but in the millions of classified documents we have found nothing to show 9-11 happened any differently than we saw that morning.

The JFK documents have been interesting in that they show RFK did indeed cover things up: killing lines of investigation, stealing the President's brain to have it re-interred with the body at Arlington. But these obstructions of justice were to conceal the President's involvement with trying to kill Castro, and to protect the image the Kennedys were sculpting.

 

[BadBoy]

Ok, I have looked around the net for information on the_smell_of_gunsmoke_issue, but have not got any wiser.

To conclude.

1. I was wrong to state that there 'should' be a smell of gunpowder minutes after the alleged shooting.

2. I am still not convinced that it should not.

3. I am still puzzled why this issue have not been discussed or adressed, neither by formal investigators or their critics.

I leave it at that.

Thats odd, because after googling for 10 minutes I found plenty like this:

http://forensics4fiction.com/2011/09/25/is-that-cordite-i-smell/

Modern smokeless powders produce a much less noticeable odor. The smell of modern powders don’t “hang in the air” unless you’ve discharged dozens or hundreds of rounds in a confined space. That’s not to say a seasoned CSI or detective couldn’t detect an odor after a few shots were fired but it just wouldn’t be as pungent or last very long (minutes) in most cases.

Of course thats not proof. But this was not the only search result. And certainly your suggestion that "it's well known that guns leave a smell for hours" is not quite as "well known" as you would like.

I think you made a mistake in the way that many people make mistakes about understanding phenomena. Not everything science tells us about the natural world seems intuitive or likely, even if the facts show otherwise. People used to assume a heavier object would fall faster than a lighter one. Thats what your intuition would have told you. But you would have been wrong of course.

I think you assumed. It seems likely after all that a smell would exist, especially if your not a gun owner/user. It appears your assumption was/is wrong. Its ok to be wrong. Its not ok to not admit your wrong. It means you cannot have discussions rationally, objectively and with honesty.

 

[turingtest]

Thats odd, because after googling for 10 minutes I found plenty like this:

http://forensics4fiction.com/2011/09/25/is-that-cordite-i-smell/



Of course thats not proof. But this was not the only search result. And certainly your suggestion that "it's well known that guns leave a smell for hours" is not quite as "well known" as you would like.

I think you made a mistake in the way that many people make mistakes about understanding phenomena. Not everything science tells us about the natural world seems intuitive or likely, even if the facts show otherwise. People used to assume a heavier object would fall faster than a lighter one. Thats what your intuition would have told you. But you would have been wrong of course.

I think you assumed. It seems likely after all that a smell would exist, especially if your not a gun owner/user. It appears your assumption was/is wrong. Its ok to be wrong. Its not ok to not admit your wrong. It means you cannot have discussions rationally, objectively and with honesty.

Well, clinging to the shreds of any unreasonable doubt, based on misinformed (or simply assumed) expectations, is kind of the CT MO.