The CIA bought a major order of 6.5mm copper jacketed bullets for what reason again?
Oh, by the way, Jack Ruby was one of those gun runners. He also tried to get mafioso Castro jailed freed.
Last edited:
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
JFK's assassination: your thoughts
- Thread starter bigred
- Start date
The CIA bought a major order of 6.5mm copper jacketed bullets for what reason again?
Oh, by the way, Jack Ruby was one of those gun runners. He also tried to get mafioso Castro jailed freed.
You clearly can't answer the obvious evidence.
Shaw was deep CIA - which is why you can't answer.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You first. The "Was It a Mauser or a Carcano?" argument has been done several times here already in this thread. You're obviously brand new to it.
By the way, he asked for a CIA agent, not a web site. Why can't you provide the information you're asked for?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Prove it. I can't wait to see your face when you find out that the Guinn information comes from your fellow conspiracy theorists who are trying to use it to refute Bugliosi. Too bad you crib from the dumbest conspiracy sites and not the ones where people at least make some passing acquaintance with the pertinent testimony.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
If you think that would provide useful results, nothing prevents you from trying to obtain it. What have you done? Oh, that's right -- absolutely nothing. I don't think you're motivated by the desire to save a lot of talking.
No. You don't get to argue based on how you think tests would turn out that you haven't actually done. Further, the rifle "leaking like a sieve" proves nothing if you can't answer the demonstrated unreliability of the paraffin test. The condition you aren't considering is the combination of (a) Oswald's Carcano leaking like a seive, and (b) the paraffin test on his cheek being a false negative.
The parsimonious answer for the hand tests being positive and the cheek test being negative is a leaky rifle and an unreliable test. You seem to think that in order to refute your claims, we need to prove the Carcano couldn't have deposited powder residue. That essentially presupposes the hand tests were both false positives and the cheek test was a true negative, and that a massive rifle switcheroo occurred at the hands of the Powers That Be. William of Occam is not pleased.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Show me some proof and I could perhaps give you a reasonable answer, but for some reason I don't think that "reasonable" is what you're interested in.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Have an answer for this post?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9550726&postcount=465
The paraffin test is not a conclusive finding.
The reason that the test isn't used and hasn't been used for quite some time is that it's not a relaible, and this was a known defect in the test even before the JFK assassination.
You can get both false positives and false negatives:
http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu...9&context=mulr
FALLIBLE NATURE OF THE TEST
If we are looking for a chemical test for gunpowder residues which
is 100 percent infallible, we have none at the present time.21 While
present day chemical tests for gunpowder residues are based on Locard's
"Exchange Principle" and upon the premise that the hand of a
person firing a revolver will have gunpowder residues on it after firing
a gun, as Dr. Mathews points out, this assumption may or may not be valid:
In the case of rifles and shotguns neither hand is ordinarily
in a position to receive anything from the force of the explosion.
In the case of revolvers and pistols there are many situations
where the hand will not receive any nitrates (or nitrites) from
the explosion. If a revolver is well made, and pertinent tolerances
are at minimum, the amount of gas escape will be negligible.
Often in the less well-made revolvers there is sufficient
clearance and looseness of fit of the cartridge to allow the 'passage'
of gas necessary to produce powder staining on the hand.
Interesting that no 6.5mm bullets intended for the Carcano were ever found in Oswald's possession:
A PDF reviewing CIA provenance for the 6.5mm bullets:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weis...Analyses 0226 Appeal FBI Releases/Item 05.pdf
A PDF reviewing CIA provenance for the 6.5mm bullets:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weis...Analyses 0226 Appeal FBI Releases/Item 05.pdf
Yes, the same one you are repeatedly ignoring. Let's release the CE2766 rifle for testing to see if it can be fired without depositing residue on the test firer's cheek.
I've already proven a conspiracy with the brain evidence. The rest falls into place and the guilty path can be assumed with cases of evidence like this in relation.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Worst evidence cited ever - "It looked like" - and this very affidavit was one of the favorite pieces of "evidence" noted by the late, not so great RP on this very forum.
I explained this earlier, but will do so again.
People (untrained) often identify certain firearms by type than actual firearm nomenclature - every bolt action rifle is a "30/06" every lever action rifle a "Winchester" and every big revolver is a ".44 magnum."
In this case, there is an actual Mauser rifle that appears similar to the Carcano:
1891 Argentine Mauser 7.65mm
That bears a superfical resemblance to the Carcano.
Simple - Guy sees the magazine housing trigger guard assembly, and thinks "Mauser" and does no detailed examination of the piece.
Out of his misindentification an imyth is born, and readers interested in the field that are untrained have no basis to evaluate the validity of the observation.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Nope, it's been repeatedly asked and answered.
No one's stopping you. It's your claim, so it's your burden of proof.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Better read it again, and start with the heading:
FBI SPECULATION ON THE MANUFACTURE OF OSWALD'S AMMUNITION - BACKGROUND INFORMATION
And further:
On January 7, 1964, two high-ranking officials of the Office of Munitions
Control in the State Department, passed on to the FBI a report from a source'of unconfirmed reliability.
And further still:
The source said "that the ammunition was manufactured by Winchester in 1951-2; and that it was furnished to the Government of Greece under the Greek Aid Program in 1952 or 1953." 1 don't know anything about this aid program, but there certainly could be some connection to Jevons' speculation that the ammunition was contracted for by the CIA.
Speculation, a source of unconfirmed reliability and further speculation doesn't add up to proof.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Maybe in some alternate universe. I just devastated your "gunshot science" handwaving with real science complete with documented examples and scholarly input. Before you crow too loudly, let's see what you can make of that.
No, that's just wishful thinking. This is the Bellwether Fallacy. You hope that by trying to boil down a multi-faceted question to one "key" item that allegedly determines the question all by itself, you can relieve yourself of the burden to answer any of the rest of the evidence.
Real proof doesn't work that way -- and you've just fallen into the very trap you proposed to push your critics into. The whole JFK conspiracy mythos is based on the notion that the "true" answer to the assassination is to be found in a path elaborately constructed through all the minor, outlying evidence for which the Warren Commission and others cannot account. But you've just admitted that there are circumstances in your hypothesis for which you cannot account -- you just prayerfully hope they somehow magically work themselves out.
Assume whatever you want. Just don't pretend that you aren't simply assuming your conclusion must be true.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Get your petition up and running and I'll sign it - until then, I'll go with the WC:
CUNNINGHAM: Yes. We fired the rifle. Mr. Killion fired it three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts.
EISENBERG: So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?
CUNNINGHAM: That is correct, and there were none on the hands. We cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him. He held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he would not have to get his hands near the chamber—in other words, so he wouldn’t pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the receiver. When we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or on his cheek. On the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we got numerous reactions.
and further:
EISENBERG: A paraffin test was also run of Oswald's cheek and it produced a negative result.
CUNNINGHAM: Yes.
EISENBERG: Do your tests, or do the tests which you ran, or your experience with revolvers and rifles, cast any light on the significance of a negative result being obtained on the right cheek?
CUNNINGHAM: No, sir; I personally wouldn’t expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Yes but what did they look like after he shot them in the head?
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
No lie is too distasteful for you, is it.