JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate

Applying Logic and Critical Thinking to the JFK Assassination

<< < (9/10) > >>

Michael T. Griffith:
The next issue I'd like to discuss regarding using logic and critical thinking in the JFK assassination is the lone-gunman theory's problematic and implausible shooting scenario: Oswald firing three shots in 4.8 to 11 seconds, wildly missing his first and closest and easiest shot, and then scoring two hits in 5.6 seconds after JFK reemerged into view from beneath the oak tree at Z210. This scenario shows a pronounced lack of logic and critical thinking.

There is wide disagreement among lone-gunman theorists about when Oswald started firing and when his first hit occurred. However, the majority view among lone-gunman theorists is that the first shot occurred well before Z166 and missed (not only missed JFK but the entire huge limousine), that the second shot hit JFK and Connally at Z224, and that the third shot hit JFK's head at Z312. This is why they say Oswald would have had up to 11 seconds to fire his supposed three shots.

Here is one giant problem with this scenario: Oswald's alleged shooting feat has never been duplicated. Never. Not even once. In all the rifle tests that have been done, not even experienced, expert riflemen have scored two hits in three shots in 4.8 to 11 seconds on their first attempt and with their two hits landing in an area no more than 14 inches tall and 4 inches wide (previously I've said 12 x 4 inches, but I'll posit 14 x 4 inches just to be extra cautious).

What makes this fact even more telling and devastating is that not one of the rifle tests included all the conditions under which Oswald supposedly fired. Consider:

-- The rifle tests allowed the participants to fire practice rounds before firing for record, but Oswald would have had no such opportunity.

-- The rifle tests included rifles that had been zeroed, but the alleged murder weapon's scope was misaligned, and a Marine Corps rifle expert told the WC that it would have taken 10 shots to zero the alleged murder weapon and that using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat even more difficult. Plus, there is no evidence that Oswald zeroed his alleged rifle in the weeks leading up to the assassination.

-- The rifle tests did not simulate the cramped, inhibiting conditions of the sixth-floor sniper's nest. Pat Speer has done an excellent job of documenting those conditions. 

-- The rifle tests, such as the WC's rifle test and the 1967 CBS rifle test, counted as "hits" many shots that landed far outside the 14 x 4-inch area in which Oswald's alleged shots supposedly landed. Even then, not one of the WC's Master-rated riflemen was able to duplicate Oswald's supposed shooting feat, which is especially revealing because the WC's test was the only test that used the alleged murder weapon and because the riflemen fired from only 30 feet up and were allowed to take as much time as they wanted for their first shot. Also, only one of the 12 riflemen in the CBS test was able to score two "hits" in three shots on his first attempt, but not all of his hits landed in the required 14 x 4-inch area.

-- Nearly all the participants in the rifle tests were experienced, highly skilled riflemen, whereas Oswald was at best a mediocre marksman and was regarded as a poor shot by nearly everyone who saw him shoot in the Marine Corps and in his hunting club in Minsk.

In the rifle tests, most of the riflemen's first hits came on their first shots. This only makes sense because their first shots were the closest and easiest, just as would have been the case with the sixth-floor gunman. Yet, most lone-gunman theorists contend that Oswald missed both JFK and the entire huge limo with his first, closest, and easiest shot, with some of them floating the illogical and fanciful theory that Oswald hit the guy rod or the support arm of the traffic signal on Elm Street with his first shot and long before Z166.

Even if one wants to assume Oswald would have had up to 11 seconds to fire, if he had missed with his first shot, he would have had to go 2/2 on his final two shots starting at Z210, which means he would have only had 5.6 seconds to fire those two shots. In the WC's rifle test, the three Master-rated riflemen missed nearly every one of their second and third shots.

It should be noted that many if not most lone-gunman theorists--certainly all the ones who regularly post in this forum--make the surprising, discrediting claim that Oswald's alleged shooting feat would not have been difficult, with many claiming it would have been "easy." WC staffer Wesley Liebeler told the WC in an internal memo that the portrayal of the alleged shooting feat as not very difficult was "simply dishonest" (11 HSCA 230).

The inability of lone-gunman theorists to admit that the alleged shooting feat would have been extremely difficult even for a highly skilled marksman indicates a marked lack of objectivity, a key component of critical thinking.

Finally, there are three other pronounced problems with the lone-gunman shooting scenario:

One, there is strong, convincing evidence that more than three shots were fired during the assassination, which renders the lone-gunman shooting scenario invalid from the outset. We have a number of credible accounts of extra bullets and missed shots in Dealey Plaza, two of them supported by photographic evidence. Lone-gunman theorists lamely reply that every single one of the witnesses in every single one of these accounts must have been "mistaken," another display of their tendency to judge the evidence by their theory rather than judge their theory by the evidence. They conclude that all those witnesses "must" have been mistaken because they cannot allow that more than three shots were fired.

Two, there is strong, convincing evidence that CE 543, the dented shell found in the sixth-floor sniper's nest, could not have fired a bullet during the assassination. So convincing is the evidence on this point that it has led some lone-gunman theorists to make the untenable claim that the sixth-floor gunman only fired two shots, with some of these theorists even arguing that Oswald did not fire the ammo that hit JFK in the head in Z312 but that Secret Service agent George Hickey accidentally shot JFK in the head (the mortal-error theory).

Three, the single-bullet theory (SBT) has been refuted. Without the SBT, there can be no single-assassin scenario. JFK's clothing provides hard physical evidence that refutes the SBT. In 2023, the respected forensic engineering firm Knott Laboratories conducted the most sophisticated, data-intensive SBT trajectory analysis ever done and found that the SBT is impossible. Also, Gov. John Connally, who was supposedly hit by the alleged SBT bullet at Z224, refuted this myth. After viewing the Zapruder film a few times, he informed the WC that he was not hit before Z230. Two years later, in 1966, LIFE magazine gave Connally the chance to study a high-quality print of the Zapruder film under high magnification to determine when he was hit, and he concluded he was unquestionably not hit before Z229 and identified Z234 as the moment of impact.

Even if one buys the mortal-error theory, the collapse of the SBT means that JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets fired by two gunman from behind.

For more information on these issues, I recommend interested readers check out the following sources:

The 1967 CBS Rifle Test: More Evidence Against the Lone-Gunman Theory
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4580.0.html

What Would a Valid Lone-Gunman Rifle Test Look Like?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4589.0.html

When Could Oswald Have "Zeroed" (Sighted-In) the Alleged Murder Weapon?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4543.0.html

Chapter 15 in Pat Speer's online book A New Perspective on the John F. Kennedy Assassination
https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-15

Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view

The Dented Bullet Shell: Hard Evidence of Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ihue8a0GmN_Ptl38bPjpu1F99nqU0Z6f/view

JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view?usp=sharing

Ten Reasons I Reject the Single-Bullet Theory
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-7AW56BXCumXFsOwyN6lE0WTBltOzeYI/view

Knott Laboratory's Historic 2023 SBT Trajectory Analysis
https://knottlab.com/cases/knott-lab-presents-digital-reconstruction-and-findings-on-the-assassination-of-president-john-f-kennedy/
https://knottlab.com/knott-lab-uses-forensic-science-to-refute-warren-commission-findings-on-jfk-assassination/





 

John Corbett:

--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on June 16, 2026, 03:48:08 PM ---The next issue I'd like to discuss regarding using logic and critical thinking in the JFK assassination is the lone-gunman theory's problematic and implausible shooting scenario: Oswald firing three shots in 4.8 to 11 seconds, wildly missing his first and closest and easiest shot, and then scoring two hits in 5.6 seconds after JFK reemerged into view from beneath the oak tree at Z210. This scenario shows a pronounced lack of logic and critical thinking.
--- End quote ---

The first shot was the closest but by far was the most difficult and it did not require a wild miss. His target was in the extreme right of the limo and only had to miss a foot or two to the right to miss the limo. I've listed the difficulties of the first shot before but I will do so again:

1. He would have had to acquire and track his target as it was making the turn onto Elm St. it would have been moving in an arc rather than a straight line.
2. His target was moving across his line of fire rather down the line of fire as it was for the subsequent shots. This created a difficult cross shot at a moving target.
3. Firing downward at such a steep angle would have forcedd him to raise up out of either the sitting or kneeling position that he would have had for his subsequent shot. He would have been firing
   from an unsteady crouching position.
4. The boxes he stacked to create a rifle rest would have been of little to no use in steadying the rifle on a near vertical shot.
5. With the window open only about a foot or so, the bottom of the sash would have partially obscured his view, especially if he was using the scope. This might have forced him to use the iron sights.
6. His target was about to pass under the true which could have forced him to rush the shot.

Given these difficulties which would not have been present for the second or third shots, it's easy to understand why he would miss his first shot.
--- Quote ---
There is wide disagreement among lone-gunman theorists about when Oswald started firing and when his first hit occurred. However, the majority view among lone-gunman theorists is that the first shot occurred well before Z166 and missed (not only missed JFK but the entire huge limousine), that the second shot hit JFK and Connally at Z224, and that the third shot hit JFK's head at Z312. This is why they say Oswald would have had up to 11 seconds to fire his supposed three shots.
--- End quote ---

Missing the limo would be hard to believe if he was trying to shoot the limo which I'm betting he was not. He was trying to shoot a guy on the extreme right side of the limo and only had to pull his shot to miss the limo.
--- Quote ---

Here is one giant problem with this scenario: Oswald's alleged shooting feat has never been duplicated. Never. Not even once.
--- End quote ---

No shooting feat has ever been duplicated. Never. Not once. Every shooting is unique with its own set of variables.
--- Quote ---
[/u][/i] In all the rifle tests that have been done, not even experienced, expert riflemen have scored two hits in three shots in 4.8 to 11 seconds on their first attempt and with their two hits landing in an area no more than 14 inches tall and 4 inches wide (previously I've said 12 x 4 inches, but I'll posit 14 x 4 inches just to be extra cautious).
--- End quote ---

All such tests I am aware of did not give the shooters 11 seconds. They were expected to fire 3 shots in 5.6 seconds. A limitation Oswald was not operating under.
--- Quote ---
What makes this fact even more telling and devastating is that not one of the rifle tests included all the conditions under which Oswald supposedly fired. Consider:

-- The rifle tests allowed the participants to fire practice rounds before firing for record, but Oswald would have had no such opportunity.
--- End quote ---

Oswald had 8 months to practice with his rifle. We don't know how many practice rounds he fired but he fired one shot at Walker and had four more rounds in his rifle when he commenced firing. The ammo was sold in boxes of 20 so that leaves 15 rounds unaccounted for and we don't know how many boxes he purchased.
--- Quote ---
-- The rifle tests included rifles that had been zeroed, but the alleged murder weapon's scope was misaligned, and a Marine Corps rifle expert told the WC that it would have taken 10 shots to zero the alleged murder weapon and that using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat even more difficult. Plus, there is no evidence that Oswald zeroed his alleged rifle in the weeks leading up to the assassination.
--- End quote ---

The rifle as tested aimed a few inches high and to the right. This approximates the amount of lead Oswald would have had to make on his target. Oswald might have known this, he might not have known this and just got lucky, or the scope might have been knocked out of alignment when he dropped it behind the row of boxes on the 6th floor. Whatever the combination of circumstances were with the rifle, we know that rifle put two rounds into JFK because the only two recovered bullets were fired by that rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles in the world. SOMEBODY used that rifle to kill JFK and the overwhelming amount of forensic evidence tells us that somebody was Oswald.
--- Quote ---
-- The rifle tests did not simulate the cramped, inhibiting conditions of the sixth-floor sniper's nest. Pat Speer has done an excellent job of documenting those conditions.
--- End quote ---

Oswald was not a large man so it was not that cramped for him. Given that his rifle was the murder weapon and 3 shells from that rifle were found in the sniper's nest, we can safely say SOMEBODY fired the shots from "the cramped, inhibiting conditions of the sixth floor sniper's nest". Again, the overwhelming amount of forensic evidence tells us that somebody was Oswald.
--- Quote --- 

-- The rifle tests, such as the WC's rifle test and the 1967 CBS rifle test, counted as "hits" many shots that landed far outside the 14 x 4-inch area in which Oswald's alleged shots supposedly landed. Even then, not one of the WC's Master-rated riflemen was able to duplicate Oswald's supposed shooting feat, which is especially revealing because the WC's test was the only test that used the alleged murder weapon and because the riflemen fired from only 30 feet up and were allowed to take as much time as they wanted for their first shot. Also, only one of the 12 riflemen in the CBS test was able to score two "hits" in three shots on his first attempt, but not all of his hits landed in the required 14 x 4-inch area.
--- End quote ---

This is why I said earlier that no shooting has ever been duplicated. Oswald was not required to duplicate anybody else's shots. He just needed to put a bullet on his target which he did twice in three shots with deadly consequences. [/quote]

-- Nearly all the participants in the rifle tests were experienced, highly skilled riflemen, whereas Oswald was at best a mediocre marksman and was regarded as a poor shot by nearly everyone who saw him shoot in the Marine Corps and in his hunting club in Minsk.[/quote]

Even a mediocre trained Marine was capable of making those shots. Even the USMC's minimum qualifying standards required Oswald to be able to consistently hit his target at 200 yard. His longest shot in Dealey Plaza was only 88 yards.
--- Quote ---
In the rifle tests, most of the riflemen's first hits came on their first shots. This only makes sense because their first shots were the closest and easiest, just as would have been the case with the sixth-floor gunman. Yet, most lone-gunman theorists contend that Oswald missed both JFK and the entire huge limo with his first, closest, and easiest shot, with some of them floating the illogical and fanciful theory that Oswald hit the guy rod or the support arm of the traffic signal on Elm Street with his first shot and long before Z166.
--- End quote ---

None of the tests I've seen required the shooters to shoot from an awkward stance at a target moving across the target line. The targets were moving in a straight line away from the shooters, making their first shots fairly easy as compared to what Oswald faced. Again, no shooting can be duplicated because it is impossible to duplicate all the variables.
--- Quote ---
Even if one wants to assume Oswald would have had up to 11 seconds to fire, if he had missed with his first shot, he would have had to go 2/2 on his final two shots starting at Z210, which means he would have only had 5.6 seconds to fire those two shots. In the WC's rifle test, the three Master-rated riflemen missed nearly every one of their second and third shots.
--- End quote ---

Were they asked to fire 2 shots or 3 in the 5.6 seconds?

It should be noted that many if not most lone-gunman theorists--certainly all the ones who regularly post in this forum--make the surprising, discrediting claim that Oswald's alleged shooting feat would not have been difficult, with many claiming it would have been "easy." WC staffer Wesley Liebeler told the WC in an internal memo that the portrayal of the alleged shooting feat as not very difficult was "simply dishonest" (11 HSCA 230). [/quote]

That would be true if Oswald had to fire 3 shots in 5.6 seconds.
--- Quote ---
The inability of lone-gunman theorists to admit that the alleged shooting feat would have been extremely difficult even for a highly skilled marksman indicates a marked lack of objectivity, a key component of critical thinking.
--- End quote ---

If you were really interested in critical thinking, you would have applied it to your own arguments. You would have considered the points I have made to your arguments.
--- Quote ---
Finally, there are three other pronounced problems with the lone-gunman shooting scenario:

One, there is strong, convincing evidence that more than three shots were fired during the assassination,
--- End quote ---

That's true if one believes in junk science. If one relies on solid forensic evidence, there is only a basis for a 3 shot scenario.[/quote]

 which renders the lone-gunman shooting scenario invalid from the outset. We have a number of credible accounts of extra bullets and missed shots in Dealey Plaza, two of them supported by photographic evidence. Lone-gunman theorists lamely reply that every single one of the witnesses in every single one of these accounts must have been "mistaken," another display of their tendency to judge the evidence by their theory rather than judge their theory by the evidence. They conclude that all those witnesses "must" have been mistaken because they cannot allow that more than three shots were fired.[/quote]

Wrong again. It is only necessary to believe SOME of the witnesses were wrong and since the witnesses gave differing accounts of the shooting, we KNOW some of them had to be wrong.
--- Quote ---
Two, there is strong, convincing evidence that CE 543, the dented shell found in the sixth-floor sniper's nest, could not have fired a bullet during the assassination. So convincing is the evidence on this point that it has led some lone-gunman theorists to make the untenable claim that the sixth-floor gunman only fired two shots, with some of these theorists even arguing that Oswald did not fire the ammo that hit JFK in the head in Z312 but that Secret Service agent George Hickey accidentally shot JFK in the head (the mortal-error theory).
--- End quote ---

The FBI expert who examined the shells disagrees with your assessment. He had the actual shells to examine instead of low resolution copies of photos of the shells examined by amateur sleuths. I'm going with the FBI's expert on this one.
--- Quote ---
Three, the single-bullet theory (SBT) has been refuted.
--- End quote ---

The SBT has been disputed, not refuted. Critics keep telling us it is impossible but are never able to give us a valid reason why it is impossible. I have asked you to explain why on numerous occasions and I have yet to see you attempt to do so. Have I missed your reply?
--- Quote ---
Without the SBT, there can be no single-assassin scenario. JFK's clothing provides hard physical evidence that refutes the SBT.
--- End quote ---

Now you are just making shit up.
--- Quote ---
In 2023, the respected forensic engineering firm Knott Laboratories conducted the most sophisticated, data-intensive SBT trajectory analysis ever done and found that the SBT is impossible.
--- End quote ---

Like you, they didn't explain why it was impossible. They thought just saying so would suffice. I guess it did suffice for the CT who paid for the study, that being John Orr.
--- Quote ---

Also, Gov. John Connally, who was supposedly hit by the alleged SBT bullet at Z224, refuted this myth.
--- End quote ---

JBC refuted the SBT because he believed the myth that JFK had been hit by the first shot. He knew he had been hit by the second shot. If JFK had also been hit by the second shot, that would mean they were both hit by the same shot.
--- Quote ---
After viewing the Zapruder film a few times, he informed the WC that he was not hit before Z230.
--- End quote ---

Not a bad guess. He was only off by about 1/2 second,
--- Quote ---
Two years later, in 1966, LIFE magazine gave Connally the chance to study a high-quality print of the Zapruder film under high magnification to determine when he was hit, and he concluded he was unquestionably not hit before Z229 and identified Z234 as the moment of impact.
--- End quote ---

Not as good as his earlier guess. That one was off by 2/3 of a second.
--- Quote ---
Even if one buys the mortal-error theory, the collapse of the SBT means that JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets fired by two gunman from behind.
--- End quote ---

I'll leave it to the people who believe that nonsense to reply to that.
--- Quote ---
For more information on these issues, I recommend interested readers check out the following sources:

The 1967 CBS Rifle Test: More Evidence Against the Lone-Gunman Theory
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4580.0.html

What Would a Valid Lone-Gunman Rifle Test Look Like?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4589.0.html

When Could Oswald Have "Zeroed" (Sighted-In) the Alleged Murder Weapon?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4543.0.html

Chapter 15 in Pat Speer's online book A New Perspective on the John F. Kennedy Assassination
https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-15

Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view

The Dented Bullet Shell: Hard Evidence of Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ihue8a0GmN_Ptl38bPjpu1F99nqU0Z6f/view

JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view?usp=sharing

Ten Reasons I Reject the Single-Bullet Theory
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-7AW56BXCumXFsOwyN6lE0WTBltOzeYI/view

Knott Laboratory's Historic 2023 SBT Trajectory Analysis
https://knottlab.com/cases/knott-lab-presents-digital-reconstruction-and-findings-on-the-assassination-of-president-john-f-kennedy/
https://knottlab.com/knott-lab-uses-forensic-science-to-refute-warren-commission-findings-on-jfk-assassination/

--- End quote ---

I think I've dealt with enough of your nonsense. I don't have to go on a scavenger hunt to dig up more. I feel like I've traveled back in time to 1991 when I first started to refute these same arguments made by you and your Prodigy cohorts back then. Nothing much has changed. Same old crap. Oswald wasn't a good enough marksman. The rifle couldn't have made the kill shots. The SBT is impossible. Blah, blah, blah. The irony is that you called for logic and critical thinking in the title of this thread and yet you don't seem to have applied either to your goofy ideas.

Andrew Mason:

--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---The first shot was the closest but by far was the most difficult and it did not require a wild miss. His target was in the extreme right of the limo and only had to miss a foot or two to the right to miss the limo.

--- End quote ---
More like three or four feet:


but even a foot at 100 feet is a huge miss. If he actually tried a shot that early and missed he would have incorrectly estimated the lead. So one would expect the bullet to hit too far ahead or too far behind. In that case he missed by 15 feet.

Michael T. Griffith:

--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---The first shot was the closest but by far was the most difficult and it did not require a wild miss. His target was in the extreme right of the limo and only had to miss a foot or two to the right to miss the limo.
--- End quote ---

LOL! "Only" had to miss "a foot or two to the right" to miss the limo?! "Only"?!

And, pray tell, where would that bullet have gone at that early point in the shooting? Huh? It certainly could not have caused the Tague curb strike and the wound on Tague's cheek, nor could it have been the bullet that struck the manhole cover and the grass near the manhole cover far down Elm Street.

And, BTW, your supposed lone gunman would have had to miss by at least 3 feet to miss the limo. You don't know what you're talking about. 


--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---I've listed the difficulties of the first shot before but I will do so again:

1. He would have had to acquire and track his target as it was making the turn onto Elm St. it would have been moving in an arc rather than a straight line.
2. His target was moving across his line of fire rather down the line of fire as it was for the subsequent shots. This created a difficult cross shot at a moving target.
3. Firing downward at such a steep angle would have forcedd him to raise up out of either the sitting or kneeling position that he would have had for his subsequent shot. He would have been firing
   from an unsteady crouching position.
4. The boxes he stacked to create a rifle rest would have been of little to no use in steadying the rifle on a near vertical shot.
5. With the window open only about a foot or so, the bottom of the sash would have partially obscured his view, especially if he was using the scope. This might have forced him to use the iron sights.
6. His target was about to pass under the true which could have forced him to rush the shot.
--- End quote ---

I guess it just never occurred to you that your argument begs the question: "Why, then, would even a mediocre marksman have tried to take such a shot in the first place?!"

You've done nothing but validate my point that it is illogical to posit a shot from the sixth-floor window at that time in the shooting.


--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---Given these difficulties which would not have been present for the second or third shots, it's easy to understand why he would miss his first shot.
--- End quote ---

You really need to sign yourself up for a class in basic logic and critical thinking. Your posts contain numerous textbook examples of circular reasoning, hasty generalization, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and begging the claim.

Again, given the difficulties of such an early first shot, not even a novice gunman would have been dumb enough to fire at that time. Yet, even then, it is hard to fathom how he could have missed so wildly as to miss the entire gigantic limo.
 

--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---Missing the limo would be hard to believe if he was trying to shoot the limo which I'm betting he was not. He was trying to shoot a guy on the extreme right side of the limo and only had to pull his shot to miss the limo.
--- End quote ---

More silliness. Even someone literally hanging out the window and firing with one hand would have had a hard time missing the entire gigantic limo--21.25 x 6.5 feet--from that range.


--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---No shooting feat has ever been duplicated. Never. Not once. Every shooting is unique with its own set of variables.
--- End quote ---

Yeah, let's just toss aside the established science of shooting incident reconstruction! Sheesh, you must be kidding. Do you have any idea how silly you're making yourself look with this stuff?


--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---All such tests I am aware of did not give the shooters 11 seconds. They were expected to fire 3 shots in 5.6 seconds. A limitation Oswald was not operating under.
--- End quote ---

What?! Eee-gads. Once again, you prove you don't know what in the world you're talking about. I have to wonder if you've even read the WC volumes (I know you haven't read the HSCA volumes or the ARRB materials).

Obviously, you're not aware that the WC's Master-rated riflemen took well over 5.6 seconds for a number of their shooting sequences. Hendrix's fastest sequence was 7.0 seconds, while his slowest was 8.25 seconds. Staley's fastest sequence was 6.45 seconds, while his slowest sequence was 6.75 seconds. Miller was the fastest of the three, firing his third sequence in 4.45 seconds, his first sequence in 4.6 seconds, and his second sequence in 5.15 seconds, but all three of his second shots missed the entire target silhouette, and all three of his third shots landed nowhere near the head. (Miller fired three sequences, while Hendrix and Staley fired two, because Miller fired one sequence using the iron sights instead of the scope.)

Similarly, in the CBS rifle test, a number of the 12 riflemen took longer than 5.6 seconds, with some sequences taking 6.5 seconds or longer. You'd know these things if you had done a modicum of balanced research.

You keep ignoring a fact that virtually everyone else on both sides has acknowledged: if the first shot came before Z166 and missed, the gunman would have had to go 2/2 in 5.6 seconds after the limo reemerged from beneath the oak tree. It doesn't matter if you assume he fired at Z100; he still would have had only 5.6 seconds (actually 5.57 seconds) to go 2/2 because Z210 to Z312 is 102 frames.
 

--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---Oswald had 8 months to practice with his rifle. We don't know how many practice rounds he fired but he fired one shot at Walker and had four more rounds in his rifle when he commenced firing. The ammo was sold in boxes of 20 so that leaves 15 rounds unaccounted for and we don't know how many boxes he purchased.
--- End quote ---

Wow, this stuff was debunked literally decades ago. One, the FBI could find no evidence that Oswald ever bought ammo or even gun-cleaning supplies--not one bullet or gun-cleaning item was found in his belongings. Two, the FBI could find no evidence that Oswald ever practiced shooting at targets in the months leading up to the assassination. Three, the FBI couldn't even establish that Oswald picked up the mail-order rifle and admitted that no "Hidell" was authorized on Oswald's mail form to pick up mail from his post office box. Four, General Walker himself said that the bullet that was recovered from his wall was not the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used.
 

--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---The rifle as tested aimed a few inches high and to the right. This approximates the amount of lead Oswald would have had to make on his target. Oswald might have known this, he might not have known this and just got lucky, or the scope might have been knocked out of alignment when he dropped it behind the row of boxes on the 6th floor.
--- End quote ---

More dated, debunked claims. The rifle was not "dropped" behind the row of boxes but was carefully slid in between them and covered with other boxes. Even with the scope zeroed for the WC's rifle test, the Master-rated riflemen were unable to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat.


--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---Whatever the combination of circumstances were with the rifle, we know that rifle put two rounds into JFK because the only two recovered bullets were fired by that rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles in the world.
--- End quote ---

You are decades behind the information curve. I've made you aware of the fact that the skull x-rays show bullet fragmentation that is totally inconsistent with the fragmentation caused by the kind of ammo that Oswald supposedly used. There is no way that an FMJ bullet would shatter into dozens of tiny pieces inside the skull and also leave several fragments in the rear outer table (and in a location that couldn't be associated with an entry wound).

One of the bullet fragments supposedly recovered from the limo shows damage that would never have occurred from transiting a human skull. None of the known fragments from any of the various wound ballistics tests have emerged with a flap folded a 180 degrees and razor-sharp edge.


--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---SOMEBODY used that rifle to kill JFK and the overwhelming amount of forensic evidence tells us that somebody was Oswald.
--- End quote ---

LOL! Uh, the overwhelming forensic evidence, as confirmed by Dr. Vincent DiMaio, among many other experts, says that FMJ bullets will never shatter into dozens of tiny fragments, and that if an x-ray shows a cloud of tiny fragments, this rules out FMJ ammo. Let me once again quote DiMaio:

An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . . usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has perforated bone such as the skull or spine.If any fragments are seen, they are very sparse in number. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)

And:

In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a 'lead snowstorm'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318)

Notice two crucial points: (1) In the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" fragments, and (2) if an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," this "rules out" FMJ ammo.

Why do you keep ducking this fact?
 

--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---Oswald was not a large man so it was not that cramped for him.
--- End quote ---

Oh, just stop. I know you haven't even looked at the relevant crime-scene photos and reconstruction photos, or else you wouldn't float this stuff. Oswald was of average height and weight for a man in 1963. In fact, he was slightly taller than the average height of 5'8". And, yes, the sniper's nest would have been quite cramped for him, as Pat Speer has proved.


--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---Given that his rifle was the murder weapon and 3 shells from that rifle were found in the sniper's nest, we can safely say SOMEBODY fired the shots from "the cramped, inhibiting conditions of the sixth floor sniper's nest". Again, the overwhelming amount of forensic evidence tells us that somebody was Oswald.
--- End quote ---

No, we can safely say that you will continue to ignore the compelling evidence that Oswald's ammo could not have caused the bullet fragmentation seen in the autopsy skull x-rays, that you will continue to ignore the fact that neither of the rear head entry wounds can be aligned back with the sixth-floor window (unless we simply ignore the damage inside the skull and ignore the position of JFK's head when the hit occurred), that you will continue to ignore the fact no one has ever duplicated Oswald's alleged shooting feat, that you will continue to ignore the severe and undeniable conflicts between the autopsy brain photos and the skull x-rays, that you will continue to ignore the evidence that Oswald was not even on the sixth floor during the shooting, etc., etc.
 

--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---This is why I said earlier that no shooting has ever been duplicated. Oswald was not required to duplicate anybody else's shots. He just needed to put a bullet on his target which he did twice in three shots with deadly consequences.
--- End quote ---

This fluff would get you an F grade in a high school debate class. If a valid lone-gunman rifle test were ever held and at least one rifleman actually duplicated Oswald's alleged shooting performance, you would be trumpeting this from the rooftops. But, oops, no such test has ever been held, and the two tests that duplicated most of the conditions failed to produce a single rifleman who could duplicate the alleged feat.


--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---MG: -- Nearly all the participants in the rifle tests were experienced, highly skilled riflemen, whereas Oswald was at best a mediocre marksman and was regarded as a poor shot by nearly everyone who saw him shoot in the Marine Corps and in his hunting club in Minsk.

JC: Even a mediocre trained Marine was capable of making those shots.
--- End quote ---

You bet, and never you mind that even the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test, firing from only 30 feet up and firing at stationary targets, failed to make those shots, or that only one of the 12 riflemen in the CBS rifle test scored two hits on his first attempt and only because the test counted as "hits" any shots that landed anywhere on the target silhouettes. 


--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---Even the USMC's minimum qualifying standards required Oswald to be able to consistently hit his target at 200 yard. His longest shot in Dealey Plaza was only 88 yards.
--- End quote ---

Again, just stop. If you knew anything about rifles and marksmanship and Oswald's Marine Corps rifle scores, you would know there is a world of difference between firing a superb semi-automatic rifle like the M1 at stationary targets that you've practiced against for weeks and when the fastest you have to fire is 6 seconds per shot vs. going 2/3 with a bolt-action rifle in 4.8 to 11 seconds and with your two hits having to come in the final 5.6 seconds. There's just no comparison.


--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---None of the tests I've seen required the shooters to shoot from an awkward stance at a target moving across the target line.
--- End quote ---

Yeah, that's because they didn't buy the idiotic, illogical scenario that the sixth-floor gunman fired before Z133.


--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---The targets were moving in a straight line away from the shooters, making their first shots fairly easy as compared to what Oswald faced.
--- End quote ---

You mean as compared to your absurd theory that has Oswald practically hanging out the window and firing virtually straight down on his first shot, yet still missing the entire gigantic limo. Yeah, uh-huh.


--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---Were they asked to fire 2 shots or 3 in the 5.6 seconds?
--- End quote ---

Do you just not understand the English I'm using? Do you still not grasp the erroneous assumption you're making with this argument, which you keep repeating? Again, if the first shot was a miss, the two hits would have had to come after Z209 and would have had to be made within 5.6 seconds. If you don't believe me, go ask a grade school math teacher to tell you how many seconds would elapse in 102 frames (Z210-Z312) with the camera filming at the speed of 18.3 frames per second. I promise you the teacher will tell you that the answer is 5.57 seconds, which everyone usually rounds up to 5.6 seconds.


--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---MG: It should be noted that many if not most lone-gunman theorists--certainly all the ones who regularly post in this forum--make the surprising, discrediting claim that Oswald's alleged shooting feat would not have been difficult, with many claiming it would have been "easy." WC staffer Wesley Liebeler told the WC in an internal memo that the portrayal of the alleged shooting feat as not very difficult was "simply dishonest" (11 HSCA 230).

JC: That would be true if Oswald had to fire 3 shots in 5.6 seconds.
--- End quote ---

Sigh. . . .  See above. . . . It is astounding that you don't even understand such a basic fact about the shooting sequence.
 

--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---If you were really interested in critical thinking, you would have applied it to your own arguments. You would have considered the points I have made to your arguments.
--- End quote ---

Yeah, you bet! Somewhere deep in the back of your mind you have to at least suspect that you are blundering badly and are trying to obscure your incompetence by posturing that I'm not interested in critical thinking.

I've actually had two courses on critical thinking. What training have you had on the subject?


--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---That's true if one believes in junk science. If one relies on solid forensic evidence, there is only a basis for a 3 shot scenario.
--- End quote ---

This is your answer to the evidence of extra bullets and missed shots, which includes photographic evidence?! I bet you didn't even read my article on the subject, did you? I'd like to see you respond to that article ("Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza").

If your "junk science" comment is aimed at the HSCA's acoustical evidence, even though I didn't mention it in my reply and in my "Extra Bullets and Missed Shots" article, we already saw in an exchange in another thread that you haven't even read the NAS panel's report, much less the HSCA's acoustical research, Dr. Donald Thomas's research, and the follow-up research that was done by BBN scientists in 2019-2020 and published in Dr. Josiah Thompson's book Last Second in Dallas.

That exchange proved that you obviously had no idea that the NAS scientists were not even acoustical scientists and that they didn't even try to explain the windshield distortion correlations, the presence of N-waves on the dictabelt, and the presence of muzzle blasts and muzzle-blast echoes on the dictabelt, not to mention the fact that those phenomena come in the correct sequence and interval, an astonishing coincidence if the dictabelt did not record shots during the assassination. You also obviously had no idea that the NAS scientists admitted there was a 93% chance that the time-movement correlations identified by the BBN scientists occurred because the recording was made by a motorcycle moving in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, and that there was a 77.7% chance that the 144.9 impulse pattern on the dictabelt was caused by gunfire from the grassy knoll.


--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---MG: which renders the lone-gunman shooting scenario invalid from the outset. We have a number of credible accounts of extra bullets and missed shots in Dealey Plaza, two of them supported by photographic evidence. Lone-gunman theorists lamely reply that every single one of the witnesses in every single one of these accounts must have been "mistaken," another display of their tendency to judge the evidence by their theory rather than judge their theory by the evidence. They conclude that all those witnesses "must" have been mistaken because they cannot allow that more than three shots were fired.

JC: Wrong again. It is only necessary to believe SOME of the witnesses were wrong and since the witnesses gave differing accounts of the shooting, we KNOW some of them had to be wrong.
--- End quote ---

HUH? If some of the witnesses were right, then there were more than three shots fired. How can you not understand this? Clearly, you haven't even bothered to read the accounts of extra bullets and missed shots, or else you'd know better than to present such a vacuous argument.
 

--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---The FBI expert who examined the shells disagrees with your assessment. He had the actual shells to examine instead of low resolution copies of photos of the shells examined by amateur sleuths. I'm going with the FBI's expert on this one.
--- End quote ---

Uh-huh, of course you are. What shells did this FBI expert examine? Did he examine the shells from the HSCA's ballistics test, of which we have good pictures, and none of which emerged as dented as CE 543? Did the FBI expert examine the shells from Zimmerman's test, of which we have good pictures, and none of which emerged as dented as CE 543? Dr. Chapman examined CE 543 himself. So did ballistics and firearms expert Howard Donahue. So did Dr. Josiah Thompson. In addition, Dr. Chapman did his own test and concluded that CE 543's dent was too large for the case to have fired a bullet during the assassination.
 

--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---The SBT has been disputed, not refuted. Critics keep telling us it is impossible but are never able to give us a valid reason why it is impossible. I have asked you to explain why on numerous occasions and I have yet to see you attempt to do so. Have I missed your reply?
--- End quote ---

Say what?! I've written entire articles on why the SBT is impossible. I've posted numerous replies on why the SBT is impossible. Knott Laboratory's forensic engineers have explained why their SBT trajectory analysis proves the SBT is impossible. What in the world are you talking about? 


--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---Now you are just making &*&^% up.
--- End quote ---

No, you are. I know you didn't read my article on why JFK's clothing proves the SBT is impossible. You have a habit of making emphatic statements based on little or no actual knowledge. You also have a habit of attacking research that you haven't even read.


--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---Like you, they didn't explain why it was impossible. They thought just saying so would suffice. I guess it did suffice for the CT who paid for the study, that being John Orr.
--- End quote ---

Umm, as mentioned, Knott Laboratory's forensic engineers did in fact explain why their SBT trajectory analysis proves the SBT is impossible. I provided two links to their articles. Obviously, you didn't bother to read either of them, and then you get on here and make the erroneous claim that they didn't explain why the SBT is impossible.

Do you not understand how much you discredit yourself when you pull this stunt? And you pull this stunt quite often.


--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---JBC refuted the SBT because he believed the myth that JFK had been hit by the first shot. He knew he had been hit by the second shot. If JFK had also been hit by the second shot, that would mean they were both hit by the same shot.
--- End quote ---

Another example of faulty logic and flawed a priori assumptions.

Anyway, Connally only heard one shot before he was hit, but this does not mean there was only one shot before he was hit. The Zapruder film shows two sets of readily visible shot reactions before Z224. In addition, two of the strongest blur episodes identified by the HSCA's photographic experts occur before Z224, i.e., Z158-165 and Z189-197.

Blur episodes are important because they indicate that Zapruder jiggled his camera in response to hearing a shot. Tests have proved that a person will jiggle their camera in a reflex reaction when they hear gunfire, even if they know it is coming. By even the most conservative criteria, there are at least four significant blur episodes in the Zapruder film.


--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---Not a bad guess. He was only off by about 1/2 second, Not as good as his earlier guess. That one was off by 2/3 of a second.
--- End quote ---

I already answered this argument. You keep ignoring contrary facts and then repeating your talking points and acting like you've proven your point. As I've explained to you before, forensic science tells us that when people experience a sharp, sudden pain, it only takes 150-300 milliseconds to react with a pained facial expression, and Connally's face shows a pained expression starting in Z239. There's no way this was a "delayed reaction" to a severe wounding that occurred 825 milliseconds/15 frames earlier at Z224.

You lamely brush aside the fact that Connally saw no significance in any of the few minor pre-Z229 movements that you claim are wound reactions. I mean, nah, what did he know, right? He was just the guy who actually experienced the wounding and who knew himself better than anyone else. Oh, but he "must" have been "mistaken"--because otherwise the SBT collapses.


--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---I'll leave it to the people who believe that nonsense to reply to that.
--- End quote ---

You even duck easy issues like this one. If the SBT is false, then it is self-evident that Connally must have been hit by a separate bullet fired by a second gunman from behind. How can you not figure this out? It doesn't matter if you accept or reject the mortal error theory. If, as your theory says, Oswald only fired three shots, and if Connally was not hit by the alleged SBT bullet, then another gunman firing from behind must have shot Connally, since your theory says Oswald's first shot missed and his third shot hit JFK's head. If one accepts the mortal error theory, which says Oswald only fired two shots, then if the SBT is false, this still means a second gunman must have been firing from behind. I mean, this is simple math and basic logic.


--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---I think I've dealt with enough of your nonsense.
--- End quote ---

No, you've either ducked and dodged or offered blundering arguments in response to inconvenient facts. I hate to put it this way, and I rarely say this even when it's deserved, but you are far out of your league. I'll get back to this point in a moment.


--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---I don't have to go on a scavenger hunt to dig up more.
--- End quote ---

In other words, you're still going to refuse to read any scholarly research that challenges your theory of the shooting, and then you're going to get back on here and once again either ignore or mischaracterize that research, all the while pretending that you've proven your point.


--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM --- I feel like I've traveled back in time to 1991 when I first started to refute these same arguments made by you and your Prodigy cohorts back then. Nothing much has changed. Same old crap. Oswald wasn't a good enough marksman. The rifle couldn't have made the kill shots. The SBT is impossible. Blah, blah, blah.
--- End quote ---

Oh, yes, we've seen how you've "refuted" my arguments here! Honestly, you have no business pretending to be any kind of an authority on the JFK case. You should be here to learn from people who have done far, far more research on the case than you have.

You should feel like you've traveled back in time to the 1960s because you repeatedly show you know nothing about many of the important disclosures and developments that have occurred since the 1970s. You appear to know almost nothing about the historic ARRB disclosures and the JFKRCA-related disclosures since then. Moreover, it seems obvious that you haven't even read all of the WC volumes, much less the HSCA volumes.

Who are you, anyway? Where's your JFKA website? (I have one of the most frequently visited JFKA websites around). What books have you published? (I've published two.) How many books and articles have cited your research? (Numerous books and articles have cited my research, but I can't find any that have cited your research.) How many major news outlets have interviewed you on the JFK case? (BBC Canada interviewed me on the case; two local radio stations have interviewed me on the case; and two JFKA podcasts have interviewed me.) How many of your articles have been reprinted or linked on other JFKA sites? (Many of my articles have been reprinted/linked on other JFKA websites, but I can't find a single article you have written, much less any sites that have reprinted/linked one of them.)

And what are your qualifications? I spent 21 years in Army military intelligence and continued to work in the Intelligence Community as a contractor for some years afterward, so I know my way around the intelligence aspects of the case. I qualified at all three levels of Army marksmanship (marksman, sharpshooter, and expert). I've conducted a ballistics test on the effects of bullets on clothing. When it comes to the acoustical evidence, my signals intel training included courses on radio wave propagation, modulation, the effects of automatic gain control, RF theory, the electromagnetic spectrum, etc. I don't claim to be an acoustical expert, but I know more about the subject than your average Joe. I've interviewed numerous photographic lab technicians, professors of photography, and professional photographers about the backyard rifle photos. I've interviewed a former Army sniper about Oswald's alleged shooting feat. 


--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 16, 2026, 05:02:33 PM ---The irony is that you called for logic and critical thinking in the title of this thread and yet you don't seem to have applied either to your goofy ideas.
--- End quote ---

No, the irony is that you clearly lack the education to credibly even discuss what constitutes logic and critical thinking in the first place, and that you've proved over and over that you don't have a handle on many of the basics of the JFK case or even on all the components of the lone-gunman theory.

John Corbett:

--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on June 18, 2026, 01:03:17 AM ---LOL! "Only" had to miss "a foot or two to the right" to miss the limo?! "Only"?!
--- End quote ---

Yes, only. Firing an unbraced rifle from an awkward stance at a target moving across the line of fire and having to rush the shot before the target went under the tree makes a miss of two feet quite possible. There was a reason Oswald stacked the boxes for form a rifle rest because it is a great aid in reducing he arcing of the sights which is a necessity to accurate shooting.
--- Quote ---
And, pray tell, where would that bullet have gone at that early point in the shooting? Huh? It certainly could not have caused the Tague curb strike and the wound on Tague's cheek, nor could it have been the bullet that struck the manhole cover and the grass near the manhole cover far down Elm Street.
--- End quote ---

Struck a manhole cover??? Where do you get this crap? You don't think it's plausible that Oswald could have missed JFK by a couple feet but you are perfectly willing to accept that some other shooter firing at JFK missed so badly the bullet struck the manhole cover. This is a perfect example of your lack of critical thinking.
--- Quote ---
And, BTW, your supposed lone gunman would have had to miss by at least 3 feet to miss the limo. You don't know what you're talking about.
--- End quote ---

That's called projection.
--- Quote ---

I guess it just never occurred to you that your argument begs the question: "Why, then, would even a mediocre marksman have tried to take such a shot in the first place?!"
--- End quote ---

It's very simple. A low percentage shot has a better chance of hitting the target than not taking a shot at all. Wayne Gretzky once said "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.".

You've done nothing but validate my point that it is illogical to posit a shot from the sixth-floor window at that time in the shooting. [/quote]

I can't ever remember you making a valid point and that's going back 35 years.
--- Quote ---
You really need to sign yourself up for a class in basic logic and critical thinking.
--- End quote ---

If you took such a class, you should demand your money back.
--- Quote ---
 Your posts contain numerous textbook examples of circular reasoning, hasty generalization, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and begging the claim.
--- End quote ---

More projection.
--- Quote ---
Again, given the difficulties of such an early first shot, not even a novice gunman would have been dumb enough to fire at that time. Yet, even then, it is hard to fathom how he could have missed so wildly as to miss the entire gigantic limo.
--- End quote ---

So in one sentence you are acknowledging the difficulties of he shot but don't think it's plausible the shot could have missed badly.
--- Quote ---
More silliness. Even someone literally hanging out the window and firing with one hand would have had a hard time missing the entire gigantic limo--21.25 x 6.5 feet--from that range.
--- End quote ---

That would be hard to believe if that person was trying to shoot the limo.
--- Quote ---
Yeah, let's just toss aside the established science of shooting incident reconstruction! Sheesh, you must be kidding. Do you have any idea how silly you're making yourself look with this stuff?
--- End quote ---

Name me another case in which a shooting was duplicated.
--- Quote ---
What?! Eee-gads. Once again, you prove you don't know what in the world you're talking about. I have to wonder if you've even read the WC volumes (I know you haven't read the HSCA volumes or the ARRB materials).

Obviously, you're not aware that the WC's Master-rated riflemen took well over 5.6 seconds for a number of their shooting sequences. Hendrix's fastest sequence was 7.0 seconds, while his slowest was 8.25 seconds. Staley's fastest sequence was 6.45 seconds, while his slowest sequence was 6.75 seconds. Miller was the fastest of the three, firing his third sequence in 4.45 seconds, his first sequence in 4.6 seconds, and his second sequence in 5.15 seconds, but all three of his second shots missed the entire target silhouette, and all three of his third shots landed nowhere near the head. (Miller fired three sequences, while Hendrix and Staley fired two, because Miller fired one sequence using the iron sights instead of the scope.)
--- End quote ---

I noticed you didn't mention how many hits these riflemen scored when taking the extra time. Why is that?
--- Quote ---
Similarly, in the CBS rifle test, a number of the 12 riflemen took longer than 5.6 seconds, with some sequences taking 6.5 seconds or longer. You'd know these things if you had done a modicum of balanced research.
--- End quote ---
m
By my calculations, Oswald fired his 3 shots in 8.9 seconds. Some have hypothesized he too even longer.
--- Quote ---
You keep ignoring a fact that virtually everyone else on both sides has acknowledged: if the first shot came before Z166 and missed, the gunman would have had to go 2/2 in 5.6 seconds after the limo reemerged from beneath the oak tree.
--- End quote ---

So?
--- Quote ---
It doesn't matter if you assume he fired at Z100; he still would have had only 5.6 seconds (actually 5.57 seconds) to go 2/2 because Z210 to Z312 is 102 frames.
--- End quote ---

Actually I have him making those two hits in 5 seconds. Very doable. [/quote]
 
Wow, this stuff was debunked literally decades ago. One, the FBI could find no evidence that Oswald ever bought ammo or even gun-cleaning supplies--not one bullet or gun-cleaning item was found in his belongings.[/quote]

Yet some how he still had 4 rounds left on the day he shot JFK. [quote}

Two, the FBI could find no evidence that Oswald ever practiced shooting at targets in the months leading up to the assassination.[/quote]

I wasn't aware that records are kept of when a person takes target practice.
--- Quote ---
 Three, the FBI couldn't even establish that Oswald picked up the mail-order rifle and admitted that no "Hidell" was authorized on Oswald's mail form to pick up mail from his post office box. Four, General Walker himself said that the bullet that was recovered from his wall was not the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used.
--- End quote ---

Yet somehow, he was photographed with the rifle, his palm print was on the rifle, and fibers matching the shirt he wore that day were on the rifle. But there's no evidence he ever picked up the rifle.
<chuckle>
--- Quote ---
More dated, debunked claims. The rifle was not "dropped" behind the row of boxes but was carefully slid in between them and covered with other boxes.
--- End quote ---

Oh, were you there?
--- Quote ---
Even with the scope zeroed for the WC's rifle test, the Master-rated riflemen were unable to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat.
--- End quote ---

Still clinging to he no-one-has-ever-duplicated-Oswald's-shooting red herring argument. Please tell me about one shooting that has been perfectly duplicated.
--- Quote ---
You are decades behind the information curve.
--- End quote ---

It would be quite charitable to call the shit CTs dream up "information".
--- Quote ---
I've made you aware of the fact that the skull x-rays show bullet fragmentation that is totally inconsistent with the fragmentation caused by the kind of ammo that Oswald supposedly used. There is no way that an FMJ bullet would shatter into dozens of tiny pieces inside the skull and also leave several fragments in the rear outer table (and in a location that couldn't be associated with an entry wound).
--- End quote ---

A fine example of the shit CTs dream up. Can you name a qualified medical examiner who has seen the medical evidence and shares your opinion on this. The only thing you've ever made me aware if is that you have some really goofy ideas.
--- Quote ---

One of the bullet fragments supposedly recovered from the limo shows damage that would never have occurred from transiting a human skull. None of the known fragments from any of the various wound ballistics tests have emerged with a flap folded a 180 degrees and razor-sharp edge.
--- End quote ---

More crapola you have dreamed up all on your own. Can you cite a real ballistics expert who shares your opinion?
--- Quote ---
LOL! Uh, the overwhelming forensic evidence, as confirmed by Dr. Vincent DiMaio, among many other experts, says that FMJ bullets will never shatter into dozens of tiny fragments, and that if an x-ray shows a cloud of tiny fragments, this rules out FMJ ammo.
--- End quote ---

That's a really amazing claim given that the Secret Service found just such a shattered FMJ bullet in the limo.
--- Quote ---
Let me once again quote DiMaio:An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . . usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has perforated bone such as the skull or spine.If any fragments are seen, they are very sparse in number. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)
--- End quote ---

Did you happen to notice the word "usually" in your quote.
--- Quote ---
And:

In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a 'lead snowstorm'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318)
Notice two crucial points: (1) In the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" fragments, and (2) if an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," this "rules out" FMJ ammo.
--- End quote ---

Isn't it amazing that the only two bullets recovered from the shooting were FMJ bullets.
--- Quote ---

Why do you keep ducking this fact?
--- End quote ---

Your crap is not fact.
--- Quote ---
Oh, just stop. I know you haven't even looked at the relevant crime-scene photos and reconstruction photos, or else you wouldn't float this stuff. Oswald was of average height and weight for a man in 1963. In fact, he was slightly taller than the average height of 5'8". And, yes, the sniper's nest would have been quite cramped for him, as Pat Speer has proved.
--- End quote ---

It's amazing what you will and won't acceptt as proof.
--- Quote ---
No, we can safely say that you will continue to ignore the compelling evidence that Oswald's ammo could not have caused the bullet fragmentation seen in the autopsy skull x-rays, that you will continue to ignore the fact that neither of the rear head entry wounds can be aligned back with the sixth-floor window (unless we simply ignore the damage inside the skull and ignore the position of JFK's head when the hit occurred), that you will continue to ignore the fact no one has ever duplicated Oswald's alleged shooting feat, that you will continue to ignore the severe and undeniable conflicts between the autopsy brain photos and the skull x-rays, that you will continue to ignore the evidence that Oswald was not even on the sixth floor during the shooting, etc., etc.
--- End quote ---

Your evidence is only compelling to really gullible people.
--- Quote ---
This fluff would get you an F grade in a high school debate class. If a valid lone-gunman rifle test were ever held and at least one rifleman actually duplicated Oswald's alleged shooting performance, you would be trumpeting this from the rooftops. But, oops, no such test has ever been held, and the two tests that duplicated most of the conditions failed to produce a single rifleman who could duplicate the alleged feat.
--- End quote ---

If a gunman duplicated Oswald's shooting, it would be a minor miracle. Elements of a shooting can be recreated but never duplicated. There are far too many variables for that to happen. I would be more than willing to bet that if one of those Master shooters you cited tried to duplicate one of the other's shots, he would be unable to do it.
--- Quote ---
You bet, and never you mind that even the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test, firing from only 30 feet up and firing at stationary targets, failed to make those shots, or that only one of the 12 riflemen in the CBS rifle test scored two hits on his first attempt and only because the test counted as "hits" any shots that landed anywhere on the target silhouettes. 
--- End quote ---

Yup. It's extremely difficult to fire 3 accurate shots in just 5.6 seconds. That's barely over the minimum amount of time the testers said would be required to fire three aimed shots.
--- Quote ---
Again, just stop. If you knew anything about rifles and marksmanship and Oswald's Marine Corps rifle scores, you would know there is a world of difference between firing a superb semi-automatic rifle like the M1 at stationary targets that you've practiced against for weeks and when the fastest you have to fire is 6 seconds per shot vs. going 2/3 with a bolt-action rifle in 4.8 to 11 seconds and with your two hits having to come in the final 5.6 seconds. There's just no comparison.
--- End quote ---

Why did you leave out the part where the USMC qualifying is done at ranges of 200 yards and up.
--- Quote ---
Yeah, that's because they didn't buy the idiotic, illogical scenario that the sixth-floor gunman fired before Z133.
--- End quote ---

I don't buy that one either. You'll have to take that one up with Tom Graves.
--- Quote ---
You mean as compared to your absurd theory that has Oswald practically hanging out the window and firing virtually straight down on his first shot, yet still missing the entire gigantic limo. Yeah, uh-huh.
--- End quote ---


Why do you keep thinking Oswald was trying to shoot the limo?
--- Quote ---
Do you just not understand the English I'm using?
--- End quote ---

Barely.
--- Quote ---

Do you still not grasp the erroneous assumption you're making with this argument, which you keep repeating? Again, if the first shot was a miss, the two hits would have had to come after Z209 and would have had to be made within 5.6 seconds. If you don't believe me, go ask a grade school math teacher to tell you how many seconds would elapse in 102 frames (Z210-Z312) with the camera filming at the speed of 18.3 frames per second. I promise you the teacher will tell you that the answer is 5.57 seconds, which everyone usually rounds up to 5.6 seconds.
--- End quote ---

Why do you get so frustrated when someone points out your logical fallacies. You seem to do that with Lance as well.
--- Quote ---
Sigh. . . .  See above. . . . It is astounding that you don't even understand such a basic fact about the shooting sequence.
--- End quote ---

I understand it perfectly which is how I know the last two shots were fired in about 5 seconds, not 5.6 seconds.
--- Quote ---
Yeah, you bet! Somewhere deep in the back of your mind you have to at least suspect that you are blundering badly and are trying to obscure your incompetence by posturing that I'm not interested in critical thinking.
--- End quote ---

You might be interested in it. You just aren't very good at it.
--- Quote ---
I've actually had two courses on critical thinking. [/quoe]

You should demand your money back.
--- Quote ---
What training have you had on the subject?
--- End quote ---

Do you think someone has to take a course to learn how to do it. I do it with your posts all the time, but to be fair, that's like shooting fish in a barrel.
--- Quote ---
This is your answer to the evidence of extra bullets and missed shots, which includes photographic evidence?! I bet you didn't even read my article on the subject, did you? I'd like to see you respond to that article ("Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza").
--- End quote ---

The crap you write isn't exactly must reading.
--- Quote ---
If your "junk science" comment is aimed at the HSCA's acoustical evidence, even though I didn't mention it in my reply and in my "Extra Bullets and Missed Shots" article, we already saw in an exchange in another thread that you haven't even read the NAS panel's report, much less the HSCA's acoustical research, Dr. Donald Thomas's research, and the follow-up research that was done by BBN scientists in 2019-2020 and published in Dr. Josiah Thompson's book Last Second in Dallas.
--- End quote ---

Oh, goody. You've found another CT who shares your opinion. Am I supposed to be impressed? It's not working.
--- Quote ---
That exchange proved that you obviously had no idea that the NAS scientists were not even acoustical scientists and that they didn't even try to explain the windshield distortion correlations, the presence of N-waves on the dictabelt, and the presence of muzzle blasts and muzzle-blast echoes on the dictabelt, not to mention the fact that those phenomena come in the correct sequence and interval, an astonishing coincidence if the dictabelt did not record shots during the assassination. You also obviously had no idea that the NAS scientists admitted there was a 93% chance that the time-movement correlations identified by the BBN scientists occurred because the recording was made by a motorcycle moving in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, and that there was a 77.7% chance that the 144.9 impulse pattern on the dictabelt was caused by gunfire from the grassy knoll.
--- End quote ---

For starters, there is photographic evidence that Officer McLain was not where the acoustics team said he was during the shooting and the open mike wasn't even on his motorcycle. The impulses were not gunshots but static. But hang on to your myths. Since there is no evidence to support your beliefs, myths are all you have.
--- Quote ---
HUH? If some of the witnesses were right, then there were more than three shots fired. How can you not understand this? Clearly, you haven't even bothered to read the accounts of extra bullets and missed shots, or else you'd know better than to present such a vacuous argument.
--- End quote ---

If some of the witnesses were right, there were only two shots.
If some of the witnesses were right, there were three shots.
If some of the witnesses were right, there were four shots.

Do you see the problem here?
--- Quote ---
Uh-huh, of course you are. What shells did this FBI expert examine? Did he examine the shells from the HSCA's ballistics test, of which we have good pictures, and none of which emerged as dented as CE 543? Did the FBI expert examine the shells from Zimmerman's test, of which we have good pictures, and none of which emerged as dented as CE 543? Dr. Chapman examined CE 543 himself. So did ballistics and firearms expert Howard Donahue. So did Dr. Josiah Thompson. In addition, Dr. Chapman did his own test and concluded that CE 543's dent was too large for the case to have fired a bullet during the assassination.
--- End quote ---

I'm not surprised that someone who believes a shooting can be duplicated would expect shells to be dented the same amount.
--- Quote ---
Say what?! I've written entire articles on why the SBT is impossible. I've posted numerous replies on why the SBT is impossible. Knott Laboratory's forensic engineers have explained why their SBT trajectory analysis proves the SBT is impossible. What in the world are you talking about?
--- End quote ---

In every article about the Knott tests that I've googled, the only thing they said was the wounds didn't line up. No explanation other than that.
--- End quote ---


No, you are. I know you didn't read my article on why JFK's clothing proves the SBT is impossible. [/quote]

I read enough of your crap on this forum. I don't need to hunt for more.
--- Quote ---
You have a habit of making emphatic statements based on little or no actual knowledge.
--- End quote ---

That's not true. I have lots of knowledge that he stuff you right is crap.
--- Quote ---

[[You also have a habit of attacking research that you haven't even read.
--- End quote ---

I've seen plenty of examples of your research. It's not impressive.
--- Quote ---
Umm, as mentioned, Knott Laboratory's forensic engineers did in fact explain why their SBT trajectory analysis proves the SBT is impossible. I provided two links to their articles. Obviously, you didn't bother to read either of them, and then you get on here and make the erroneous claim that they didn't explain why the SBT is impossible.

Do you not understand how much you discredit yourself when you pull this stunt? And you pull this stunt quite often.
--- End quote ---

OK, I found the Knott article and this is really funny. The don't have JBC far enough left and they show him facing straight ahead. His shoulders were still rotated to his right when the bullet struck. Even with their own FUBAR alignment, it is obvious that a bullet exiting JFK's throat would have hit JBC more toward the middle of his back. That bullet could not have missed him.  Classic case of garbage in, garbage out.
--- Quote ---
Another example of faulty logic and flawed a priori assumptions.

Anyway, Connally only heard one shot before he was hit, but this does not mean there was only one shot before he was hit. The Zapruder film shows two sets of readily visible shot reactions before Z224. In addition, two of the strongest blur episodes identified by the HSCA's photographic experts occur before Z224, i.e., Z158-165 and Z189-197.
--- End quote ---

So you think the assassin tried to fire through the branches of the tree.
--- Quote ---
Blur episodes are important because they indicate that Zapruder jiggled his camera in response to hearing a shot. Tests have proved that a person will jiggle their camera in a reflex reaction when they hear gunfire, even if they know it is coming. By even the most conservative criteria, there are at least four significant blur episodes in the Zapruder film.
--- End quote ---

Yes, I know. I've made this point many times. It is how I calculated Oswald fired his 3 shots at Z147-148, Z219-220, and Z310-311. A cameraman will jiggle his camera upon hearing the blast of a high powered rifle. But that is not the only thing that will cause a jiggle. Every shot will be followed by a jiggle but not every jiggle is preceded by a shot.
--- Quote ---
I already answered this argument. You keep ignoring contrary facts and then repeating your talking points and acting like you've proven your point. As I've explained to you before, forensic science tells us that when people experience a sharp, sudden pain, it only takes 150-300 milliseconds to react with a pained facial expression, and Connally's face shows a pained expression starting in Z239. There's no way this was a "delayed reaction" to a severe wounding that occurred 825 milliseconds/15 frames earlier at Z224.
--- End quote ---

JBC testified when the bullet hit, he felt no immediate pain. You still have no explanation for JBC's Z226 arm flip which was simultaneous with JFK raising his arms.
--- Quote ---
You lamely brush aside the fact that Connally saw no significance in any of the few minor pre-Z229 movements that you claim are wound reactions. I mean, nah, what did he know, right? He was just the guy who actually experienced the wounding and who knew himself better than anyone else. Oh, but he "must" have been "mistaken"--because otherwise the SBT collapses.[/quoote]

He wasn't looking for his Z226 arm flip because that was an involuntary reflexive response which he had no memory of making.
--- Quote ---
You even duck easy issues like this one. If the SBT is false, then it is self-evident that Connally must have been hit by a separate bullet fired by a second gunman from behind. How can you not figure this out? It doesn't matter if you accept or reject the mortal error theory. If, as your theory says, Oswald only fired three shots, and if Connally was not hit by the alleged SBT bullet, then another gunman firing from behind must have shot Connally, since your theory says Oswald's first shot missed and his third shot hit JFK's head. If one accepts the mortal error theory, which says Oswald only fired two shots, then if the SBT is false, this still means a second gunman must have been firing from behind. I mean, this is simple math and basic logic.
--- End quote ---

Faulty premises yield faulty conclusions. The SBT is not false.
--- Quote ---
No, you've either ducked and dodged or offered blundering arguments in response to inconvenient facts. I hate to put it this way, and I rarely say this even when it's deserved, but you are far out of your league. I'll get back to this point in a moment.
--- End quote ---

Your desperation is showing.
--- Quote ---
In other words, you're still going to refuse to read any scholarly research that challenges your theory of the shooting, and then you're going to get back on here and once again either ignore or mischaracterize that research, all the while pretending that you've proven your point.
--- End quote ---

It's amazing what you consider scholarly research.
--- Quote ---
Oh, yes, we've seen how you've "refuted" my arguments here! Honestly, you have no business pretending to be any kind of an authority on the JFK case. You should be here to learn from people who have done far, far more research on the case than you have.
--- End quote ---

Dreaming up false narratives is not research.
--- Quote ---
You should feel like you've traveled back in time to the 1960s because you repeatedly show you know nothing about many of the important disclosures and developments that have occurred since the 1970s. You appear to know almost nothing about the historic ARRB disclosures and the JFKRCA-related disclosures since then. Moreover, it seems obvious that you haven't even read all of the WC volumes, much less the HSCA volumes.
--- End quote ---

I've seen just about every nutty conspiracy theory that has come down the pike and I have a knack for recognizing BS when I see it. Vincent Bugliosi wrote 1600 pages exposing the BS. Unlike you, he did real research.
--- Quote ---
Who are you, anyway? Where's your JFKA website? (I have one of the most frequently visited JFKA websites around). What books have you published? (I've published two.) How many books and articles have cited your research? (Numerous books and articles have cited my research, but I can't find any that have cited your research.) How many major news outlets have interviewed you on the JFK case? (BBC Canada interviewed me on the case; two local radio stations have interviewed me on the case; and two JFKA podcasts have interviewed me.) How many of your articles have been reprinted or linked on other JFKA sites? (Many of my articles have been reprinted/linked on other JFKA websites, but I can't find a single article you have written, much less any sites that have reprinted/linked one of them.)

And what are your qualifications? I spent 21 years in Army military intelligence and continued to work in the Intelligence Community as a contractor for some years afterward, so I know my way around the intelligence aspects of the case. I qualified at all three levels of Army marksmanship (marksman, sharpshooter, and expert). I've conducted a ballistics test on the effects of bullets on clothing. When it comes to the acoustical evidence, my signals intel training included courses on radio wave propagation, modulation, the effects of automatic gain control, RF theory, the electromagnetic spectrum, etc. I don't claim to be an acoustical expert, but I know more about the subject than your average Joe. I've interviewed numerous photographic lab technicians, professors of photography, and professional photographers about the backyard rifle photos. I've interviewed a former Army sniper about Oswald's alleged shooting feat. 
--- End quote ---

Tony Marsh and Tom Rossley had websites. Theirs were full of beans too. Having a website doesn't make someone an authority.  Rossley's website is still up, last I checked.
whokilledjfk.net

--- Quote ---
No, the irony is that you clearly lack the education to credibly even discuss what constitutes logic and critical thinking in the first place, and that you've proved over and over that you don't have a handle on many of the basics of the JFK case or even on all the components of the lone-gunman theory.

--- End quote ---

Coming from he likes of you, I consider tha a compliment
--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page