JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Lance Payette on August 02, 2025, 08:04:58 PM
-
At the risk of seeming uninformed, I don’t recall ever having heard of John T. Orr before his name surfaced in connection with the Knott Lab animation “disproving” the SBT. I learned he had been with the Justice Department as an antitrust attorney and had been on an anti-SBT crusade since 1995. Since no one can locate the Knott "study," if there is one, I did a search for any research Orr might have published.
This is his exceedingly well-illustrated and well-argued 66-page analysis of what occurred: http://www.mountainrivercabins.com/JohnOrrReport.pdf. It appears, weirdly, at the site of “Mountain River Cabins,” a development in Georgia that Orr apparently owns. I don’t know when this analysis was published or that it represents Orr’s current thinking, but I assume it’s close.
Orr posits four shots: Oswald hits JFK in the back at Z204, the bullet exits the throat at a slight upward angle and dents the windshield. 1.75 seconds later, Z236, Oswald shoots Connally in the back, and this is CE 399 but not what caused JBC's wrist injuries. The third shot, the kill shot to the head, was fired 4.15 seconds later (Z312) by a pro on the roof of the County Records Building, using a fragmenting, hollow point .257 Roberts bullet in the .30 caliber shell found years later on the roof of the CRB (i.e., a sabot). The lead core of this third shot is what caused Connally’s wrist injury. The fourth shot, which missed completely, was fired by Oswald ¾ of a second later and caused the damage to the curb and Tague’s injury.
In the abstract, something like this seems to me to be by far the most plausible conspiracy theory – i.e., Oswald does pretty much exactly what the LN narrative posits him doing, but a pro firing on roughly the same trajectory with a highly fragmenting bullet makes sure the job gets done. Or perhaps the other gunman wasn't a pro but simply had a better rifle. Perhaps Oswald was a patsy in the sense of thinking he was involved in a pro-Castro plot when it was actually something else, or perhaps it was actually a pro-Castro plot and the other gunman was aligned with Oswald.
Orr’s theory as to how this all worked seems less plausible. The conspirators were unspecified “skilled professionals.” Basically, Oswald had been setting himself up far in advance to take the blame for the JFKA, as well as making sure he was seen in the sixth-floor window. The plan was for him to escape along with the pro and for the JFKA to be blamed on him as the “obvious” assassin – not as a patsy per se, but as the lone gunman when there in fact were two. If Oswald had managed a kill shot, the pro would not have fired at all. When the pro was forced to take the kill shot, Oswald quickly fired the fourth shot to cover the pro’s tracks. Both were under instructions to escape the scene as quickly as possible.
This all sounds fantastically improbable to me. If the Mafia had planned it all and had duped Oswald into thinking the pro were a fellow Castro supporter, which I suppose might be consistent with what Orr is saying, this would be halfway plausible. It still all seems like ad hoc speculation – i.e., Dealey Plaza is what occurred, so we have to fit our conspiracy theory into it. All the risks associated with Oswald in the TSBD, and the complete lack of anything resembling a rational escape plan, seem to me almost impossible to square with “skilled professionals.” I mean, just shoot JFK from the CRB or Dal-Tex building and leave behind some sort of pro-Castro manifesto; much simpler and less risky, no? Why do we need Oswald and all the risks his participation from the TSBD would entail? We need this because it's what happened and thus our after-the-fact ad hoc theory must address it somehow.
Anyway, Orr’s analysis is very interesting. Make of it what you will if you haven’t seen it before.
-
Ah, more from Orr: http://www.mountainrivercabins.com/JFK.htm
The report dates from 1995 and was submitted to Janet Reno. His 5-page letter to Reno is included. Orr notes a few errors but nothing significant. He also gives his email address for contacts.
It's amazing to me how obscure a piece of work of this quality seems to be.
-
Here's a YouTube video with Orr. From listening to parts of this, it appears he's talking about Oswald as a Mafia (Marcello) patsy. This would explain his association with Larry Schnapf, who is a Marcello-did-it guy. If he thinks Oswald was a "sham Marxist," which he apparently does, I must consign him to the nutcase bin while still admiring his analysis of the shots. No way (IMO) would the Mafia have needed or bothered with Oswald. No way (IMO) was Oswald a faux Marxist.
-
Watched more of the video. Jack Ruby was the "local coordinator" and "in charge of this thing." Oh, dear. Yep, nutcase bin. Oh, well, perhaps someone can take Orr's analysis and posit a more plausible theory.
-
Here's a YouTube video with Orr. From listening to parts of this, it appears he's talking about Oswald as a Mafia (Marcello) patsy. This would explain his association with Larry Schnapf, who is a Marcello-did-it guy. If he thinks Oswald was a "sham Marxist," which he apparently does, I must consign him to the nutcase bin while still admiring his analysis of the shots. No way (IMO) would the Mafia have needed or bothered with Oswald. No way (IMO) was Oswald a faux Marxist.
… while still admiring his analysis of the shots.
Why would you admire that analysis? I have only read what he suggests about the first shot. But I think it is ridiculous.
-
… while still admiring his analysis of the shots.
Why would you admire that analysis? I have only read what he suggests about the first shot. But I think it is ridiculous.
This wasn't armchair theorizing. Orr did a vast amount of work. As stated by Knott, "In fact, he was one of the few private citizens ever allowed by the Archives to examine original pieces of evidence in person. He viewed the president’s shirt, coat, necktie, bullet fragments, and the section of the curb struck by one of the bullets." It seems to me a coherent and not implausible theory (talking only about the shots, not the rest of his theory). I don't pretend to have the expertise to critique the details, but it strikes me as pretty much what would have to have happened IF there was a conspiracy. If you find his analysis of the first shot ridiculous, feel free to critique it.
Larry Schnapf is a member here, isn't he? Perhaps he can weigh in as to whether Orr's thinking on the shots has changed significantly or whether he (Larry) finds it ridiculous. Since he and Orr formed a limited partnership to continue with the study after the Knott project went south, presumably either Orr's thinking has changed or Larry doesn't find it ridiculous.
From Orr himself:
On my own time, completely separate from my Justice Department job, and using my own money, I began a research project with the goal of uncovering every speck of original, raw evidence that existed of the gunshots in Dealey Plaza.
If I did not accomplish that goal, I came very close.
I went to Dallas and walked around Dealey Plaza, inspecting it from every angle, including from Oswald's sixth floor window, from the roof of a nearby building, and from the grassy knoll.
I made numerous trips to the National Archives and read every document and studied every photo they had related to the events in Dealey Plaza.
Based on a preliminary report of my analysis of the gunshot trajectories, I became one of the few private citizens ever allowed by the Archives to examine in person original pieces of evidence in the case--the president's bloody shirt, coat, and tie, the magic bullet, the bullet fragments from the limousine, and the section of curb that a bullet struck.
I also read thousands and thousands of pages of private books, magazines, and reports on the assassination.
On April 17, 1995, I mailed a 72-page report on the final results of my research project to Attorney General Janet Reno.
It presented what was then, and I believe still is, the only complete visual reconstruction of the gunshots together with all of the evidence supporting it.
-
This wasn't armchair theorizing. Orr did a vast amount of work.
So did John Armstrong.
-
So did John Armstrong.
Indeed, he did. And I respect him for it. The Armstrong Collection at Baylor University is a goldmine. His theory may be wacky, but his research stands on its own merits. Walt Brown said he kept a copy of Harvey & Lee beside his bed because it is an invaluable resource regardless of what one may think of the theory. I try to be a little more nuanced in my thinking than knee-jerk, one-dimensional wackos like ... well, if the shoe fits, etc., etc.
-
Found a letter from an Assistant AG to the Director of the FBI concerning Orr's theory: https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/other/fragment_tests/NaraFragmentTests.pdf.
Ken Rahn has a page describing what was done, with numerous links: https://kenrahn.com/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/CE_567/CE_567.html.
In a nutshell, "NARA's final report was issued on 21 January 2000. It adds little to the previous reports, and basically states that the fibrous material was cellulose that did not come from the clothing of either Kennedy or Connally, and that the human tissue was too and too damaged old to try to trace to either man. These results did not yield any support for Orr's radical new conspiracy theory and, in fact, were consistent with the conventional view of the bullets, although weakly. ... This should have been the end of it. But in an open letter that was remarkable for its degree of intemperance, Joe Backes jumped in and lashed out at NARA for allegedly botching the tests and at reporter Gullo for allegedly joining them in lying about the results so as to continue to prop up the untenable lone-gunman theory. In other words, Backes saw yet another conspiracy of the authorities against the conspiracy theorists. Unfortunately, Backes seems to have misunderstood that the goal of NARA/FBI's testing was to respond to Orr's specific theory and suggested tests rather than to Backes's view of the assassination. His letter does, though provide a revealing look into the mind of one of the harder-core JFK conspiracists, and in this sense can be educational."
Orr presumably disagrees with this assessment.
A different perspective from Bill Kelly in 2012: https://jfkcountercoup2.blogspot.com/2012/03/re-wc-ce-567-bullet-fragment-found.html.
Well, whatever. I'll get back to this when I finish my biography of Dentist Don, which is already 300,000 words.
-
Indeed, he did. And I respect him for it. The Armstrong Collection at Baylor University is a goldmine. His theory may be wacky, but his research stands on its own merits. Walt Brown said he kept a copy of Harvey & Lee beside his bed because it is an invaluable resource regardless of what one may think of the theory. I try to be a little more nuanced in my thinking than knee-jerk, one-dimensional wackos like ... well, if the shoe fits, etc., etc.
What size shoes do you wear, Mr. Russia Apologist?
Me? Size 15.
Did you know that the city in Moravia (Gottwaldov -- today's Zlín) that the Traitorous Orange Bird (rhymes with "Xxxx") went to to meet his Czechoslovakian brides' family (including his StB-connected father) in the 1980s is where Tomáš Baťa started his big shoe company for people who are smaller than me (which is like 95% of the American and Czech population)?
Regardless, did your hero steal a pair of dainty slippers for you when he was there?
Speaking of wacko, are you still angry that the Deep State Feds were so heavy-handed in Waco?
-
The LN narrative is not my religion. Indeed, those for whom the LN narrative clearly is their religion are more difficult for me to understand than are CTers. If the LN narrative were the clear and undisputed Truth, the JFKA would be of little interest to me.
There is a great deal of fundamental weirdness and improbability in the LN narrative:
1. LHO, with two babies he loves, just decides to throw his life away and assassinate JFK, a President he is known to admire; no one really has a good explanation.
2. The best weapon he can come up with is his unlikely Carcano, even though he could've bought a better weapon on every street corner in Dallas.
3. He manages to accomplish his mission even though expert marksmen have a hell of a time trying to duplicate it.
4. One bullet virtually explodes, another remains almost pristine.
5. The SBT is improbable at best.
6. Yada yada yada - not impossible, but an astonishing amount of unlikeliness.
IF there was a conspiracy, the most likely scenario by far is (IMHO):
1. The Mafia was behind it.
2. Oswald for some reason did what the LN narrative posits him doing.
3. There was a far more professional shooter with a far more professional weapon in a location that would produce a trajectory plausibly attributable to Oswald.
If someone of a high level of intelligence does a vast amount of serious work and comes up with precisely the above scenario, I am willing to listen. If Orr's theory is impossible - actually impossible, not "impossible" in the way CTers insist the SBT is impossible - show that it is. That shell on the roof of the County Records Building is just a bit odd, no?
-
What size shoes do you wear, Mr. Russia Apologist?
Me? Size 15.
Did you know that the city in Moravia (Gottwaldov -- today's Zlín) that the Traitorous Orange Bird (rhymes with "Xxxx") went to to meet his Czechoslovakian brides' family (including his StB-connected father) in the 1980s is where Tomáš Baťa started his big shoe company for people who are smaller than me (which is like 95% of the American and Czech population)?
Regardless, did your hero steal a pair of dainty slippers for you when he was there?
Speaking of wacko, are you still angry that the Deep State Feds were so heavy-handed in Waco?
Ignore City for you, Tom, so save your breath. You have ceased to be amusing. I don't know if others find you amusing, but I find you kind of frightening.
-
Ignore City for you, Tom, so save your breath. You have ceased to be amusing. I don't know if others find you amusing, but I find you kind of frightening.
You must frighten easily, then, Lance.
Sorry to hear about that.
Are you frightened because I'm so large, or become I'm so well versed on how easy it was for "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin to install The Traitorous Orange Bird (rhymes with "Xxxx") as our "President" on 20 January 2017?
Hint: He did so with 32 total years (1959 - 1991) of preparation by KGB professionals as well as by "useful idiots" like Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone, both of whom glommed onto the KGB's* disinformation about the CIA and Clay Shaw that was published in "Paese Sera" in March 1967 and whose body politic-rending work culminated in Garrison's 1989 book, "On the Trail of the Assassins" and Stone's self-described mythological ("to counter the myth of the Warren Report") movie, "JFK."
*Yes, today's SVR and FSB
Adios, Lance.
PS You never were even amusing.
-
1. LHO, with two babies he loves, just decides to throw his life away and assassinate JFK, a President he is known to admire; no one really has a good explanation.
Oswald, disillusioned with both systems, was a self-described Marxist* with no future, Marina had apparently given up on him, and he was probably fed up with being jerked around by both the CIA and the KGB.
*Some Marxists believe in personally "advancing the Dialectic" if they can. Oswald may have seen LBJ as someone who would be more divisive for the country (and less attractive to Third World countries) than JFK, and who, therefore, would inadvertently hasten the collapse of "late-stage Capitalism."
2. The best weapon LHO can come up with is his unlikely Carcano, even though he could've bought a better weapon on every street corner in Dallas.
Buying his Carcano from a mail order company and under an assumed name afforded Oswald some anonymity.
His Carcano was a bit longer than what he ordered, but it was fine for his purpose of killing General Walker (and he would have done so if the bright light inside Walker's house hadn't prevented him from noticing the wooden cross-piece in the window).
The advantage of the Carcano to Oswald was that it was inexpensive, it was quite accurate, and the bullets it fired were very stable-in-uninterrupted flight and very penetrating.
3. He manages to accomplish his mission even though expert marksmen have a hell of a time trying to duplicate it.
Did those expert marksmen take 10.2 seconds to fire all three shots as Oswald did?
4. One bullet virtually explodes, another remains almost pristine.
The bullet that "virtually exploded" probably struck the hardest part of JFK's head while travelling about 2000 fps whereas the bullet that ended up "almost pristine" was travelling at a greatly reduced velocity when it struck the only hard bone it hit (JBC's wrist bone), and it did so not nose-first but with the rear one-third of its length while it was twirling.
5. The SBT is improbable at best.
JFK and JBC can be seen in the Zapruder film to react almost simultaneously even though JFK's spinal column was nicked and JBC's wasn't.
The SBT is less improbable than any other scenario.
-
Orr posits four shots: Oswald hits JFK in the back at Z204, the bullet exits the throat at a slight upward angle and dents the windshield.
I agree with Charles. That first shot scenario is ridiculous. Just the slight upward angle is ridiculous enough. The "bullet denting the windshield" aspect is laughable. The bullet exited JFK's throat travelling at about 1800 ft/s. At that velocity, it would have passed through the windshield.
Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Frazier, assume certain facts to be true for purposes of expressing an opinion on a hypothetical situation, to wit: that President Kennedy was struck by a 6.5 millimeter bullet which passed through his body entering on the rear portion of his neck 14 centimeters to the left of his right acromion process and 14 centimeters below his mastoid process, with a striking velocity of approximately 1,904 feet per second, and exited after passing through a fascia channel in his body, through the lower anterior third of his neck with an exit velocity of approximately 1,772 to 1,779 feet per second; and that bullet had then traveled from the point where it exited from his neck and struck the front windshield in some manner. What effect would that have had on the front windshield and the subsequent flight of the missile?
Mr. FRAZIER - It would have shattered the front windshield. It would have caused a very large, relatively large hole, approximately three-eighths to an inch in diameter with radiating cracks extending outward into the glass for several inches, even to the side of the glass.
Mr. DULLES - It would have penetrated the windshield?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - Would the missile then have proceeded in a forward direction?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it would.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an opinion as to how far it would have gone?
Mr. FRAZIER - Until it struck some other object in the area of approximately a mile.
-
I agree with Charles. That first shot scenario is ridiculous. Just the slight upward angle is ridiculous enough. The "bullet denting the windshield" aspect is laughable. The bullet exited JFK's throat travelling at about 1800 ft/s. At that velocity, it would have passed through the windshield.
Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Frazier, assume certain facts to be true for purposes of expressing an opinion on a hypothetical situation, to wit: that President Kennedy was struck by a 6.5 millimeter bullet which passed through his body entering on the rear portion of his neck 14 centimeters to the left of his right acromion process and 14 centimeters below his mastoid process, with a striking velocity of approximately 1,904 feet per second, and exited after passing through a fascia channel in his body, through the lower anterior third of his neck with an exit velocity of approximately 1,772 to 1,779 feet per second; and that bullet had then traveled from the point where it exited from his neck and struck the front windshield in some manner. What effect would that have had on the front windshield and the subsequent flight of the missile?
Mr. FRAZIER - It would have shattered the front windshield. It would have caused a very large, relatively large hole, approximately three-eighths to an inch in diameter with radiating cracks extending outward into the glass for several inches, even to the side of the glass.
Mr. DULLES - It would have penetrated the windshield?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - Would the missile then have proceeded in a forward direction?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it would.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an opinion as to how far it would have gone?
Mr. FRAZIER - Until it struck some other object in the area of approximately a mile.
Yes, but Orr argues that the first shot hit the "chrome strip" above the windshield not the windshield itself.
Still, I would think a bullet traveling that fast would have gone through the strip and not just dented it.
Frazier testified that: "This [dent] was made by a projectile not having the weight or velocity of a whole bullet moving at, in the range of a thousand to 1,500 feet per second or more."
-
2. The best weapon he can come up with is his unlikely Carcano, even though he could've bought a better weapon on every street corner in Dallas.
Oswald bought the Carcano to shoot Walker with it. A better weapon on any street corner would have cost a great deal more than he was willing to pay.
3. He manages to accomplish his mission even though expert marksmen have a hell of a time trying to duplicate it.
What exactly were those expert marksmen attempting to duplicate?
4. One bullet virtually explodes, another remains almost pristine.
Stop playing stupid. It's annoying.
5. The SBT is improbable at best.
The SBT is highly probable. A non single bullet scenario has a lot of problems that cannot be addressed with much degree of plausibility.
-
Yes, but Orr argues that the first shot hit the "chrome strip" above the windshield not the windshield itself.
Still, I would think a bullet traveling that fast would have gone through the strip and not just dented it.
Frazier testified that: "This [dent] was made by a projectile not having the weight or velocity of a whole bullet moving at, in the range of a thousand to 1,500 feet per second or more."
Mr. SPECTER - Now assume the same sequence with respect to exit velocity from the point of the President's neck at the same rate of 1,772 to 1,798 feet per second, and assume still further that the bullet had, the whole bullet had, struck the metal framing which you have heretofore described and identified. What effect would that have had on the metal framing?
Mr. FRAZIER - It would have torn a hole in the chrome, penetrated the framing both inside and outside of the car. I can only assume, since I haven't tested the metal of that particular car, I would assume that the bullet would completely penetrate both the chrome, the metal supporting the chrome, on the inside, and the body metal on the outside which supports the windshield of the car.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, assume the same set of factors as to the exit velocity from the President's neck. What effect would that bullet have had on any other portion of the automobile which it might have struck in the continuation of its flight?
Mr. FRAZIER - In my opinion it would have penetrated any other metal surface and, of course, any upholstery surface depending on the nature of the material as to how deep it would penetrate or how many successive layers it may have penetrated.
-
Oswald bought the Carcano to shoot Walker with it. A better weapon on any street corner would have cost a great deal more than he was willing to pay.
In 1976, 13 years after the JFK, I bought a pristine Remington 30.06 with a good quality Weaver 4X scope for $75, no paperwork and no questions asked, from a guy who had run a classified ad in the Arizona Republic. Oswald had more cash than that, and I'm betting the Dallas newspapers were as full of gun ads as the Arizona ones were.
I don't know what the bullet passing through JFK would have done to the chrome strip of the windshield. Sitting on my porch on a ranch, I stupidly fired my 30.06 and a 30-30 lever action Winchester at an old truck frame about 25 yards away. The 30.06 drilled an absolutely perfect hole. The 30-30 ricocheted off and bounced off the side of the house right next to me. The 30.06 travels about 2700 fps, but the 30-30 is still around 2300 fps. The result of my slightly insane experiment probably had to do with precisely how the bullets impacted, but anyway I'm never prepared to say what a bullet "must" have done or "could not" have done.
What exactly were those expert marksmen attempting to duplicate?
The firing of the Carcano within the allotted time and the apparent degree of accuracy, no? As I mentioned previously, I played golf with a guy who was a MILITARY SNIPER for more than 20 years. He had no great interest in the JFKA, but he did think the supposed feats of Oswald and his Carcano were impossible.
Stop playing stupid. It's annoying.
I actually am stoopid, so hopefully that will make it less annoying. Yes, I understand the arguments as to why one bullet fragmented so completely and one remained intact, but the one that remained intact is highly puzzling and I don't find Orr's theory implausible or annoying.
The SBT is highly probable. A non single bullet scenario has a lot of problems that cannot be addressed with much degree of plausibility.
The SBT is possible, not highly probable - at least in my opinion. What do you see as the problems raised by Orr's theory that cannot be plausibly addressed?
I'm not arguing for a CT position, merely than I believe Orr is on the trail of by far the most plausible CT theory. If I reject his "Oswald the faux Marxist" and "Jack Ruby the point man" stuff, I believe his theory is quite plausible. Oswald was a genuine Marxist who desperately wanted entry to Cuba. If he were led to believe he was involved in a pro-Castro plot, he was the perfect patsy. It wouldn't have mattered if he were discovered in the TSBD before he fired or apprehended before he escaped or two hours later - anything he had to say would have been exactly what the Mafia wanted people to hear. If he thought any second gunman was part of the same pro-Castro plot, no problem. There would have been no need at all for someone like Ruby to eliminate him.
Again, I'm not arguing against the LN narrative. I am arguing that there is really only one plausible conspiracy theory and that Orr is on the right path. I'm surprised the CT community hasn't coalesced around this theory. They haven't because it isn't grand, elaborate and sexy enough and because their theorizing is driven more by a political/ideological agenda than a quest for historical truth. If there was a conspiracy, my guess is that it is to be found somewhere in the work of Larry Hancock and John Orr, with Oswald being pretty much who the LN narrative says he was. I haven't attempted to connect the dots between the anti-Castro folks and Marcello, but I'm guessing it could be done with the involvement of only a handful of participants.
-
Just about every aspect of Orr’s first shot scenario is impossible. That is why some of us consider it ridiculous. One aspect that I will address is the claimed deflection (aka: ricochet) of about 30-degrees, from ~19-degrees downward to ~11-degrees upward. Orr’s idea has this supposed bullet deflection due to the bullet hitting a tiny thin protrusion of the T1 vertebra.
Going from memory:
Orr himself wrote that the bullet penetrated the back of the base of the neck at approximately 1-3/4” right of the centerline of the spine. I will assume this is to the centerline of the bullet hole.
The average width of an adult male human T1 vertebra body is close to one inch (25 point something mm). Just eyeballing photos and drawings, I will be generous and say the protrusion extends about 1/2” to the side of the body of the vertebra. These dimensions would place the extreme end of the protrusion at approximately 3/4” from the centerline of the spine. With the centerline of the 6.5 mm (~1/4”) bullet 1-3/4” to the right of the centerline of the spine the left edge of the bullet hole would miss the end of the T1’s protrusion by approximately 7/8”. Therefore I suggest the bullet’s temporary shock wave (as it passed through the soft tissues) is what caused the non-displaced fracture (aka: cracked) of the tiny T1 vertebra protrusion. I do seem to remember reading some professional medical experts saying this same thing. But I do not have any citations handy.
Regardless of whether or not one wants to believe the bullet actually hit the tiny thin protrusion, there is no way that that tiny bone could have possibly caused a very stable by nature Carcano bullet moving at close to 2000 fps and 1500 ft/lbs of energy to deflect ~30-degrees. Again going by memory, the experiments by the Haags, the video of which can be seen online, showed a hole the size of a fist and about 1-1/2” deep in asphalt road paving as the result of an attempted bullet ricochet. It takes a very hard and mostly immovable object to deflect a bullet with the physical characteristics and energy level of that Carcano bullet. That tiny thin protrusion just couldn’t do it, period.
-
In 1976, 13 years after the JFK, I bought a pristine Remington 30.06 with a good quality Weaver 4X scope for $75, no paperwork and no questions asked, from a guy who had run a classified ad in the Arizona Republic. Oswald had more cash than that, and I'm betting the Dallas newspapers were as full of gun ads as the Arizona ones were.
Oswald was a cheapskate. We don't know how much cash he had in March of 63. Purchasing via mail order was the cheapest means of obtaining a rifle and revolver.
I don't know what the bullet passing through JFK would have done to the chrome strip of the windshield. Sitting on my porch on a ranch, I stupidly fired my 30.06 and a 30-30 lever action Winchester at an old truck frame about 25 yards away. The 30.06 drilled an absolutely perfect hole. The 30-30 ricocheted off and bounced off the side of the house right next to me. The 30.06 travels about 2700 fps, but the 30-30 is still around 2300 fps. The result of my slightly insane experiment probably had to do with precisely how the bullets impacted, but anyway I'm never prepared to say what a bullet "must" have done or "could not" have done.
I can't offer anything on your anecdotal experience without knowing the thickness of the metal frame of that old truck. Robert Frazier had no problem saying what a bullet "must" have done or "could not" have done.
The firing of the Carcano within the allotted time and the apparent degree of accuracy, no? As I mentioned previously, I played golf with a guy who was a MILITARY SNIPER for more than 20 years. He had no great interest in the JFKA, but he did think the supposed feats of Oswald and his Carcano were impossible.
What was the allotted time?
The SBT is possible, not highly probable - at least in my opinion. What do you see as the problems raised by Orr's theory that cannot be plausibly addressed?
According to the Robert West Survey map of Dealey Plaza (1964), the vertical angle from the sniper's nest to where Kennedy was at Z207 was 21°50'. Factoring in the 3° slope of the street, the vertical angle of the trajectory through JFK at Z207 would be 18°50'. Orr would have the bullet changing from a 19° degree downward angle to a slightly upward one as a result of passing through about 6.5 inches of flesh. Orr erroneously has the bullet striking the right transverse of T1. He falsely claims that it was a finding of the HSCA. In examining autopsy photos (posterior and lateral views), the Clark Panel determined that the entry wound on Kennedy was about 3.5 cm above the wound in the throat.
From their Report:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md59/html/Image07.htm
Examination of photographs of anterior and posterior views of thorax, and anterior, posterior and lateral views of neck (Photographs 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 38, 39, 40, 41).
"There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the skin of the back located approximately 15 cm. medial to the right acromial process, 5 cm. lateral to the mid-dorsal line and 14 cm. below the right mastoid process. This wound lies approximately 5.5 cm. below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. This fold can also be seen in a lateral view of the neck which shows an anterior tracheotomy wound. This view makes it possible to compare the levels of these two wounds in relation to that of the horizontal plane of the body. A well defined zone of discoloration of the edge of the back wound, most pronounced on its upper and outer margins, identifies it as having the characteristics of the entrance wound of a bullet. The wound with its marginal abrasion measures approximately 7 mm. in width by 10 mm. in length. The dimensions of this cutaneous wound are consistent with those of a wound produced by a bullet similar to that which constitutes exhibit CE 399. At the site of and above the tracheotomy incision in the front of the neck, there can be identified the upper half of the circumference of a circular cutaneous wound the appearance of which is characteristic of that of the exit wound of a bullet. The lower half of this circular wound is obscured by the surgically produced tracheotomy incision which transects it. The center of the circular wound is situated approximately 9 cm. below the transverse fold in the skin of the neck described in a preceding paragraph. This indicates that the bullet which produced the two wounds followed a course downward and to the left in its passage through the body."
An FMJ bullet travelling at 1800 ft/s would have passed through the chrome piece, not merely denting it.
There were no bullet holes in the limo.
The bullet that hit Connally in the back was yawed when it did so. Orr claims that it wasn't. The dimensions of the hole leave no doubt that the bullet was tumbling when it struck Connally. Orr has that bullet passing to the right of Kennedy. Considering that Connally was positioned well inboard of Kennedy, that is just not possible.
-
Oswald was a cheapskate. We don't know how much cash he had in March of 63. Purchasing via mail order was the cheapest means of obtaining a rifle and revolver.
Just to be clear, I wasn't talking about the purchase of the Carcano. I was talking about the point at which he realized he would be involved in an attempted Presidential assassination. He left more than enough cash with Marina to have purchased an excellent weapon, and he could have easily done so in Dallas within 24 hours of the assassination. The Walker attempt was, in every sense, Little League stuff compared to the JFKA. It is rather odd that he, an ex-Marine, decided to trust his Grand Finale to the clunky Carcano. This is a distinct oddity under either an LN or CT narrative. One LN-supportive perspective is that the JFKA was an extremely last-minute decision, not finalized until after Marina had rebuffed him when he visited her at Ruth's the evening before. One CT alternative (not Orr's), of course, is that Oswald wasn't involved in the JFKA at all and that the Carcano was planted because it was the weapon traceable to him.
Although I have read most of the major works (I think), I have resisted trying to turn myself into a medical/ballistics pseudo-expert. This is a fascination for many people, apparently including you. It barely interests me at all. There are just too many variables and uncertainties, and too many dueling experts and pseudo-experts, for me to believe anyone can speak in definitive terms such as "must" or "impossible" or even "ridiculous." I note the following in Dr. Gary Aguilar's seminal article, https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm, which doesn't sound to non-pseudo-expert me too different from what Orr is saying:
A second problem has to do with the course of the supposed back shot through Kennedy’s body. The HSCA’s ballistics experts concluded that, between the back and the throat, the bullet had carved an 11-degree upward track. Since Oswald was 17 degrees above Kennedy at the moment of the back shot, that means the bullet’s path was deviated upward by 28 degrees. Subtracting 3 degrees, because JFK’s limo was on was a 3-degree down slope, that still means that the bullet was pushed up 25 degrees during its encounter with Kennedy. This problem is scarcely diminished by the fact the same bullet then supposedly carved a decidedly downward path through Connally’s chest.
Sensitive to this problem, the HSCA argued that, although anatomically the bullet had indeed followed an upward track through JFK, the actual track was still downward relative to the positions of Oswald and Connally, and to the positions of the limousine and the street. The incongruity was thus dismissed as only apparent. That is, by the supposed fact that JFK was leaning forward at the moment of the back shot, and so the declining bullet left what only seemed to be an upward track through Kennedy’s body. Unfortunately for HSCA’s theory, the Zapruder film discloses that when Kennedy was first struck he was not leaning forward, he was sitting nearly bolt upright.
As stated, the LN narrative is not my religion. As with many theological doctrines that actually ARE my religion, I hold a sufficient level of conviction to consider myself a believer while acknowledging a fair amount of doubt and retaining an openness to better arguments and evidence. I am genuinely puzzled by those who do seem to have some sort of quasi-religious attachment to the LN narrative and to regard themselves as Defenders of the LN Faith. I had hoped that Larry Schnapf would weigh in since he obviously knows way more about Orr's work than I do, and I had hoped to send him a PM encouraging him to do so - but it appears that he is either not a member as I had thought or perhaps doesn't accept PMs. Perhaps someone here who is also a member at the Ed Forum can contact him and see if he wants to weigh in?
-
Orr erroneously has the bullet striking the right transverse of T1. He falsely claims that it was a finding of the HSCA.
Since you're accusing Orr of being a liar, perhaps you can clarify.
The statements to which you refer are on page 9 of Orr's analysis. He says "The HSCA pathology panel noted ..." and "Dr. G. M. McDonnel, a consulting radiologist to the panel, wrote in his report ...." He does not say "The HSCA found ...."
What the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel noted, in its section on "Course of the missile through the body," was precisely as Orr quotes it: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0054b.htm (paragraph 278).
What Dr. McDonnel wrote in his report was precisely as Orr quotes it: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0115a.htm. Dr. Aguilar quotes this as well.
-
[...]
Dear Lance,
It's interesting that you, Ohr and Gary "Rudeness" Aguilar, et al., are willing to accept some JFKA conspiracy theory or other (which, by definition, involves the participation of many bad guys and bad gals over the past sixty-two years) instead of the high probability that former Marine sharpshooter Oswald, a self-described Marxist with a quite accurate short-rifle, killed JFK all by him widdle self by firing three shots at him -- the last two of which were easy -- over 10.2 seconds in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza.
Questions:
Was Oswald duped by the bad guys (the evil, evil CIA or the Mafia) into thinking he'd be killing JFK for Fidel Castro?
If so, did he realize he'd be receiving "assistance" from another pro-Castro shooter in the DalTex building or some-such place?
-- Tom
-
Just to be clear, I wasn't talking about the purchase of the Carcano. I was talking about the point at which he realized he would be involved in an attempted Presidential assassination. He left more than enough cash with Marina to have purchased an excellent weapon, and he could have easily done so in Dallas within 24 hours of the assassination.
That is true.
Although I have read most of the major works (I think), I have resisted trying to turn myself into a medical/ballistics pseudo-expert. This is a fascination for many people, apparently including you. It barely interests me at all. There are just too many variables and uncertainties, and too many dueling experts and pseudo-experts, for me to believe anyone can speak in definitive terms such as "must" or "impossible" or even "ridiculous." I note the following in Dr. Gary Aguilar's seminal article, https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm, which doesn't sound to non-pseudo-expert me too different from what Orr is saying:
I've never thought of it as a fascination on my part. That may very well be what it is. Some years ago on John McAdams' Google groups page, an LN of some stature thought that he could denigrate conspiracy theorists by calling them CT hobbyists. The truth of the matter is that most of us who engage in discussion and debate on the subject are hobbyists. That really is what I am. I don't bring much of my own to the debate. I've spent countless hours searching and researching on different aspects of the case. I spent many many hours debating and researching on the Klein's Sporting Goods Money order over a number of years. I was personally satisfied that the thing had been cashed but the issue wasn't put completely to rest in the minds of all of those with some capacity for reasoning until you came along in the Fall of 2015. And you put it to rest in relatively short order. I was pleased to see you piss off the Armstrong sycophants with your questioning of the Wilmouth document. I had done the same thing a couple of years prior. Except that my questioning of Armstrong's take on the document never reached his "desk".
A second problem has to do with the course of the supposed back shot through Kennedy’s body. The HSCA’s ballistics experts concluded that, between the back and the throat, the bullet had carved an 11-degree upward track. Since Oswald was 17 degrees above Kennedy at the moment of the back shot, that means the bullet’s path was deviated upward by 28 degrees. Subtracting 3 degrees, because JFK’s limo was on was a 3-degree down slope, that still means that the bullet was pushed up 25 degrees during its encounter with Kennedy. This problem is scarcely diminished by the fact the same bullet then supposedly carved a decidedly downward path through Connally’s chest.
Sensitive to this problem, the HSCA argued that, although anatomically the bullet had indeed followed an upward track through JFK, the actual track was still downward relative to the positions of Oswald and Connally, and to the positions of the limousine and the street. The incongruity was thus dismissed as only apparent. That is, by the supposed fact that JFK was leaning forward at the moment of the back shot, and so the declining bullet left what only seemed to be an upward track through Kennedy’s body. Unfortunately for HSCA’s theory, the Zapruder film discloses that when Kennedy was first struck he was not leaning forward, he was sitting nearly bolt upright.
The HSCA’s ballistics experts did not conclude that, between the back and the throat, the bullet had carved an 11-degree upward track. Several members of the FPP believed that "when the body is repositioned in the anatomic position (not the position at the moment of shooting) the direction of the missile in the body on initial penetration was slightly upward(11 degrees)". Several members. Not the panel as a whole. Not even a majority.
As stated, the LN narrative is not my religion. As with many theological doctrines that actually ARE my religion, I hold a sufficient level of conviction to consider myself a believer while acknowledging a fair amount of doubt and retaining an openness to better arguments and evidence. I am genuinely puzzled by those who do seem to have some sort of quasi-religious attachment to the LN narrative and to regard themselves as Defenders of the LN Faith. I had hoped that Larry Schnapf would weigh in since he obviously knows way more about Orr's work than I do, and I had hoped to send him a PM encouraging him to do so - but it appears that he is either not a member as I had thought or perhaps doesn't accept PMs. Perhaps someone here who is also a member at the Ed Forum can contact him and see if he wants to weigh in?
Quasi-religious attachment to the LN narrative? I don't think that describes me. But me being an SBT zealot, maybe it does. The theological stuff is weighing heavily on me as of late. My own views are somewhat malleable. I am a heretic. That much I do know. My aunt did read a nice bible passage at my Uncle's burial today. He was an agnostic. Yesterday a priest gave a very nice reading and dedication at the burial of my neighbour in that same cemetery. He was the first Catholic Priest to ever reside over a burial ceremony in our family cemetery since the first burial there in the mid 1800s. I live right next to that cemetery and have spent many years taking care of it.
-
Since you're accusing Orr of being a liar, perhaps you can clarify.
The statements to which you refer are on page 9 of Orr's analysis. He says "The HSCA pathology panel noted ..." and "Dr. G. M. McDonnel, a consulting radiologist to the panel, wrote in his report ...." He does not say "The HSCA found ...."
What the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel noted, in its section on "Course of the missile through the body," was precisely as Orr quotes it: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0054b.htm (paragraph 278).
What Dr. McDonnel wrote in his report was precisely as Orr quotes it: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0115a.htm. Dr. Aguilar quotes this as well.
I'm not comfortable calling Orr or anyone else a liar.
From Orr's "Analysis of Gunshots in Dealey on November 22,1963":
On entering the back, the bullet penetrated less than two inches of soft tissue and then fractured the right transverse process of the first thoric vertebra(T-1). The transverse process is a thin bone extending from the rear of the body of the vertebra. HSCA pathology panel noted an "interruption in the continuity of the right transverse process of the 1st thoracic vertebra..." In other words, the HSCA panel found that the bullet completely separated the process from the T-1 vertebra.
I may have read more into that than what is there. It wouldn't be the first time that I've done so.
I don't see anything in McDonnel's report in which he offers the opinion that a bullet struck the right transverse process of T-1.
-
John Orr’s article mistakenly identifies what appears to be a white purse in the background crowd to be an impact, and resulting crack, of a bullet on the windshield.
(https://i.vgy.me/3pGAx9.jpg)
As can be seen in a zoomed in image, the white purse is further away from the camera than the rear view mirror and JFK’s jacket. This in itself shows that Orr’s idea is wrong.
The bullet impact crack isn’t in the windshield until after the head shot. See cropped photo below:
(https://i.vgy.me/7Va3m6.jpg)
Later edit:
Based on the title of this image it appears that credit goes to [Anthony?] Marsh for identifying what appears to be a white purse:
(https://i.vgy.me/5GzYxj.jpg)
-
Bear in mind, folks, Orr's analysis is dated 1995. I have no idea what tweaks he may have made in the intervening 30 years. This is why I wish Larry Schnapf would weigh in, since he thinks enough of Orr's analysis to have been working with him for years. I posted Orr's analysis only because someone was questioning whether there is, in fact, a Knott Lab "study" underlying the Knott Lab animation. Since Orr commissioned the work by Knott Lab, I assumed his analysis was the basis of the work and thought others might find it interesting. Since Schnapf and Orr are apparently working on a new animation, it will presumably reflect the current state of their thinking on the shots. I found, and still find, Orr's analysis to be impressive and interesting, but I did not start this thread as an Orr apologist. If you think Orr's analysis is flawed for reasons other than knee-jerk, quasi-religious LN zealotry, that's fine; as a provisional LNer, I find the SBT and the LN medical/ballistics analysis in general to be considerably less than compelling. Last time I checked, the "experts" couldn't agree as to what part of JFK's skull the Harper fragment was from, and the HSCA "experts" placed the head wound something like 4" higher than the autopsy doctors.
-
That is true.
I've never thought of it as a fascination on my part. That may very well be what it is. Some years ago on John McAdams' Google groups page, an LN of some stature thought that he could denigrate conspiracy theorists by calling them CT hobbyists. The truth of the matter is that most of us who engage in discussion and debate on the subject are hobbyists. That really is what I am. I don't bring much of my own to the debate. I've spent countless hours searching and researching on different aspects of the case. I spent many many hours debating and researching on the Klein's Sporting Goods Money order over a number of years. I was personally satisfied that the thing had been cashed but the issue wasn't put completely to rest in the minds of all of those with some capacity for reasoning until you came along in the Fall of 2015. And you put it to rest in relatively short order. I was pleased to see you piss off the Armstrong sycophants with your questioning of the Wilmouth document. I had done the same thing a couple of years prior. Except that my questioning of Armstrong's take on the document never reached his "desk".
I absolutely claim no status beyond hobbyist either, and the JFKA would be about tenth in my list of hobbies and interests. When I exposed the money order silliness after about an hour on Google, I was amused to find myself referred to on a couple of sites as "researcher Lance Payette." Gee, is that what it takes to be a researcher? Oh-so-serious Dan O'Meara doesn't seem to grasp that my references to myself as a Serious and Dedicated Researcher are entirely tongue-in-cheek. What I don't understand is why folks, LNers in particular, become so wedded to a particular narrative that propping it up becomes almost a crusade. Something like Orr's theory is way more interesting and fun. (As you probably know, pretend lawyer and certified nutcase Sandy Larsen still thinks he kicked my butt on the money order issue and regards it as one of his great triumphs. I finally traced through ALL the federal regulations dating back to the 1800s and was something like 10,000 words into THE definitive article on the money order silliness - which IS silliness - before saying "Oh, for God's sake, I have better things to do with my life than this.")
The HSCA’s ballistics experts did not conclude that, between the back and the throat, the bullet had carved an 11-degree upward track. Several members of the FPP believed that "when the body is repositioned in the anatomic position (not the position at the moment of shooting) the direction of the missile in the body on initial penetration was slightly upward(11 degrees)". Several members. Not the panel as a whole. Not even a majority.
My point was just that exactly what the bullet hit and how its path might have been altered seem to be very much open issues. Orr doesn't seem to me to be suggesting anything too wild.
Lest we forget, Orr was a respected and honored official in the Antitrust Division of the USDOJ and, while still in that position, submitted his report to Attorney General Janet Reno in hopes of reopening the JFKA investigation. He may have made errors, but I have to believe he wasn't playing fast and loose with the facts.
Quasi-religious attachment to the LN narrative? I don't think that describes me. But me being an SBT zealot, maybe it does. The theological stuff is weighing heavily on me as of late. My own views are somewhat malleable. I am a heretic. That much I do know. My aunt did read a nice bible passage at my Uncle's burial today. He was an agnostic. Yesterday a priest gave a very nice reading and dedication at the burial of my neighbour in that same cemetery. He was the first Catholic Priest to ever reside over a burial ceremony in our family cemetery since the first burial there in the mid 1800s. I live right next to that cemetery and have spent many years taking care of it.
Cool! One of our homes was right next to a cemetery. I could never understand why realtors considered that a negative. I can't imagine a more peaceful and reflective place to live - we loved it. My own religious beliefs are such that (1) I have been banned, multiple times, from literally every major Christian forum, and banned so many times from City-Data that I ("Irkle Berserkle" in my most famous persona) am something of a legend there, and (2) on said forums, I am routinely described as a "fundie" by the atheists and "not a Christian at all" by the fundies. I regard (1) and (2) as proof that I'm on the right path or at least pretty close.
-
I absolutely claim no status beyond hobbyist either, and the JFKA would be about tenth in my list of hobbies and interests. When I exposed the money order silliness after about an hour on Google, I was amused to find myself referred to on a couple of sites as "researcher Lance Payette." Gee, is that what it takes to be a researcher? Oh-so-serious Dan O'Meara doesn't seem to grasp that my references to myself as a Serious and Dedicated Researcher are entirely tongue-in-cheek. What I don't understand is why folks, LNers in particular, become so wedded to a particular narrative that propping it up becomes almost a crusade. Something like Orr's theory is way more interesting and fun. (As you probably know, pretend lawyer and certified nutcase Sandy Larsen still thinks he kicked my butt on the money order issue and regards it as one of his great triumphs. I finally traced through ALL the federal regulations dating back to the 1800s and was something like 10,000 words into THE definitive article on the money order silliness - which IS silliness - before saying "Oh, for God's sake, I have better things to do with my life than this.")
My point was just that exactly what the bullet hit and how its path might have been altered seem to be very much open issues. Orr doesn't seem to me to be suggesting anything too wild.
Lest we forget, Orr was a respected and honored official in the Antitrust Division of the USDOJ and, while still in that position, submitted his report to Attorney General Janet Reno in hopes of reopening the JFKA investigation. He may have made errors, but I have to believe he wasn't playing fast and loose with the facts.
Cool! One of our homes was right next to a cemetery. I could never understand why realtors considered that a negative. I can't imagine a more peaceful and reflective place to live - we loved it. My own religious beliefs are such that (1) I have been banned, multiple times, from literally every major Christian forum, and banned so many times from City-Data that I ("Irkle Berserkle" in my most famous persona) am something of a legend there, and (2) on said forums, I am routinely described as a "fundie" by the atheists and "not a Christian at all" by the fundies. I regard (1) and (2) as proof that I'm on the right path or at least pretty close.
What I don't understand is why folks, LNers in particular, become so wedded to a particular narrative that propping it up becomes almost a crusade. Something like Orr's theory is way more interesting and fun.
That last sentence nails the reason why I think that the controversy continues.
Lest we forget, Orr was a respected and honored official in the Antitrust Division of the USDOJ and, while still in that position, submitted his report to Attorney General Janet Reno in hopes of reopening the JFKA investigation. He may have made errors, but I have to believe he wasn't playing fast and loose with the facts.
Let’s hear from another respected and honored official of the USDOJ. Howard Willens was an integral part and a leader of the Warren Commission staff. Here is part of what he had to say about the SBT from his book “History Will Prove Us Right”:
“ It was incredible to us then—and to me some fifty years later—that the members would reject persuasive scientific and other evidence in order to avoid suggesting that a single prestigious witness may have been incorrect in assessing, from memories of a traumatic event, which bullet hit him.”
.
.
.
“ the single-bullet conclusion was the only supportable interpretation of all the evidence”
It is still the only supportable interpretation of all the evidence over 61-years later. Have fun as long as you wish with the wanna be ideas. When you decide you want answers, I suggest that you start listening to “the crusaders”.
-
What I don't understand is why folks, LNers in particular, become so wedded to a particular narrative that propping it up becomes almost a crusade. Something like Orr's theory is way more interesting and fun.
That last sentence nails the reason why I think that the controversy continues.
Lest we forget, Orr was a respected and honored official in the Antitrust Division of the USDOJ and, while still in that position, submitted his report to Attorney General Janet Reno in hopes of reopening the JFKA investigation. He may have made errors, but I have to believe he wasn't playing fast and loose with the facts.
Let’s hear from another respected and honored official of the USDOJ. Howard Willens was an integral part and a leader of the Warren Commission staff. Here is part of what he had to say about the SBT from his book “History Will Prove Us Right”:
“ It was incredible to us then—and to me some fifty years later—that the members would reject persuasive scientific and other evidence in order to avoid suggesting that a single prestigious witness may have been incorrect in assessing, from memories of a traumatic event, which bullet hit him.”
.
.
.
“ the single-bullet conclusion was the only supportable interpretation of all the evidence”
It is still the only supportable interpretation of all the evidence over 61-years later. Have fun as long as you wish with the wanna be ideas. When you decide you want answers, I suggest that you start listening to “the crusaders”.
Spot on. The Orr theory is flawed in a number of ways. Not even worth a second look.
-
Spot on. The Orr theory is flawed in a number of ways. Not even worth a second look.
Would that be because it differs from YOUR two-shot theory, about which Charles and others here (but not me!) would say and have said the same things? Oh, the ironies abound at JFKA forums. If folks of the caliber of Larry Schnapf think Orr's theory is worth considerably more than a second look, I'm at least going to listen.
-
What I don't understand is why folks, LNers in particular, become so wedded to a particular narrative that propping it up becomes almost a crusade. Something like Orr's theory is way more interesting and fun.
That last sentence nails the reason why I think that the controversy continues.
OK, that can explain why those with the conspiracy-prone mindset are drawn to the JFKA, but it doesn't explain the phenomenon I'm talking about. I have 60+ years of intimate involvement with ufology and other areas of weirdness. There is simply no parallel to the LN community there. People aren't haunting forums, writing books and building careers around the theme "The UFO phenomenon is all nonsense, just crazies, hoaxes and military craft! There's nothing to it! The Robertson Panel in 1953 and the Condon Study in 1969 nailed it!" Debunkers of this sort - Harvard astronomer Donald Menzel and Aviation Week editor Philip Klass - were few, well-known and almost all government shills. There is no community with the level of emotional attachment to the UFO phenomenon being a Big Nothing that LN zealots seem to have to the LN narrative being correct, as though they are somehow offended and threatened by the notion that it might not be. I do find this quite mysterious. The only other arena in which I have encountered this sort of zealotry is the religious one, which is why the dynamics of the LN-CT debate strike me as very similar to a religious debate. I can get my mind around the CT narrative(s) functioning as a quasi-religion for those with the conspiracy-prone mindset, but why the LN narrative would do so is a genuine mystery to me.
-
OK, that can explain why those with the conspiracy-prone mindset are drawn to the JFKA, but it doesn't explain the phenomenon I'm talking about. I have 60+ years of intimate involvement with ufology and other areas of weirdness. There is simply no parallel to the LN community there. People aren't haunting forums, writing books and building careers around the theme "The UFO phenomenon is all nonsense, just crazies, hoaxes and military craft! There's nothing to it! The Robertson Panel in 1953 and the Condon Study in 1969 nailed it!" Debunkers of this sort - Harvard astronomer Donald Menzel and Aviation Week editor Philip Klass - were few, well-known and almost all government shills. There is no community with the level of emotional attachment to the UFO phenomenon being a Big Nothing that LN zealots seem to have to the LN narrative being correct, as though they are somehow offended and threatened by the notion that it might not be. I do find this quite mysterious. The only other arena in which I have encountered this sort of zealotry is the religious one, which is why the dynamics of the LN-CT debate strike me as very similar to a religious debate. I can get my mind around the CT narrative(s) functioning as a quasi-religion for those with the conspiracy-prone mindset, but why the LN narrative would do so is a genuine mystery to me.
Not far from where I live, as the crow flies.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseSubarticle.asp?ID=168
-
OK, that can explain why those with the conspiracy-prone mindset are drawn to the JFKA, but it doesn't explain the phenomenon I'm talking about. I have 60+ years of intimate involvement with ufology and other areas of weirdness. There is simply no parallel to the LN community there. People aren't haunting forums, writing books and building careers around the theme "The UFO phenomenon is all nonsense, just crazies, hoaxes and military craft! There's nothing to it! The Robertson Panel in 1953 and the Condon Study in 1969 nailed it!" Debunkers of this sort - Harvard astronomer Donald Menzel and Aviation Week editor Philip Klass - were few, well-known and almost all government shills. There is no community with the level of emotional attachment to the UFO phenomenon being a Big Nothing that LN zealots seem to have to the LN narrative being correct, as though they are somehow offended and threatened by the notion that it might not be. I do find this quite mysterious. The only other arena in which I have encountered this sort of zealotry is the religious one, which is why the dynamics of the LN-CT debate strike me as very similar to a religious debate. I can get my mind around the CT narrative(s) functioning as a quasi-religion for those with the conspiracy-prone mindset, but why the LN narrative would do so is a genuine mystery to me.
I think that, for some folks, the zealotry extends to both sides of the controversy.
LHO was a fanatical zealot, with some other issues, who apparently was so consumed with his misguided beliefs that he appeared to be willing to sacrifice his life. Jack Ruby was so offended by LHO’s actions that he too was apparently willing to give up his life.
Politics and religion are subjects that are often avoided during polite conversation. The main reason is that some people get easily offended when others disagree with their opinions of these matters (which are close to their hearts).
I think that some of the basic elements of both politics and religion are at the basis of the justice system in the USA (and most of the civilized world). I was only 10-years old at the time of the assassination. However, I was old enough to sense and feel the profound sadness; plus sense and feel the entire world being deeply offended by LHO’s actions. Those are feelings that simply do not diminish very much (for me anyway).
I have said it before and will likely say it again, I envision LHO burning eternally in hell with satan eternally taunting him with the fact that so many people do not believe (and never will) that LHO was capable of successfully accomplishing the assassination. For someone with LHO’s ego that taunting would be devastating torture.
So, when we combine elements of politics, religion and justice (into the JFK assassination debate) we are entering a place where zealotry can flourish. Many of us entered this arena out of curiosity after seeing the movie JFK. We wanted to learn the real facts of the case. I think that anyone who keeps an open mind, and equally investigates sources from both sides of the controversy, stands a very good chance of learning the truth. It is usually the open mind that is the most difficult item to maintain. Especially in an arena where zealotry is prevalent.
-
Would that be because it differs from YOUR two-shot theory, about which Charles and others here (but not me!) would say and have said the same things? Oh, the ironies abound at JFKA forums. If folks of the caliber of Larry Schnapf think Orr's theory is worth considerably more than a second look, I'm at least going to listen.
Larry Schnapf? The flaws in the Orr theory are obvious. If he got something right, it was totally accidental. This did explain why the Knotts Lab animation was such a disaster.
Basically, all the three shot scenarios rely on just two shots with a third shot somehow inserted somewhere into the narrative but completely unexplained and lacking any and all proof of its occurrence. Without a doubt attempting to conform to conventional thinking and nothing more.
Most believe they must have a third shot because they are supposed to have a third shot. Even Josiah Thompson added a third shot from somewhere else after observing the real evidence on the shells, as verified by the FBI, proving there were only two shots fired by LHO. The WC, HSCA, and HSCA sound analysis all doubted the reported number of shots as medias influence. The fact there was only two shots appears over and over throughout the assassination.
It is a huge letdown to know that there were just two shots and LHO did it is the answer to the JFK Assassination given all the years of the hype about a conspiracy. There just isn’t one.
-
Not far from where I live, as the crow flies.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseSubarticle.asp?ID=168
Oh, yes, Shag Harbor is legendary - the "Canadian Roswell." It has pretty well defied mundane explanations, as has Roswell.
My special area of interest is the cases from World War II through about 1970 - before the whole Big-Eyed Grays, Alien Abduction stuff and also before the reports could reasonably be attributed to military technology. Many of the best reports practically scream "ET craft," but this is no longer the prevailing theory. The prevailing theory, mine as well, is really more in the vein of "we really have no idea." This is the theme of Stanislaw Lem's great novel Solaris - i.e., if we ever encounter an alien intelligence, we likely will have no idea what it is doing or why and may not even realize we have encountered it.
I had my own close-up encounter in the company of a diehard skeptic in 1971. It certainly looked like a craft, but there were aspects suggesting it was something more mysterious. By pure happenstance, I also happened to be smack-dab in the middle of the Travis Walton abduction case in 1975 and the Hudson Valley sightings in 1984.
But let's get this thread back on track: In 1987, I was in attendance at the MUFON annual conference in Las Vegas when wacky John Lear and scary Bill Cooper revealed - with photos! - that JFK had been killed by Greer because JFK was about to spill the Alien Secret. I later met Cooper, who was gunned down by Apache County sheriff's deputies while I was counsel to the sheriff's office in the neighboring county.
-
Larry Schnapf? The flaws in the Orr theory are obvious. If he got something right, it was totally accidental. This did explain why the Knotts Lab animation was such a disaster.
Basically, all the three shot scenarios rely on just two shots with a third shot somehow inserted somewhere into the narrative but completely unexplained and lacking any and all proof of its occurrence. Without a doubt attempting to conform to conventional thinking and nothing more.
Most believe they must have a third shot because they are supposed to have a third shot. Even Josiah Thompson added a third shot from somewhere else after observing the real evidence on the shells, as verified by the FBI, proving there were only two shots fired by LHO. The WC, HSCA, and HSCA sound analysis all doubted the reported number of shots as medias influence. The fact there was only two shots appears over and over throughout the assassination.
It is a huge letdown to know that there were just two shots and LHO did it is the answer to the JFK Assassination given all the years of the hype about a conspiracy. There just isn’t one.
Surely you are sharp enough to see the irony here? As stated previously, I read Phantom Shot and found it plausible. Alas, it does not seem to have caused so much as a fart ripple in the small pond of the JFKA research community. Does that not seem odd if it's all so "obvious"? Why would the LN community be so disinterested? Moreover, I see you being attacked on threads here with the same disdain and dismissiveness that you express toward Schnapf, Orr and many participants here. Isn't this just all business as usual in the wacky, quasi-religious world of JFKA debate?
Orr and Schnapf have hit upon what has always seemed to me the most plausible theory IF THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY. Hence, I am willing to listen, just as I am willing to listen to the three-shot LN theory and the two-shot LN theory but not so much the Greer-did-it theory, the Harvey & Lee theory, the LBJ/CIA/FBI/DPD/Yada Yada-did-it-theory, the Mossad-did-it theory, the KGB-did-it theory or umpteen other conspiracy theories that are not, in my opinion, within the ballpark of plausibility.
To address Charles' point, I was raised in a completely apolitical household. I'm not aware that my parents ever voted and am pretty sure they didn't. I was ten at the time of the 1960 election and recall absolutely no discussion or interest in either JFK or Nixon. I was 13 when JFK was assassinated. It meant nothing to me but a couple of days off from school. I was neither happy nor sad nor even particularly interested. Ditto with MLK and RFK; perhaps I should be embarrassed to admit it, but none of it meant diddly squat to me. The JFKA has never been anything to me but a historical event that is of interest for pretty much the same reasons that UFOs, reincarnation, the Shroud of Turin and lots of other things have always been of interest - for an assassination, it's full of a great deal of almost preternatural weirdness and mystery. As odd as it may seem, I also find Oswald a fascinating and somewhat sympathetic figure, far more interesting than JFK or any other aspect of the JFKA. My interest was revived in 2007 when I visited my fiancé in Minsk, saw Oswald's apartment, learned that her sister and brother-in-law had worked in the same factory and so on and so forth. I have utterly no emotional involvement in the JFKA and truly don't care, except as a matter of curiosity, whether the LN narrative or some conspiracy theory is correct.
-
Surely you are sharp enough to see the irony here? As stated previously, I read Phantom Shot and found it plausible. Alas, it does not seem to have caused so much as a fart ripple in the small pond of the JFKA research community. Does that not seem odd if it's all so "obvious"? Why would the LN community be so disinterested? Moreover, I see you being attacked on threads here with the same disdain and dismissiveness that you express toward Schnapf, Orr and many participants here. Isn't this just all business as usual in the wacky, quasi-religious world of JFKA debate?
Orr and Schnapf have hit upon what has always seemed to me the most plausible theory IF THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY. Hence, I am willing to listen, just as I am willing to listen to the three-shot LN theory and the two-shot LN theory but not so much the Greer-did-it theory, the Harvey & Lee theory, the LBJ/CIA/FBI/DPD/Yada Yada-did-it-theory, the Mossad-did-it theory, the KGB-did-it theory or umpteen other conspiracy theories that are not, in my opinion, within the ballpark of plausibility.
To address Charles' point, I was raised in a completely apolitical household. I'm not aware that my parents ever voted and am pretty sure they didn't. I was ten at the time of the 1960 election and recall absolutely no discussion or interest in either JFK or Nixon. I was 13 when JFK was assassinated. It meant nothing to me but a couple of days off from school. I was neither happy nor sad nor even particularly interested. Ditto with MLK and RFK; perhaps I should be embarrassed to admit it, but none of it meant diddly squat to me. The JFKA has never been anything to me but a historical event that is of interest for pretty much the same reasons that UFOs, reincarnation, the Shroud of Turin and lots of other things have always been of interest - for an assassination, it's full of a great deal of almost preternatural weirdness and mystery. As odd as it may seem, I also find Oswald a fascinating and somewhat sympathetic figure, far more interesting than JFK or any other aspect of the JFKA. My interest was revived in 2007 when I visited my fiancé in Minsk, saw Oswald's apartment, learned that her sister and brother-in-law had worked in the same factory and so on and so forth. I have utterly no emotional involvement in the JFKA and truly don't care, except as a matter of curiosity, whether the LN narrative or some conspiracy theory is correct.
for an assassination, it's full of a great deal of almost preternatural weirdness and mystery.
Please give us some examples of what aspects of the assassination you consider “almost preternatural weirdness and mystery”. Does the SBT still appear to be that unnatural and mysterious to you?
According to Google:
The preternatural (or praeternatural) is that which appears outside, beside or beyond (Latin: præter) the natural.
-
for an assassination, it's full of a great deal of almost preternatural weirdness and mystery.
Please give us some examples of what aspects of the assassination you consider “almost preternatural weirdness and mystery”. Does the SBT still appear to be that unnatural and mysterious to you?
According to Google:
The preternatural (or praeternatural) is that which appears outside, beside or beyond (Latin: præter) the natural.
Charles, surely you jest. If they were tripping on LSD, Agatha Christie, Arthur Conan Doyle and Damon Runyan together on their best day couldn't have come up with Oswald's life story, the bizarre events of Dealey Plaza, the Tippit murder, Ruby's life and offing of Oswald, the Parkland fiasco, the autopsy follies, and the ensuing 60 years of brouhaha with 25 mutually exclusive conspiracy theories.
"Beyond the natural"? Well, yeah, I'd say so. Preternatural in the sense of "You couldn't make this stuff up."
-
OK, I'm sick of this thread, too, and apparently no gung-ho CTer is going to defend Orr.
Final word from me:
I have now forced myself to watch the entire Orr video I posted. This is clearly Orr as influenced by Larry Schnapf - who, I must admit, has revealed himself at the Ed Forum to be somewhat more in the wacky vein than I had previously appreciated. I reject what Orr says in the video almost in its entirety.
The posited conspiracy is so elaborate, convoluted, insanely risky and un-Mafia-like that we’re once again back in the land of the Three Stooges. I can accept a four-shot, Mafia-organized conspiracy with Oswald believing he was participating in a pro-Castro operation, but I cannot accept this as being even in the ballpark of plausibility.
Stay with me here: Oswald, via family connections with the Marcello operation (Marguerite and the Murrets), was a knowing recruit in February of 1963, likely promised wads of cash. He may not have been an enthusiastic recruit, but he knew he could not refuse Marcello and live. Everything after February was a sham to make Oswald the perfect patsy – the rifle purchase, the Backyard Photos, the attempt on Walker, and all the faux pro-Cuba activities including the trip to Mexico City. The assassination was planned by Bannister, Ferrie and the usual Cubans. Marcello owned the Carousel Club and Ruby was his point man in Dallas, heavily involved in the planning and responsible for making sure the plan was implemented. All the wads of cash Ruby used to flash were actually Marcello’s money. Marcello caught Ruby skimming from the till and pulled him into the JFKA on the basis of this leverage. He and Oswald may have met in Oak Cliff Park as needed. The plan was for both Oswald and the pro in the County Records Building to escape. Everything went awry when Oswald killed Tippit and was apprehended. When Oswald said he was a patsy, he meant a patsy of the DPD but Marcello thought it meant Oswald was going to squawk and Ruby thus was assigned to silence him.
Oh, Jesus, I can’t even keep it all straight or describe it with a straight face. Am I the only person who gives the Mafia more credit for professionalism than this? Do people of the intelligence level of Schnapf and Orr seriously think Marcello, Trafficante and Giancana would place their lives in the hands of erratic, low-level clowns like Ferrie, Oswald and Ruby, not to mention Bannister and others? Are you kidding me? This is ad hoc, after-the-fact speculation to the max, so full of holes and obvious “What sense would that have made?” red flags that I am simply agog.
I thus remain to be convinced of a Mafia-organized conspiracy, but it’s going to have to be a tight, professional, minimal-risk operation in which Curly, Larry and Moe played no role. Pretty much a garden variety Mafia hit, with Oswald as a patsy who posed no risk even if caught.
FWIW, Orr stands by his 1995 analysis, “which no one has ever refuted.”
-
OK, I'm sick of this thread, too, and apparently no gung-ho CTer is going to defend Orr.
Final word from me:
I have now forced myself to watch the entire Orr video I posted. This is clearly Orr as influenced by Larry Schnapf - who, I must admit, has revealed himself at the Ed Forum to be somewhat more in the wacky vein than I had previously appreciated. I reject what Orr says in the video almost in its entirety.
The posited conspiracy is so elaborate, convoluted, insanely risky and un-Mafia-like that we’re once again back in the land of the Three Stooges. I can accept a four-shot, Mafia-organized conspiracy with Oswald believing he was participating in a pro-Castro operation, but I cannot accept this as being even in the ballpark of plausibility.
Stay with me here: Oswald, via family connections with the Marcello operation (Marguerite and the Murrets), was a knowing recruit in February of 1963, likely promised wads of cash. He may not have been an enthusiastic recruit, but he knew he could not refuse Marcello and live. Everything after February was a sham to make Oswald the perfect patsy – the rifle purchase, the Backyard Photos, the attempt on Walker, and all the faux pro-Cuba activities including the trip to Mexico City. The assassination was planned by Bannister, Ferrie and the usual Cubans. Marcello owned the Carousel Club and Ruby was his point man in Dallas, heavily involved in the planning and responsible for making sure the plan was implemented. All the wads of cash Ruby used to flash were actually Marcello’s money. Marcello caught Ruby skimming from the till and pulled him into the JFKA on the basis of this leverage. He and Oswald may have met in Oak Cliff Park as needed. The plan was for both Oswald and the pro in the County Records Building to escape. Everything went awry when Oswald killed Tippit and was apprehended. When Oswald said he was a patsy, he meant a patsy of the DPD but Marcello thought it meant Oswald was going to squawk and Ruby thus was assigned to silence him.
Oh, Jesus, I can’t even keep it all straight or describe it with a straight face. Am I the only person who gives the Mafia more credit for professionalism than this? Do people of the intelligence level of Schnapf and Orr seriously think Marcello, Trafficante and Giancana would place their lives in the hands of erratic, low-level clowns like Ferrie, Oswald and Ruby, not to mention Bannister and others? Are you kidding me? This is ad hoc, after-the-fact speculation to the max, so full of holes and obvious “What sense would that have made?” red flags that I am simply agog.
I thus remain to be convinced of a Mafia-organized conspiracy, but it’s going to have to be a tight, professional, minimal-risk operation in which Curly, Larry and Moe played no role. Pretty much a garden variety Mafia hit, with Oswald as a patsy who posed no risk even if caught.
FWIW, Orr stands by his 1995 analysis, “which no one has ever refuted.”
I like Larry Schnapf, even though I don't really know him. We are Facebook friends. I probed him once on the mock trial of Oswald that he participated in as a defense counsel for Oswald. Other than that, I haven't discussed the assassination with him at all. He seems like a decent fellow. He does believe that Oswald did not kill JFK, and that will never change. I wasn't aware that he was involved with John Orr's project. That would indicate that he has a wacky streak in him. I haven't watched the Out of the Blank John Orr interview but I have read enough of Orr's "Analysis of Gunshots in Dealey Plaza" report to conclude that there is something seriously wrong with his wiring.
-
Surely you are sharp enough to see the irony here? As stated previously, I read Phantom Shot and found it plausible. Alas, it does not seem to have caused so much as a fart ripple in the small pond of the JFKA research community. Does that not seem odd if it's all so "obvious"? Why would the LN community be so disinterested? Moreover, I see you being attacked on threads here with the same disdain and dismissiveness that you express toward Schnapf, Orr and many participants here. Isn't this just all business as usual in the wacky, quasi-religious world of JFKA debate?
Orr and Schnapf have hit upon what has always seemed to me the most plausible theory IF THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY. Hence, I am willing to listen, just as I am willing to listen to the three-shot LN theory and the two-shot LN theory but not so much the Greer-did-it theory, the Harvey & Lee theory, the LBJ/CIA/FBI/DPD/Yada Yada-did-it-theory, the Mossad-did-it theory, the KGB-did-it theory or umpteen other conspiracy theories that are not, in my opinion, within the ballpark of plausibility.
To address Charles' point, I was raised in a completely apolitical household. I'm not aware that my parents ever voted and am pretty sure they didn't. I was ten at the time of the 1960 election and recall absolutely no discussion or interest in either JFK or Nixon. I was 13 when JFK was assassinated. It meant nothing to me but a couple of days off from school. I was neither happy nor sad nor even particularly interested. Ditto with MLK and RFK; perhaps I should be embarrassed to admit it, but none of it meant diddly squat to me. The JFKA has never been anything to me but a historical event that is of interest for pretty much the same reasons that UFOs, reincarnation, the Shroud of Turin and lots of other things have always been of interest - for an assassination, it's full of a great deal of almost preternatural weirdness and mystery. As odd as it may seem, I also find Oswald a fascinating and somewhat sympathetic figure, far more interesting than JFK or any other aspect of the JFKA. My interest was revived in 2007 when I visited my fiancé in Minsk, saw Oswald's apartment, learned that her sister and brother-in-law had worked in the same factory and so on and so forth. I have utterly no emotional involvement in the JFKA and truly don't care, except as a matter of curiosity, whether the LN narrative or some conspiracy theory is correct.
Surely you are sharp enough to see the irony here? As stated previously, I read Phantom Shot and found it plausible. Alas, it does not seem to have caused so much as a fart ripple in the small pond of the JFKA research community. Does that not seem odd if it's all so "obvious"? Why would the LN community be so disinterested? Moreover, I see you being attacked on threads here with the same disdain and dismissiveness that you express toward Schnapf, Orr and many participants here. Isn't this just all business as usual in the wacky, quasi-religious world of JFKA debate?
Plausible? Plausible is a term that is continuously being repeated. Is this use of plausible good or bad?
A ripple in the pond? You would be surprised by what has been written and stated to us and what has transpired as a result of what is written in the book. For most people it is a non-event. Basically, huh- I'll be damned. What's for lunch?
You read the book. My experience is most Lawyers like it because they cannot shoot holes in it. The president of the Montana Bar Association wrote an article supporting it as did one of the Montana Supreme Court Justices. The indentation on the shells noted by Josiah Thompson in Six Seconds in Dallas proves it. Did you read pages 140 –146 and the foot notes on page 173 in Six Seconds in Dallas?
Simply put, understanding dry firing is the key to understanding the JFK assassination.
-------------------
Irony? I have been consistently made aware of the irony. The irony for me is that the American public first needs to be educated about the assassination to understand why two shots vs three shots is important. A question that is often asked. The JFKA Community is a small group of people who cannot get out of their own way. When they are gone two shots will be the accepted answer and is already taking hold. It is too obvious to be ignored.
99% of America has no idea why two vs three shots are important. The JFKA community is currently and has been trying to create an earlier shot for a long time, in an attempt to lengthen the assassination time span. That tells you both CT and LN people understand three shots is a huge problem. With two shots there is no problem. The 99% of Americans have zero understanding of why three shots is a problem. You have to understand the cycle time of the carcano vs the Zapruder film.
---------------------
What I see? I could be wrong but what I see is an experienced and seasoned attorney looking for common ground or a negotiated settlement between CT and LN factions, to make a compromise solution or in this instance an answer to what appears to be a complex problem of “was it a conspiracy or not.” That will not work with this issue. There is only one answer, it is black and white, and all others are rejected.
You have demonstrated you are well read on all facets of the subject but for some reason you are waffling between them unable to decide what is the answer. Instead, you appear to be trying to pick and choose different aspects of the individual theories comprising the assassination in an attempt to reach a middle ground answer. It is alright to make a decision. What is the answer? There really is a black and white answer. What do you think happened in that 6 seconds in Dallas?
------------------------
As far as being attacked, come one come all. Once you see the answer you cannot unsee it.
-
The indentation on the shells noted by Josiah Thompson in Six Seconds in Dallas proves it. Did you read pages 140 –146 and the foot notes on page 173 in Six Seconds in Dallas?
Simply put, understanding dry firing is the key to understanding the JFK assassination.
I read pages 140 to 146 and the footnotes on page 173. Thompson falsely claims that "the only mark borne by the dented case, linking it to Oswald's rifle, could not have been incurred on November 22".
The dent in CE-543 was duplicated numerous times by the HSCA firearms panel when ejecting spent shell casings from the rifle.
-
I read pages 140 to 146 and the footnotes on page 173. Thompson falsely claims that "the only mark borne by the dented case, linking it to Oswald's rifle, could not have been incurred on November 22".
The dent in CE-543 was duplicated numerous times by the HSCA firearms panel when ejecting spent shell casings from the rifle.
The dent in CE-543 was duplicated numerous times by the HSCA firearms panel when ejecting spent shell casings from the rifle.
No- The HSCA never duplicated the dent.
Wrong mark, Josiah was referring to the mark left by the magazine follower, not the dented lip.
Additionally, the HSCA never produced a shell with the dent like CE 543.
JFK Exhibit F-100: Four Shells from a Firing Test Conducted by the HSCA Firearms Panel. Note that these shells are only slightly deformed and have no dent that resembles the dent in CE 543
The House Select Committee used a different Carcano, not LHO's
Thompson, who viewed all the shells having been test fired in LHO’s carcano, made no mention of other shells with a dented lip
-
Charles, surely you jest. If they were tripping on LSD, Agatha Christie, Arthur Conan Doyle and Damon Runyan together on their best day couldn't have come up with Oswald's life story, the bizarre events of Dealey Plaza, the Tippit murder, Ruby's life and offing of Oswald, the Parkland fiasco, the autopsy follies, and the ensuing 60 years of brouhaha with 25 mutually exclusive conspiracy theories.
"Beyond the natural"? Well, yeah, I'd say so. Preternatural in the sense of "You couldn't make this stuff up."
Okay, I was thinking that there were some aspects that you believed couldn’t be explained by natural means. My bad. What you appear to be actually saying is that it is interesting because it is out of the ordinary. I would agree with that. But I cannot think of any aspects that cannot be explained by natural means.
-
OK, I'm sick of this thread, too, and apparently no gung-ho CTer is going to defend Orr.
Final word from me:
I have now forced myself to watch the entire Orr video I posted. This is clearly Orr as influenced by Larry Schnapf - who, I must admit, has revealed himself at the Ed Forum to be somewhat more in the wacky vein than I had previously appreciated. I reject what Orr says in the video almost in its entirety.
The posited conspiracy is so elaborate, convoluted, insanely risky and un-Mafia-like that we’re once again back in the land of the Three Stooges. I can accept a four-shot, Mafia-organized conspiracy with Oswald believing he was participating in a pro-Castro operation, but I cannot accept this as being even in the ballpark of plausibility.
Stay with me here: Oswald, via family connections with the Marcello operation (Marguerite and the Murrets), was a knowing recruit in February of 1963, likely promised wads of cash. He may not have been an enthusiastic recruit, but he knew he could not refuse Marcello and live. Everything after February was a sham to make Oswald the perfect patsy – the rifle purchase, the Backyard Photos, the attempt on Walker, and all the faux pro-Cuba activities including the trip to Mexico City. The assassination was planned by Bannister, Ferrie and the usual Cubans. Marcello owned the Carousel Club and Ruby was his point man in Dallas, heavily involved in the planning and responsible for making sure the plan was implemented. All the wads of cash Ruby used to flash were actually Marcello’s money. Marcello caught Ruby skimming from the till and pulled him into the JFKA on the basis of this leverage. He and Oswald may have met in Oak Cliff Park as needed. The plan was for both Oswald and the pro in the County Records Building to escape. Everything went awry when Oswald killed Tippit and was apprehended. When Oswald said he was a patsy, he meant a patsy of the DPD but Marcello thought it meant Oswald was going to squawk and Ruby thus was assigned to silence him.
Oh, Jesus, I can’t even keep it all straight or describe it with a straight face. Am I the only person who gives the Mafia more credit for professionalism than this? Do people of the intelligence level of Schnapf and Orr seriously think Marcello, Trafficante and Giancana would place their lives in the hands of erratic, low-level clowns like Ferrie, Oswald and Ruby, not to mention Bannister and others? Are you kidding me? This is ad hoc, after-the-fact speculation to the max, so full of holes and obvious “What sense would that have made?” red flags that I am simply agog.
I thus remain to be convinced of a Mafia-organized conspiracy, but it’s going to have to be a tight, professional, minimal-risk operation in which Curly, Larry and Moe played no role. Pretty much a garden variety Mafia hit, with Oswald as a patsy who posed no risk even if caught.
FWIW, Orr stands by his 1995 analysis, “which no one has ever refuted.”
Some of the brightest people I have known have been consumed with alcoholism. I am beginning to believe that the JFK assassination fascination can be just as addicting.
-
Some of the brightest people I have known have been consumed with alcoholism. I am beginning to believe that the JFK assassination fascination can be just as addicting.
Not that anyone needs to know this, but my dad was a brilliant, self-destructive alcoholic who was committed to the state sanitarium twice. He died in 1971, and in 2005 I managed to get the state hospital to track down the records of some of his sessions. They said his IQ was off the charts but he simply couldn't cope with the ordinariness of day-to-day living.
I think this is common in the CT community, not just with the JFKA but other areas of weirdness as well: The mundane explanations are just too damn DULL (although even the LN narrative is scarcely dull).
Tink Thompson, who is clearly brilliant (a former philosophy professor and the author of a serious biography of Soren Kierkegaard), described the JFKA as a "virus," and I think that's about right.
-
Okay, I was thinking that there were some aspects that you believed couldn’t be explained by natural means. My bad. What you appear to be actually saying is that it is interesting because it is out of the ordinary. I would agree with that. But I cannot think of any aspects that cannot be explained by natural means.
One of my best friends is internationally known in the UFO community - he was on the Tonight Show and that sort of thing. He now believes we live in a virtual reality, basically a cosmic software program. He believes certain events, including the Titanic and the JFKA, didn't just happen but were basically programmed for larger purposes than the event itself. (As it happens the Titanic has been one of my fascinations since I was a kid!) So, there is a genuinely "preternatural" angle for you ...
-
You have demonstrated you are well read on all facets of the subject but for some reason you are waffling between them unable to decide what is the answer. Instead, you appear to be trying to pick and choose different aspects of the individual theories comprising the assassination in an attempt to reach a middle ground answer. It is alright to make a decision. What is the answer? There really is a black and white answer. What do you think happened in that 6 seconds in Dallas?
As with virtually all areas of Weirdness in which I am deeply steeped, including religion, the more I know the less sure I am.
With the JFKA, there is the physical aspect of Dealey Plaza. I lean toward the LN narrative, either the two- or three-shot variety. I recall when I got into guns back in the 1970s, the importance of not snapping the trigger without an empty shell in the chamber was EMPHASIZED as though it were critical. If Oswald just grabbed his guns as they were, which I believe he did, it's possible there was a dry firing round in both the Carcano and the revolver. That said, some of what occurred (yes, including the SBT) is difficult to accept.
Then there is the Oswald aspect. I think I know him as well as anyone else in the JFKA community, and the whole thing is a very large puzzle to me. Why he decided to do this, what he was attempting to do after he did it, and how he remained so stoic after having done it, are to me very large mysteries. Hence the very different, cardboard cutout Oswalds that we see plugged into the different conspiracy theories only because he can't be ignored.
Then we have the added complexity that JFK was hated by so many diverse people and groups, and so many stood to benefit from his death, that the involvement of at least some of them seems almost inevitable. Some of them, such as the Mafia, had FAR better motives than did Oswald, and a hit in Dealey Plaza would have been business as usual.
To me, it's like trying to assemble a coherent picture when you've been given pieces from four different jigsaw puzzles - damn difficult. The easiest way out is to accept the LN narrative and chalk up Oswald to an unsolvable mystery - but, alas for me, the unsolvable mystery of Oswald is the most interesting part of the whole thing. That's my real quest: How do we explain Oswald in a convincing way?
-
One of my best friends is internationally known in the UFO community - he was on the Tonight Show and that sort of thing. He now believes we live in a virtual reality, basically a cosmic software program. He believes certain events, including the Titanic and the JFKA, didn't just happen but were basically programmed for larger purposes than the event itself. (As it happens the Titanic has been one of my fascinations since I was a kid!) So, there is a genuinely "preternatural" angle for you ...
Now that sounds a lot like what we hear in church every Sunday morning. I think in general most folks have a need to believe in a supernatural being (or program if you will). I think it helps us cope with the fact that (as JFK put it) “we are all mortal.”
I could be wrong, but perhaps that is somewhat related to the CT mindset. A need to believe there was a greater force than just LHO involved.
On the other hand, the LN mindset accepts what happened for what it is. There could still be a supernatural being involved (and a greater purpose). But without any credible evidence, it just wasn’t the mafia, CIA, Cubans, etc.
-
Wrong mark, Josiah was referring to the mark left by the magazine follower, not the dented lip.
Thompson claimed that "the only mark borne by the dented case, linking it to Oswald's rifle, could not have been incurred on November 22". Frazier did not use the extractor or the ejector marks made on CE-143 to match it to the rifle. He used the marks made on it by the firing pin and bolt face of the rifle to make that positive match.
The dent in CE-543 was duplicated numerous times by the HSCA firearms panel when ejecting spent shell casings from the rifle.
No- The HSCA never duplicated the dent.
Additionally, the HSCA never produced a shell with the dent like CE 543.
JFK Exhibit F-100: Four Shells from a Firing Test Conducted by the HSCA Firearms Panel. Note that these shells are only slightly deformed and have no dent that resembles the dent in CE 543
The House Select Committee used a different Carcano, not LHO's
Thompson, who viewed all the shells having been test fired in LHO’s carcano, made no mention of other shells with a dented lip
"It is the opinion of the panel that the dent on the mouth of the CE 543 cartridge case was produced when the cartridge case was ejected from the rifle. This condition was duplicated during test-firing of the CE 139 rifle by the panel."
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0191a.htm
-
Thompson claimed that "the only mark borne by the dented case, linking it to Oswald's rifle, could not have been incurred on November 22". Frazier did not use the extractor or the ejector marks made on CE-143 to match it to the rifle. He used the marks made on it by the firing pin and bolt face of the rifle to make that positive match.
"It is the opinion of the panel that the dent on the mouth of the CE 543 cartridge case was produced when the cartridge case was ejected from the rifle. This condition was duplicated during test-firing of the CE 139 rifle by the panel."
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0191a.htm
Wrong mark. Magazine follower marks are what is being referred too.
In a letter to the Warren Commission of 2 June 1964, J. Edgar Hoover noted that
Commission Exhibit 543 (FBI Number C6), the case with the dent, had "three
sets of marks on the base of this cartridge case which were not found [on the
other casings]." The case, according to Hoover, had also been loaded into and
extracted from a weapon three times. The only marks linking the case to
Oswald's rifle were marks from the magazine follower. As noted above, Case 543
could not have obtained the marks from the magazine follower on 22 November,
since the last round in the clip must have been the unfired one in the chamber.
Furthermore, Commission Exhibit 543 lacks the characteristic indentation on the
side made by the firing chamber of Oswald's rifle.
-----
You are fixated on the wrong indentation. CE 543 lacks the indentation from the chamber of the rifle on the side of the shell casing that is on all the other shells fired in LHO's carcano. That was Thompson's point. Not this dent in the lip you are concerned with. The indented lip on CE 543 has nothing to do with it.
The HSCA never fired LHO's rifle. A substitute was used to protect the original rifle. F100 shows the dents. They are not the same.
JFK Exhibit F-100: Four Shells from a Firing Test Conducted by the HSCA Firearms Panel. Note that these shells are only slightly deformed and have no dent that resembles the dent in CE 543
Obviously this is not true if they photographed the dents and they do not resemble CE 543.
-
Wrong mark. Magazine follower marks are what is being referred too.
In a letter to the Warren Commission of 2 June 1964, J. Edgar Hoover noted that
Commission Exhibit 543 (FBI Number C6), the case with the dent, had "three
sets of marks on the base of this cartridge case which were not found [on the
other casings]." The case, according to Hoover, had also been loaded into and
extracted from a weapon three times. The only marks linking the case to
Oswald's rifle were marks from the magazine follower. As noted above, Case 543
could not have obtained the marks from the magazine follower on 22 November,
since the last round in the clip must have been the unfired one in the chamber.
Furthermore, Commission Exhibit 543 lacks the characteristic indentation on the
side made by the firing chamber of Oswald's rifle.
Magazine follower marks, ejector marks, or extractor marks; it makes no difference. Thompson's claim that "the only mark borne by the dented case, linking it to Oswald's rifle, could not have been incurred on November 22" is false. Frazier used the marks made on CE 543 by the firing pin and bolt face of the rifle to positively match it to the rifle.
You are fixated on the wrong indentation. CE 543 lacks the indentation from the chamber of the rifle on the side of the shell casing that is on all the other shells fired in LHO's carcano. That was Thompson's point. Not this dent in the lip you are concerned with. The indented lip on CE 543 has nothing to do with it.
I really don't know what you are referring to. Post an image of CE-543 with an arrow pointing to the indentation that you are referring to. Thompson was referring to the dent on the mouth of the shell.
The HSCA never fired LHO's rifle. A substitute was used to protect the original rifle. F100 shows the dents. They are not the same.
That is false.
"It is the opinion of the panel that the dent on the mouth of the CE 543 cartridge case was produced when the cartridge case was ejected from the rifle. This condition was duplicated during test-firing of the CE 139 rifle by the panel."
The CE 139 rifle is not a substitution for the CE 139 rifle. It is the rifle. Oswald's rifle.
JFK Exhibit F-100: Four Shells from a Firing Test Conducted by the HSCA Firearms Panel. Note that these shells are only slightly deformed and have no dent that resembles the dent in CE 543
Obviously this is not true if they photographed the dents and they do not resemble CE 543.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0197a.htm
-
JFK Exhibit F-100: Four Shells from a Firing Test Conducted by the HSCA Firearms Panel. Note that these shells are only slightly deformed and have no dent that resembles the dent in CE 543
Obviously this is not true if they photographed the dents and they do not resemble CE 543.
(https://i.imgur.com/wfKacpu.jpeg)
-
Magazine follower marks, ejector marks, or extractor marks; it makes no difference. Thompson's claim that "the only mark borne by the dented case, linking it to Oswald's rifle, could not have been incurred on November 22" is false. Frazier used the marks made on CE 543 by the firing pin and bolt face of the rifle to positively match it to the rifle.
I really don't know what you are referring to. Post an image of CE-543 with an arrow pointing to the indentation that you are referring to. Thompson was referring to the dent on the mouth of the shell.
That is false.
"It is the opinion of the panel that the dent on the mouth of the CE 543 cartridge case was produced when the cartridge case was ejected from the rifle. This condition was duplicated during test-firing of the CE 139 rifle by the panel."
The CE 139 rifle is not a substitution for the CE 139 rifle. It is the rifle. Oswald's rifle.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0197a.htm
As part of Josiah’s participation in the Life magazine photo shoot in 1967 Thompson was able to view the rifle and all the shell casings that were fired in or associated with LHO’s rifle during and since the assassination.
Somehow this message seems to have gotten lost here, but the whole point Josiah made was CE 543 is the only shell casing he observed out of the 30+ shells that had been fired in the rifle since the assassination including CE 544, CE545, and CE 141, the unfired cartridge, that did not have the indentation on the side of the shell that the FBI identified as a “chamber mark” and as having been produced by the chamber of the rifle. The point of his observation is without the “chamber mark” on CE 543, it is proof it was not fired in the rifle. His point is not that CE 543 was not in the chamber of the rifle.
Page 145, in Six Seconds in Dallas, has the picture of the shells and the explanation. The one without the arrow is CE 543. There is an anomaly, most likely a burr from the reamer during manufacturing, in the chamber of the rifle that impresses an indentation on the shell casing when it is fired, or the chamber expanded due to heat. CE 543 lacks that indentation in the side of the shell casing and is the only shell, out of 30+ viewed by Josiah that had been in the rifle or fired by the FBI while testing the rifle, that lacks the indentation. All the others have the indentation to a varying degree.
Additionally, CE 141, the unfired cartridge, has the indentation in the side of the shell casing, just from being introduced into an expanded chamber due to heat of the other cartridges having been fired. CE 543 by lacking the indentation or "chamber mark" indicates that it was never actually fired in the rifle.
Magazine follower marks will only be on the last shell in the clip. The last shell, in this instance is CE 141 the unfired cartridge, which was discovered still loaded in the chamber, not CE 543. CE 543 was known to be in the chamber of the rifle and dryfired but was not the last shell. on 11/22
Josiah clearly states based on his observation LHO only fired two shots not three, that is the whole point he was trying to make.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/wfKacpu.jpeg)
Like they said, similar., whatever that means.
Here is what Donahue said about Posner's claim (all emphasis is original):
2 Dear Mike: Sept. 11, 1996
Concerning the case with the damaged lip. Posner claims it could have held a projectile at that time. Let me explain something about Posner. He will tell you anything to make a point. There were no shells dented in that manner by the HSCA. I will refer you to Professor Thompson's book, Six Seconds in Dallas, page 144, exhibit no. 543. Dr. Thompson discovered this case had been fired (dry fired) at least three times. He also tried to dent the cases by throwing them against a wall, to no avail. Just to prove this, I am enclosing a fired 6.5 mm Carcano case. Throw it around any way you wish and try to dent it. These cases are very strong. It could have only been dented by feeding the case into the breech of the gun with great force. This would be from the clip. . . .
In closing, I have never seen a case dented like this. Dr. Thompson never saw any cases so deformed. So Posner says the HSCA had several empties dented like these??? Thanks for your interest—please keep in touch. Howard Donahue, Firearms Examiner
-
As part of Josiah’s participation in the Life magazine photo shoot in 1967 Thompson was able to view the rifle and all the shell casings that were fired in or associated with LHO’s rifle during and since the assassination.
Somehow this message seems to have gotten lost here, but the whole point Josiah made was CE 543 is the only shell casing he observed out of the 30+ shells that had been fired in the rifle since the assassination including CE 544, CE545, and CE 141, the unfired cartridge, that did not have the indentation on the side of the shell that the FBI identified as a “chamber mark” and as having been produced by the chamber of the rifle. The point of his observation is without the “chamber mark” on CE 543, it is proof it was not fired in the rifle. His point is not that CE 543 was not in the chamber of the rifle.
Page 145, in Six Seconds in Dallas, has the picture of the shells and the explanation. The one without the arrow is CE 543. There is an anomaly, most likely a burr from the reamer during manufacturing, in the chamber of the rifle that impresses an indentation on the shell casing when it is fired, or the chamber expanded due to heat. CE 543 lacks that indentation in the side of the shell casing and is the only shell, out of 30+ viewed by Josiah that had been in the rifle or fired by the FBI while testing the rifle, that lacks the indentation. All the others have the indentation to a varying degree.
Additionally, CE 141, the unfired cartridge, has the indentation in the side of the shell casing, just from being introduced into an expanded chamber due to heat of the other cartridges having been fired. CE 543 by lacking the indentation or "chamber mark" indicates that it was never actually fired in the rifle.
Magazine follower marks will only be on the last shell in the clip. The last shell, in this instance is CE 141 the unfired cartridge, which was discovered still loaded in the chamber, not CE 543. CE 543 was known to be in the chamber of the rifle and dryfired but was not the last shell. on 11/22
Josiah clearly states based on his observation LHO only fired two shots not three, that is the whole point he was trying to make.
I'm really having trouble understanding that at all. Maybe I need more vodka. Or maybe someone else could put it in a way that it would make sense to me. Could you link to any FBI document that reports that they identified a “chamber mark” on CE-544 and CE-545 but failed to find it on CE-543? In the meantime, I'll read page 145 of Six Seconds in Dallas and drink some more vodka.
-
As part of Josiah’s participation in the Life magazine photo shoot in 1967 Thompson was able to view the rifle and all the shell casings that were fired in or associated with LHO’s rifle during and since the assassination.
Somehow this message seems to have gotten lost here, but the whole point Josiah made was CE 543 is the only shell casing he observed out of the 30+ shells that had been fired in the rifle since the assassination including CE 544, CE545, and CE 141, the unfired cartridge, that did not have the indentation on the side of the shell that the FBI identified as a “chamber mark” and as having been produced by the chamber of the rifle. The point of his observation is without the “chamber mark” on CE 543, it is proof it was not fired in the rifle. His point is not that CE 543 was not in the chamber of the rifle.
Page 145, in Six Seconds in Dallas, has the picture of the shells and the explanation. The one without the arrow is CE 543. There is an anomaly, most likely a burr from the reamer during manufacturing, in the chamber of the rifle that impresses an indentation on the shell casing when it is fired, or the chamber expanded due to heat. CE 543 lacks that indentation in the side of the shell casing and is the only shell, out of 30+ viewed by Josiah that had been in the rifle or fired by the FBI while testing the rifle, that lacks the indentation. All the others have the indentation to a varying degree.
Additionally, CE 141, the unfired cartridge, has the indentation in the side of the shell casing, just from being introduced into an expanded chamber due to heat of the other cartridges having been fired. CE 543 by lacking the indentation or "chamber mark" indicates that it was never actually fired in the rifle.
Magazine follower marks will only be on the last shell in the clip. The last shell, in this instance is CE 141 the unfired cartridge, which was discovered still loaded in the chamber, not CE 543. CE 543 was known to be in the chamber of the rifle and dryfired but was not the last shell. on 11/22
Josiah clearly states based on his observation LHO only fired two shots not three, that is the whole point he was trying to make.
From page 145:
Of all the various marks discovered on this case, only one set links it to Oswald's rifle, and this set was identified as having come from the magazine follower.
As I've already shown you, that is false.
Yet the magazine follower marks only the last cartridge in the clip, a position that must have been occupied on November 22 not by the dented case but by the live round subsequently found in the chamber. Thus, unlike the other two cases that bear marks from the chamber and bolt of Oswald's rifle, the only mark borne by the dented case, linking it to Oswald's rifle, could not have been incurred on November 22.
CE-543 contains marks from the bolt.
Mr. FRAZIER - I am sorry--yes, 543, 544, and 545. These three cartridge cases were placed one at a time on the comparison microscope, and the surfaces having the breech-face marks or the bolt marks were compared with those on the test cartridge cases, Exhibit 557. As a result of comparing the pattern of microscopic markings on the test cartridge cases and those marks on Exhibits 543, 544, and 545, both of the face of the bolt and the firing pin, I concluded that these three had been fired in this particular weapon.
What was Thompson smoking back then? The dent in CE-543 that he points to on page 145 was the dent that was duplicated by the HSCA firearms panel when ejecting expended shells from CE-139.
-
As with virtually all areas of Weirdness in which I am deeply steeped, including religion, the more I know the less sure I am.
With the JFKA, there is the physical aspect of Dealey Plaza. I lean toward the LN narrative, either the two- or three-shot variety. I recall when I got into guns back in the 1970s, the importance of not snapping the trigger without an empty shell in the chamber was EMPHASIZED as though it were critical. If Oswald just grabbed his guns as they were, which I believe he did, it's possible there was a dry firing round in both the Carcano and the revolver. That said, some of what occurred (yes, including the SBT) is difficult to accept.
Then there is the Oswald aspect. I think I know him as well as anyone else in the JFKA community, and the whole thing is a very large puzzle to me. Why he decided to do this, what he was attempting to do after he did it, and how he remained so stoic after having done it, are to me very large mysteries. Hence the very different, cardboard cutout Oswalds that we see plugged into the different conspiracy theories only because he can't be ignored.
Then we have the added complexity that JFK was hated by so many diverse people and groups, and so many stood to benefit from his death, that the involvement of at least some of them seems almost inevitable. Some of them, such as the Mafia, had FAR better motives than did Oswald, and a hit in Dealey Plaza would have been business as usual.
To me, it's like trying to assemble a coherent picture when you've been given pieces from four different jigsaw puzzles - damn difficult. The easiest way out is to accept the LN narrative and chalk up Oswald to an unsolvable mystery - but, alas for me, the unsolvable mystery of Oswald is the most interesting part of the whole thing. That's my real quest: How do we explain Oswald in a convincing way?
I read about this case off and on for years and I'm 100% certain Marcello had JFK killed. You got Oswald in New Orleans with Bannister, Ferrie, Shaw who all had connections to Marcello. Joseph Milteer knew how they were going to kill Kennedy and had connections with Marcello. Ruby is the icing on the cake.
-
From page 145:
Of all the various marks discovered on this case, only one set links it to Oswald's rifle, and this set was identified as having come from the magazine follower.
As I've already shown you, that is false.
Yet the magazine follower marks only the last cartridge in the clip, a position that must have been occupied on November 22 not by the dented case but by the live round subsequently found in the chamber. Thus, unlike the other two cases that bear marks from the chamber and bolt of Oswald's rifle, the only mark borne by the dented case, linking it to Oswald's rifle, could not have been incurred on November 22.
CE-543 contains marks from the bolt.
Mr. FRAZIER - I am sorry--yes, 543, 544, and 545. These three cartridge cases were placed one at a time on the comparison microscope, and the surfaces having the breech-face marks or the bolt marks were compared with those on the test cartridge cases, Exhibit 557. As a result of comparing the pattern of microscopic markings on the test cartridge cases and those marks on Exhibits 543, 544, and 545, both of the face of the bolt and the firing pin, I concluded that these three had been fired in this particular weapon.
What was Thompson smoking back then? The dent in CE-543 that he points to on page 145 was the dent that was duplicated by the HSCA firearms panel when ejecting expended shells from CE-139.
As I've already shown you, that is false.
Josiah is 100% correct and you are 100% wrong. There is a difference between being matched to the bolt and matched to the rifle. He obviously knows that. The bolt can be placed in different rifles. The magazine follower and chamber are basically unique to that rifle. Those rifles were repaired out of spare parts, head spaced and shipped. That bolt could be placed in a different rifle and checked for head spacing, or not, and it will function. Does that still satisfy your’s and the firearms expert's definition of LHO’s rifle because the bolt markings match the shells? They are speaking in general terms, and you are just misunderstanding their intent.
What was Thompson smoking back then? The dent in CE-543 that he points to on page 145 was the dent that was duplicated by the HSCA firearms panel when ejecting expended shells from CE-139.
The HSCA never duplicated anything. What you have stated and shown proves that.
There is not an arrow pointing to the indentation that Josiah is referencing because CE 543 does not have that indentation on the side of the shell. The lip indentation is not what he is referencing.
He is smoking something because you do not understand his observation and why it is so important? Is all of this because you want three shots and not two? Your objections have zero to do with his observation. Absolutely nothing.
-
As I've already shown you, that is false.
Josiah is 100% correct and you are 100% wrong. There is a difference between being matched to the bolt and matched to the rifle. He obviously knows that. The bolt can be placed in different rifles. The magazine follower and chamber are basically unique to that rifle. Those rifles were repaired out of spare parts, head spaced and shipped. That bolt could be placed in a different rifle and checked for head spacing, or not, and it will function. Does that still satisfy your’s and the firearms expert's definition of LHO’s rifle because the bolt markings match the shells? They are speaking in general terms, and you are just misunderstanding their intent.
What was Thompson smoking back then? The dent in CE-543 that he points to on page 145 was the dent that was duplicated by the HSCA firearms panel when ejecting expended shells from CE-139.
The HSCA never duplicated anything. What you have stated and shown proves that.
There is not an arrow pointing to the indentation that Josiah is referencing because CE 543 does not have that indentation on the side of the shell. The lip indentation is not what he is referencing.
He is smoking something because you do not understand his observation and why it is so important? Is all of this because you want three shots and not two? Your objections have zero to do with his observation. Absolutely nothing.
WOW! Just WOW!. The magazine follower and magazine can also be replaced. They could be placed in a different Carcano. CE-543 was positively matched to LHO's rifle by the bolt markings on it. I am not misunderstanding Frazier at all. Thompson falsely claimed that the only mark borne by the dented case, linking it to Oswald's rifle, could not have been incurred on November 22.
The lip indentation is what Thompson was referring to. That indentation was duplicated by the HSCA firearms panel during their test-firing of Oswald's rifle. There was no other indention on CE-143. You made one up.
Three shots were fired. Your two shots scenario is loopy. It is contradicted by the evidence.
-
WOW! Just WOW!. The magazine follower and magazine can also be replaced. They could be placed in a different Carcano. CE-543 was positively matched to LHO's rifle by the bolt markings on it. I am not misunderstanding Frazier at all. Thompson falsely claimed that the only mark borne by the dented case, linking it to Oswald's rifle, could not have been incurred on November 22.
The lip indentation is what Thompson was referring to. That indentation was duplicated by the HSCA firearms panel during their test-firing of Oswald's rifle. There was no other indention on CE-143. You made one up.
Three shots were fired. Your two shots scenario is loopy. It is contradicted by the evidence.
Does that count the shot at Z-157?
-
WOW! Just WOW!. The magazine follower and magazine can also be replaced. They could be placed in a different Carcano. CE-543 was positively matched to LHO's rifle by the bolt markings on it. I am not misunderstanding Frazier at all. Thompson falsely claimed that the only mark borne by the dented case, linking it to Oswald's rifle, could not have been incurred on November 22.
The lip indentation is what Thompson was referring to. That indentation was duplicated by the HSCA firearms panel during their test-firing of Oswald's rifle. There was no other indention on CE-143. You made one up.
Three shots were fired. Your two shots scenario is loopy. It is contradicted by the evidence.
You never read the Six Seconds in Dallas pages about what he wrote, or you would not be stating this:
"There was no other indention on CE-143. You made one up."
Because what you just stated, that is his whole point. It is either you never read it or you are afraid to admit what he observed. It appears you are having a panic attack over CE 543 and it having been used for dry firing.
There is great deal of evidence of only two shots. There is no evidence of three shots. Josiah Thompson’s observation is the final nail in the coffin of three shots. Maybe you are justified in having a panic attack. The one thing you can never say is you don’t know the answer, you just chose to pretend ignorance and ignore it.
-
Does that count the shot at Z-157?
I say that the shot was a few Zframes before 157. But yes. It counts that early shot.
-
You never read the Six Seconds in Dallas pages about what he wrote, or you would not be stating this:
"There was no other indention on CE-143. You made one up."
Because what you just stated, that is his whole point. It is either you never read it or you are afraid to admit what he observed. It appears you are having a panic attack over CE 543 and it having been used for dry firing.
There is great deal of evidence of only two shots. There is no evidence of three shots. Josiah Thompson’s observation is the final nail in the coffin of three shots. Maybe you are justified in having a panic attack. The one thing you can never say is you don’t know the answer, you just chose to pretend ignorance and ignore it.
What about Harold Norman? Right below on the fifth floor and heard three shots.
-
What about Harold Norman? Right below on the fifth floor and heard three shots.
What about him? Quote the other two also.
-
At the risk of seeming uninformed, I don’t recall ever having heard of John T. Orr before his name surfaced in connection with the Knott Lab animation “disproving” the SBT. I learned he had been with the Justice Department as an antitrust attorney and had been on an anti-SBT crusade since 1995. Since no one can locate the Knott "study," if there is one, I did a search for any research Orr might have published.
So would you say that David Von Pein has been on a "pro-SBT crusade" for the last 20 years?
For those who want to learn more about Knott Lab's historic, unprecedented SBT trajectory analysis, which does in fact disprove the SBT, below are some links with ample information on the analysis. It is worth repeating that if the Knott Lab study had confirmed the SBT, every single SBT believer would be shouting this from the rooftops and hailing the study as definitive proof of the SBT. They would point to Knott's excellent reputation and sterling record as a forensic engineering and digital reconstruction firm, and would point out that the firm has worked on other high-profile cases. They would point out that Knott's analysis was the most sophisticated SBT analysis ever done, and that it included an unprecedented amount of data, including the first digital replica of Dealey Plaza, thanks to Knott's laser scan of Dealey Plaza.
But, whoops, when SBT believers heard that the Knott analysis refuted the SBT, they erupted in spasms of panic and denunciation, even questioning Knott's credibility and expertise as a firm and calling the reconstruction animation a "cartoon."
https://knottlab.com/blog/knott-laboratory-presents-digital-reconstruction-and-findings-on-the-assassination-of-president-john-f-kennedy/
https://knottlab.com/blog/knott-lab-uses-forensic-science-to-refute-warren-commission-findings-on-jfk-assassination/
Knott Lab CEO Stanley Stoll explains the trajectory analysis in detail:
-
So would you say that David Von Pein has been on a "pro-SBT crusade" for the last 20 years?
For those who want to learn more about Knott Lab's historic, unprecedented SBT trajectory analysis, which does in fact disprove the SBT, below are some links with ample information on the analysis. It is worth repeating that if the Knott Lab study had confirmed the SBT, every single SBT believer would be shouting this from the rooftops and hailing the study as definitive proof of the SBT. They would point to Knott's excellent reputation and sterling record as a forensic engineering and digital reconstruction firm, and would point out that the firm has worked on other high-profile cases. They would point out that Knott's analysis was the most sophisticated SBT analysis ever done, and that it included an unprecedented amount of data, including the first digital replica of Dealey Plaza, thanks to Knott's laser scan of Dealey Plaza.
But, whoops, when SBT believers heard that the Knott analysis refuted the SBT, they erupted in spasms of panic and denunciation, even questioning Knott's credibility and expertise as a firm and calling the reconstruction animation a "cartoon."
https://knottlab.com/blog/knott-laboratory-presents-digital-reconstruction-and-findings-on-the-assassination-of-president-john-f-kennedy/
https://knottlab.com/blog/knott-lab-uses-forensic-science-to-refute-warren-commission-findings-on-jfk-assassination/
Knott Lab CEO Stanley Stoll explains the trajectory analysis in detail:
You miss the point. I would indeed say DVP has been on a LN narrative crusade for years, and I'm sure he would agree. My point with Orr was that, until recent years, the sole focus of his research was his four-shot scenario. All he has cared about has been the number and sequence of the shots.
Are you aware that Orr and Knott had a falling out and that Larry Schnapf, who is Orr's business partner in this project, has pretty much said to ignore Knott's work because he and Orr will be producing an animation that accurately reflects Orr's work?