JFK Assassination Forum
The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on June 12, 2026, 02:49:00 PM
-
This is the first post of several that I will present in this thread.
In numerous surveys done in the U.S. and Europe over the years, including fairly recently, the percentage of people who have said they believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy has ranged from 56% to 85%, with about 6% to 10% undecided. Even in the 1970s, surveys found that a sizable majority of Americans did not buy the Warren Commission's lone-gunman story. I think one of the reasons for the rejection of the single-assassin scenario is that it does not hold up when analyzed with logic and critical thinking.
Let us begin by looking at the key issue of motive.
-- The lone-gunman theory is unable to provide a believable, credible motive for its alleged lone gunman. By all accounts, Oswald liked JFK. No one ever claimed to hear Oswald voice any intent to harm JFK. If Oswald's motive was to make a name for himself in history, why did he vehemently deny shooting JFK? If Oswald had killed JFK to make himself famous, one would logically expect that he would have proudly taken credit for JFK's death and announced his justifications to the world, but he did no such thing.
After Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme tried to assassinate President Gerald Ford in 1975, she made no effort to deny her guilt but proudly defended her action. She openly voiced two motives for her assassination attempt: (1) her anger over Ford's alleged destruction of the environment, and (2) her desire to draw attention to the Manson family.
After Leon Czolgosz was arrested for assassinating President William McKinley in 1901, he staunchly defended his action and made no secret of his motive. He said he viewed McKinley as an oppressive leader and was convinced it was his duty to kill an "enemy of the good people--the working people."
When John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln in Ford's Theatre in 1865, he loudly made his motive clear seconds after he did the shooting, shouting to the shocked audience "sic semper tyrannis," i.e., "thus always to tyrants."
But Oswald behaved in a completely different manner. At every opportunity, whether under police interrogation or when speaking with journalists, he fiercely denied shooting anyone, and he told the police--and his brother--that the evidence against him was fraudulent, even going so far as to claim he was a patsy.
Furthermore, according to the lone-gunman theory, Oswald tried to shoot right-wing extremist General Edwin Walker in April 1963. Now why, oh why, oh why would the same allegedly pro-Soviet and pro-Cuban Marxist who supposedly tried to shoot the ultra-conservative General Walker turn around and shoot the center-left JFK, who was publicly trying to make peace with the Soviets, especially given the fact that JFK had publicly disgraced Walker and had relieved Walker of command? That makes no sense.
-- The conspiracy theory of the assassination can provide concrete, documented motives for its suspects. It has been amply documented, including with filmed interviews, that certain CIA officers who worked with the anti-Castro Cubans, along with some of the anti-Castro Cubans themselves, viscerally hated JFK and regarded him as a traitor. And we have two credible anecdotal accounts of CIA officers proudly admitting to close associates that they played a role in JFK's death.
One of the best books on evidence that some CIA officers and anti-Castro Cubans were involved in the assassination is former HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi's 1993 book The Last Investigation.
There is even stronger evidence of motive for certain Mafia elements. The historical record is clear, and no reputable scholar denies, that the Kennedy administration was waging an intense war against the Mafia, and that the Mafia viewed JFK and RFK as threats to their very existence.
Wiretaps recorded some Mafia leaders expressing a wish to see JFK dead before the assassination, and two informants reported that they heard Mafia leaders talking about a plot to kill Kennedy in the months leading up to JFK's death. Moreover, after the assassination, a government informant heard Mafia kingpin Carlos Marcello admit to playing a role in the assassination.
Three of the best books on the evidence that certain Mafia elements were involved in the assassination are Anthony Summers' 2013 book Not in Your Lifetime: The Defining Book on the J.F.K. Assassination (updated version), Lamar Waldron's 2013 book The Hidden History of the JFK Assassination, and Dr. David Kaiser's 2008 book The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy.
Summers was a Pulitzer Prize finalist in 2012 and has twice won the Crime Writers' Association's award for top non-fiction works. In recognition of his scholarship, Summers was made a Fellow of the Literary & Historical Society of University College Dublin.
Waldron is a respected journalist and historian. His historical research and non-fiction books have won praise from Publishers Weekly, Vanity Fair, the Boston Globe, the San Francisco Chronicle, and major publications in Europe. His research has been the subject of two prime-time specials on the Discovery Channel, produced by NBC News. He has been featured on CNN and the History Channel.
Kaiser is a respected historian. When Kaiser wrote his JFK book, he was a professor of history at the Naval War College. He later held professorships at Harvard University, Williams College, and Carnegie Mellon University. He earned his B.A. and Ph.D. in history from Harvard. He is now retired. (On a side note, Kaiser concluded that the HSCA's acoustical evidence was valid.)
-
MTG--
You raise a lot of good points.
OTOH, understanding anyone's true character and personality, especially at a 60-year remove...well, tricky.
I strongly suspect LHO took a shot at General Walker. Ergo, LHO had an inclination to shoot a major public figures.
For me, the best explanations of the JFKA include LHO, either manipulated or participating, with a very small number of G2'ers, or Alpha 66'ers. Maybe just two.
I agree the SBT-LNT theories do not hold water.
-
Fortunately for all of us, I have already applied logic and critical thinking to the JFKA. See if you recognize anyone. In fact, I may have had MTG in mind when I originally wrote this.
I originally created this in 2019. My exchange with Paul Cummings today made me think about it again. I’m surprised at how little my thinking has changed. The original is buried in the bowels of the Ed Forum, so I’m just creating a new thread to preserve it for posterity. I was actually going to write a book because I thought John McAdams’ JFK Assassination Logic: How to Think About Claims of Conspiracy was pretty weak. But then I said the hell with it.
1. In the Conspiracy Game, there are a variety of acceptable approaches to the interpretation of evidence. Say, for example, that three eyewitnesses report, respectively, a “bluish” car, a “reddish” car and a “maroon” car, or that three documents describe a bullet wound in “the right shoulder,” “about 4” down from the neck” and “high up in the back.” In the Conspiracy Game, there are three possible approaches to this evidence:
a. There were three cars and three wounds on the body, if this will further your pet Conspiracy Theory.
b. There was one reddish car and one wound 4” down from the neck, if this will further your pet Conspiracy Theory. (The eyewitnesses and documents that say otherwise may serve as further evidence of the conspiracy if you’re sufficiently creative.)
c. The car was actually black, the wound was actually in the side of the head, all the eyewitnesses are lying and all the documents are bogus, if this will best fit your pet Conspiracy Theory.
d. The choice is made without regard to which eyewitnesses or documents are the most reliable according to the applicable legal standards or which explanation best fits with the other evidence. The choice is made solely on the basis of which one best fits your pet Conspiracy Theory.
2. As your pet Conspiracy Theory – three cars and three wounds, for example – is repeated over and over, it pretty quickly hardens into Conspiracy Gospel. It’s extremely rude of anyone to go back to the original sources to see if this Conspiracy Gospel is supported by, consistent with, or the best explanation of the actual evidence.
3. If some nugget of Conspiracy Gospel is conclusively disproven – for example, photos or videos come to light that show the car was definitely red rather than black – the Conspiracy Theorist has three alternatives:
a. Claim that the new evidence is faked or altered, thereby preserving the black car nugget of Conspiracy Gospel.
b. Move the goal post. Move it as many times as necessary. There was a red car as well as a black one that doesn’t show up in the photos, perhaps. Maybe the car was repainted. Or even if the car was red, this just shows that two of the supposed eyewitness were lying and involved in the conspiracy. Who were they, really, and what were they up to?
c. If your nugget is reduced to rubble beyond all redemption, change the subject. This is the “Oh, yeah, well what about this over here?” gambit, an accepted move in the Conspiracy Game. The nugget that has now gone poof was never really important anyway.
d. Choices “a” and “b” afford a Conspiracy Theorist almost endless opportunities for creativity, which is a big part of the fun of the Conspiracy Game. It thus is utterly futile to attempt to argue or reason with a dedicated Conspiracy Theorist.
4. All gaps in the narrative, whether evidentiary or logical, are filled with sinister speculation and sinister inferences. As your pet Conspiracy Theory expands like Topsy, as it inevitably will, it’s especially important to keep this principle in mind. It’s quite amazing the gaps you can fill with such speculation. In the hands of a Conspiracy Game master, a plausible Conspiracy Theory may be woven from almost nothing else.
5. In the Conspiracy Game, human nature is inoperative.
a. No one ever makes an innocent mistake, is ever simply careless or is ever honestly confused or forgetful. There is no bureaucratic ineptitude. Every inconsistency in the evidence and testimony has a sinister, conspiracy-furthering explanation.
b. The fact that the JFKA was sudden, wholly unanticipated and traumatic is irrelevant. Even in these circumstances, no one ever makes an innocent mistake or becomes honestly confused. There are no excuses.
c. No matter the circumstances, all participants should have made their statements, written their reports and done everything else with one eye on “how it would look” to future generations of historians and (especially) conspiracy enthusiasts. If they didn’t, too bad for them.
6.The actual characters and life histories of the participants and witnesses are irrelevant in the Conspiracy Game except insofar as they further your pet Conspiracy Theory. If a participant or witness whose testimony is damaging to your Conspiracy Theory is a garden-variety housewife and mother who attends church regularly, is active in community affairs and has lots of friends who vouch for her impeccable reputation, the Conspiracy Theorist has three choices:
a. Of course, she is clean as a whistle – this is exactly what you would expect in a truly diabolical conspiracy such as we have here. These conspirators were no fools.
b. Dig, dig, dig for something, anything. Her second cousin twice removed was a secretary for the FBI? Well, there you go! Need we say more?
c. Make something up! Speculate! Everyone is fair game for defamation and character assassination. While these may be illegal or unethical in the real world, they are just part of the fun of the Conspiracy Game.
7. Even though real-world conspiracies tend to be as small, simple and compartmentalized as possible because this greatly enhances the odds of success and non-detection, no Conspiracy Theory can ever be too large or convoluted in the Conspiracy Game.
a. If necessary to preserve your pet Conspiracy Theory, the conspiracy net will be allowed to expand ever-wider until it has captured pretty much everyone involved – unlikely and seemingly unconnected people from all walks of life, unlikely agencies and organizations, whatever it takes. Be sure to keep in mind the rule about sinister speculation and inferences.
b. The fact that the JFKA is “explained” by 15 or more distinct and irreconcilable Conspiracy Theories is irrelevant. With the exception of those who are actually deriving income from the Conspiracy Game (who can be quite defensive of their turf), the players in the Conspiracy Game are a fraternal brotherhood, united against that icky Lone Nut narrative. By Conspiracy Logic, the existence of 15 or more irreconcilable theories merely underscores that by God there had to have been a conspiracy.
c. Similarly, the fact that a Conspiracy Theory requires the conspirators to have been diabolical geniuses at steps 1-3-5-7 and bumbling idiots at steps 2-4-6-8 is irrelevant. It’s rude even to point this out.
8. Those who fail to see the conspiracy are never a problem. They either lack the vast arcane knowledge the Conspiracy Brotherhood possesses, are unwitting stooges of the very forces responsible for the conspiracy, or are disinformation agents bent on disrupting the Conspiracy Game.
a. No matter how sterling the academic and professional qualifications of a naysayer, no matter how exhaustive his research may appear to be, no matter how cogent his arguments may seem, he is dismissed as either a fool or a disinformation agent – usually the latter because paranoia about disinformation agents is an integral part of the Conspiracy Game.
b. As a last resort, the “disinformation agent” label may be applied even to a fellow member of the Conspiracy Brotherhood when the competition gets fierce.
9. A certain naivete about the real world is helpful when playing the Conspiracy Game.
a. Even though law enforcement in the real world is plagued by wannabes, tellers of tall tales, and even those who confess, for no apparent reason, to crimes they didn’t commit, this almost never occurs in the Conspiracy Game. Anyone whose tale will support your pet Conspiracy Theory is accorded instant credibility. Often this continues long after the tale has been exposed as fraudulent. (If the tale is inconvenient for one’s pet Conspiracy Theory, the “disinformation agent” label may be applied to the teller. As you can see, “disinformation agent” is sort of the trump card of the Conspiracy Game.)
b. Even though fast-buck artists and con men abound in every other field of human endeavor, they do not exist in the Conspiracy Game. Every owner of a large website, every active blogger, every speaker at conspiracy conferences, every purveyor of conspiracy books, CDs, DVDs and conspiracy paraphernalia quickly accumulates a cult-like following as a “serious researcher” even if in the real world he is a Safeway cashier who dropped out of school in the seventh grade.
10. Common sense, logic and critical thinking are anathema in the Conspiracy Game. Conspiracy Logic is more like anti-logic (think Alice In Wonderland).
a. It’s exceedingly rude to ask, either about a Conspiracy Theory as a whole or any aspect if it, questions such as “What would that actually have looked like in the real world?” or “How would that have made any sense at all?” or “Why would the conspirators have done that when they could have easily done this with far fewer participants and far less risk?” You’ll never get any substantive answers anyway.
b. To successfully play the Conspiracy Game, you must become utterly absorbed in, and indeed obsessed with, minutiae. The JFKA must be examined with an electron microscope. The objective is to overwhelm the uninformed with such a mass of detail that they throw up their hands and agree, “Yeah, I guess there must have been some sort of conspiracy” just to shut you up. This will improve poll numbers, thereby causing the Conspiracy Brotherhood to gain credibility. You can scream that “75% of the American public believes in a conspiracy!” as though 75% of the public actually knew or cared what the heck you’re talking about (and would laugh out loud if they knew your pet theory is that Secret Service agent Hickey accidentally shot JFK).
c. The tactic described in item “b” will help avoid inconvenient questions such as those described in item “a.” You want to keep the discussion at the electron microscope level, avoiding like the plague those pesky “What sense would that have made?” questions.
11. The likelihood that you’ll enjoy the Conspiracy Game hinges on a variety of factors.
a. It’s a great advantage if you have a preconceived notion as to how the JFKA “should” be explained. You’ll see that much of the Conspiracy Brotherhood is less concerned with arriving at the historical truth of the JFKA than in fitting it into some ideological meta-narrative they carry in their heads as to how the world “works” and what dark forces are really “in control.” Keep this in mind and you’ll be far less inclined to wonder “How could any sane person actually believe that?” If you are interested in historical truth, arrived at through standard methodologies, the Conspiracy Game may not be for you.
b. It’s likewise beneficial if you fit the profile that is now emerging, through peer-reviewed studies in such fields as psychiatry, psychology and the social sciences, of the type of individual who is prone to conspiratorial explanations even in the face of better non-conspiratorial explanations. This doesn’t mean there is necessarily anything pathologically wrong with you, merely that you’re a natural and could go far in the Conspiracy Game.
c. At the fringes of the Conspiracy Game, of course, it helps if you’re exceedingly credulous and even, well, nuttier than a fruitcake. People who are this way seldom recognize or admit it, but you’ll notice that you quickly feel as though you’ve found a home among kindred spirits.
d. The Conspiracy Brotherhood is essentially a religion. The members worship their respective theories. Many are extreme fundamentalists, others more moderate, others fringe cultists. The various Conspiracy Theories are the equivalent of religious denominations, each with its own priests and deacons, its holy scriptures and sites, and whatnot. This is a useful analogy to keep in mind when the intra-denominational bickering starts to get out of hand. Always remember, the real enemy is that Great Satan, the Lone Nut narrative.
e. Leave your sense of humor at home. Participants in the Conspiracy Game do not regard themselves or their activities as humorous in the slightest. This is deadly serious stuff, being pursued by dedicated seekers of truth for the good of mankind. They have nothing in common - or at least they don't think they do - with those loony UfO enthusiasts, Bigfoot enthusiasts, Flat Earthers and the like. Stifle that urge to titter, chuckle and guffaw at their work or move along.
12. Oh, remember: Do not omit Oswald. This is an amateur mistake. Do not allow your enthusiasm for LBJ, Hoover, the CIA, the FBI, Army Intelligence, the Secret Service, the DPD, Texas oilmen, the Mafia, the Mossad, pro-Castro exiles, anti-Castro exiles, the KGB and/or the French Foreign Legion as the culprits to cause you to completely overlook Oswald. You simply must fit him in there somehow. It is perfectly acceptable - indeed encouraged - to reinvent him as necessary to fit your pet Conspiracy Theory, even if he ends up seeming considerably more interesting than JFK.
a. The same is true of all other principals - LBJ, Dulles, Ruth Paine, Marina, whomever. Don't be shy: Just reinvent them to fit your theory! Since you're really just writing fiction anyway when you play the Conspiracy Game, there is absolutely nothing out-of-bounds about this.
-
You can't make this stuff up. On his own thread about logic and critical thinking, Our Hero immediately commits at least two logical fallacies:
This is the first post of several that I will present in this thread.
In numerous surveys done in the U.S. and Europe over the years, including fairly recently, the percentage of people who have said they believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy has ranged from 56% to 85%, with about 6% to 10% undecided. Even in the 1970s, surveys found that a sizable majority of Americans did not buy the Warren Commission's lone-gunman story. I think one of the reasons for the rejection of the single-assassin scenario is that it does not hold up when analyzed with logic and critical thinking.
This is the ad populum or "bandwagon" fallacy. It is similar to the "appeal to authority" fallacy but worse. The popularity of a viewpoint has precisely nothing to do with its quality or truth. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Popularity (MTG won't like the Mormon example!).
Not a good start here, Mr. Logic.
The lone-gunman theory is unable to provide a believable, credible motive for its alleged lone gunman. By all accounts, Oswald liked JFK. No one ever claimed to hear Oswald voice any intent to harm JFK. If Oswald's motive was to make a name for himself in history, why did he vehemently deny shooting JFK? If Oswald had killed JFK to make himself famous, one would logically expect that he would have proudly taken credit for JFK's death and announced his justifications to the world, but he did no such thing.
This, of course, is all pure unadulterated opinion. I myself have highlighted the seeming disconnect with Oswald, but whether the LN narrative posits a "believable, credible motive" is a matter of opinion - and, moreover, "motive" is not an element of any crime.
The conspiracy theory of the assassination can provide concrete, documented motives for its suspects. It has been amply documented, including with filmed interviews, that certain CIA officers who worked with the anti-Castro Cubans, along with some of the anti-Castro Cubans themselves, viscerally hated JFK and regarded him as a traitor. And we have two credible anecdotal accounts of CIA officers proudly admitting to close associates that they played a role in JFK's death.
Weaving superficially plausible conspiracy theories is child's play because so many diverse individuals and groups despised JFK and/or stood to benefit from his demise. This is why there have been 25 or more distinct conspiracy theories. The problem is plausibly fitting the actual Lee Harvey Oswald and the actual Dealey Plaza evidence into any such theory.
Three of the best books on the evidence that certain Mafia elements were involved in the assassination are Anthony Summers' 2013 book Not in Your Lifetime: The Defining Book on the J.F.K. Assassination (updated version), Lamar Waldron's 2013 book The Hidden History of the JFK Assassination, and Dr. David Kaiser's 2008 book The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy.
Summers was a Pulitzer Prize finalist in 2012 and has twice won the Crime Writers' Association's award for top non-fiction works. In recognition of his scholarship, Summers was made a Fellow of the Literary & Historical Society of University College Dublin.
Waldron is a respected journalist and historian. His historical research and non-fiction books have won praise from Publishers Weekly, Vanity Fair, the Boston Globe, the San Francisco Chronicle, and major publications in Europe. His research has been the subject of two prime-time specials on the Discovery Channel, produced by NBC News. He has been featured on CNN and the History Channel.
Kaiser is a respected historian. When Kaiser wrote his JFK book, he was a professor of history at the Naval War College. He later held professorships at Harvard University, Williams College, and Carnegie Mellon University. He earned his B.A. and Ph.D. in history from Harvard. He is now retired. (On a side note, Kaiser concluded that the HSCA's acoustical evidence was valid.)
Here we see the classic fallacious appeal to authority. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority Shall we line up the academic credentials of the historians and scientists who support the LN narrative? When wearing my CT propeller beanie (those tinfoil hats are too damn hot!), I myself lean towards the Mafia - but any theory has to stand or fall on its own merits. I know Harvard-trained psychiatrists who believe things that would simply astonish you.
Not a good start, Mr. Critical Thinking.
-
Fortunately for all of us, I have already applied logic and critical thinking to the JFKA. See if you recognize anyone. In fact, I may have had MTG in mind when I originally wrote this.
It is hilarious that you would cite that silly drivel as "logic and critical thinking." I note that you did not say one single word about any of the facts in my post.
To save any newcomers some time, Lance Payette argues that conspiracy theorists suffer from a mental disorder, from defective brains, from warped thinking, etc. He says it's not really their fault but that their brains are just wired to conjure up conspiracies where there are none. Seriously, that is his position.
Here are just a few of the people who must suffer from warped thinking because they believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy:
* Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), chairwoman of the U.S. House of Representatives' Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets.
* Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., one of JFK's nephews, a famous environmental lawyer, and currently the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services.
* Dan Hardaway, former HSCA investigator who investigated Oswald's activity in Mexico City for the HSCA.
* Edwin Lopez, former HSCA investigator who investigated Oswald's activity in Mexico City for the HSCA. He and Hardaway found evidence that someone was impersonating Oswald in Mexico City a few months before the assassination.
* Dr. Roger McCarthy, a ballistics expert with Failure Analysis, which assisted with the
American Bar Association's mock Oswald trials in the 1990s.
* Dr. David Kaiser, a former professor of history at the Naval War College, Williams College, Carnegie Mellon University, and Harvard University.
* The late G. Robert Blakey, a professor of law at Notre Dame University who served as the chief counsel for the HSCA.
* The late Gary Cornwell, the former deputy chief counsel for the HSCA and a prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice Organized Crime and Racketeering Section for seven years.
* The late Dr. Joseph Dolce, an Army wound ballistics expert who played a leading role in the
WC's wound ballistics tests.
* The late Senator Richard Schweiker.
* Senator Christopher Dodd, who served on the HSCA when he was a member of the
House of Representatives.
* The late Senator Richard Russell, who served on the WC.
* The later Senator Sherman Cooper, who served on the WC.
* The late Representative Hale Boggs, who served on the WC.
* The late Robert McNeil, formerly of the McNeil-Lehrer News Hour on PBS.
* The late Ambassador William Atwood, former Special Assistant to the U.S. delegation to the
United Nations.
* President Lyndon Johnson. (We now know from the Johnson White House tapes that
Johnson rejected the single-bullet theory. We also know from former Johnson aides and
associates that privately Johnson said he believed Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy.)
* The late Dr. Milton Helpern, a renowned forensic pathologist and formerly the medical
examiner for New York City. Helpern said the SBT was impossible.
* The late Dr. John Nichols, a forensic pathologist and formerly a professor of pathology
at the University of Kansas. Nichols, too, said the SBT was impossible.
* The late Carlos Hathcock, a Marine sniper who was widely regarded as the greatest
sniper of the 20th century. Hathcock scoffed at the idea that someone who barely qualified in the second of the three Marine Corps rifle qualification categories could have performed the shooting feat alleged by the WC.
* The late Evelyn Lincoln, who was Kennedy's White House secretary.
* The late Dr. George Burkley, Kennedy's personal physician. Burkley said he knew of evidence that JFK was killed by a conspiracy.
* The late Robert F. Kennedy, who was JFK's brother, who served as JFK's U.S. Attorney General, and who later served as a U.S. Senator from New York. Though he publicly endorsed the WC's findings, he privately rejected them and was certain his brother was killed by a conspiracy.
-
I am on the conspiracy side mostly because of the the nature of the JFK/JBC wounds and the timing difference in the shots that came “close together” whether 1 and 2 or 2 and 3.
But sadly, all the techniques you point out are widely used among those on the conspiracy side.
One of my favorites is what I call the “Cleanup Squad” that has for decades murdered inconvenient witnesses and got away with it every time. According to the book “Hit List” there are around 40 victims. However, with that many victims you would think there is a clear arrow pointing to who was behind the JFKA. But the list of victims points everywhere.
-
To save any newcomers some time, Lance Payette argues that conspiracy theorists suffer from a mental disorder, from defective brains, from warped thinking, etc. He says it's not really their fault but that their brains are just wired to conjure up conspiracies where there are none. Seriously, that is his position.
Well, some of them - yes. Mr. Payette is actually a scholarly sort who has delved fairly extensively into the rather large and ever-increasing body of psychological and sociological literature identifying a distinct conspiracy-prone mindset. The literature makes clear that this mindset - which Mr. Payette shares to some extent but has the self-awareness to realize it - is not aberrant or pathological per se. Even those of us who share it recognize that there is, however, a lunatic fringe of credulous nutcases whose credulous nutcase beliefs do not necessarily bear any relation to their intelligence or education. Indeed, folks with a high level of intelligence and education seem to be somewhat over-represented in the credulous nutcase wing of conspiracy thinking. On this thread, I give you Exhibit A.
Here are just a few of the people who must suffer from warped thinking because they believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy:
When your fallacious appeal to authority starts with Hot Lips Luna and RFK Jr., well, things have gone off the rails, haven't they?
-
This is the first post of several that I will present in this thread.
In numerous surveys done in the U.S. and Europe over the years, including fairly recently, the percentage of people who have said they believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy has ranged from 56% to 85%, with about 6% to 10% undecided. Even in the 1970s, surveys found that a sizable majority of Americans did not buy the Warren Commission's lone-gunman story. I think one of the reasons for the rejection of the single-assassin scenario is that it does not hold up when analyzed with logic and critical thinking.
Truth is not subject to popular opinion. It does not require a majority opinion. Most of the people surveyed are woefully uninformed about the evidence in the case which overwhelmingly points to Oswald as the assassin and there is not a scrap of credible evidence that points to anybody else. I challenged you to produce such evidence earlier this week and you passed on the opportunity.
Let us begin by looking at the key issue of motive.
Motive is not a key issue. It is entirely unnecessary to prove Oswald's motive. It can be fun to guess but nobody really knows because he didn't tell anybody his motive.
-- The lone-gunman theory is unable to provide a believable, credible motive for its alleged lone gunman. By all accounts, Oswald liked JFK. No one ever claimed to hear Oswald voice any intent to harm JFK. If Oswald's motive was to make a name for himself in history, why did he vehemently deny shooting JFK? If Oswald had killed JFK to make himself famous, one would logically expect that he would have proudly taken credit for JFK's death and announced his justifications to the world, but he did no such thing.
After Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme tried to assassinate President Gerald Ford in 1975, she made no effort to deny her guilt but proudly defended her action. She openly voiced two motives for her assassination attempt: (1) her anger over Ford's alleged destruction of the environment, and (2) her desire to draw attention to the Manson family.
After Leon Czolgosz was arrested for assassinating President William McKinley in 1901, he staunchly defended his action and made no secret of his motive. He said he viewed McKinley as an oppressive leader and was convinced it was his duty to kill an "enemy of the good people--the working people."
When John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln in Ford's Theatre in 1865, he loudly made his motive clear seconds after he did the shooting, shouting to the shocked audience "sic semper tyrannis," i.e., "thus always to tyrants."
None of these cases are the least relevant to the JFK assassination. You seem to believe all assassins think alike.
But Oswald behaved in a completely different manner. At every opportunity, whether under police interrogation or when speaking with journalists, he fiercely denied shooting anyone, and he told the police--and his brother--that the evidence against him was fraudulent, even going so far as to claim he was a patsy.
I guess he never got a copy of the assassin's rule book.
Furthermore, according to the lone-gunman theory, Oswald tried to shoot right-wing extremist General Edwin Walker in April 1963. Now why, oh why, oh why would the same allegedly pro-Soviet and pro-Cuban Marxist who supposedly tried to shoot the ultra-conservative General Walker turn around and shoot the center-left JFK, who was publicly trying to make peace with the Soviets, especially given the fact that JFK had publicly disgraced Walker and had relieved Walker of command? That makes no sense.
Why would you think a senseless person would act sensibly. It doesn't matter if Oswald's actions makes sense to anybody else. It made sense to him.
-- The conspiracy theory of the assassination can provide concrete, documented motives for its suspects.
Motives without out evidence does not establish guilt. I'll bet there are lots of people in this country who wish Thomas Crooks had been a better marksman. Does that make them complicit in the attempt on Trump's life.
It has been amply documented, including with filmed interviews, that certain CIA officers who worked with the anti-Castro Cubans, along with some of the anti-Castro Cubans themselves, viscerally hated JFK and regarded him as a traitor. And we have two credible anecdotal accounts of CIA officers proudly admitting to close associates that they played a role in JFK's death.
Credible to whom?
One of the best books on evidence that some CIA officers and anti-Castro Cubans were involved in the assassination is former HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi's 1993 book The Last Investigation.
Oh, goody. Another JFKA conspiracy book. How many of these have been written? They can't seem to agree on who the bad guys were.
There is even stronger evidence of motive for certain Mafia elements. The historical record is clear, and no reputable scholar denies, that the Kennedy administration was waging an intense war against the Mafia, and that the Mafia viewed JFK and RFK as threats to their very existence.
OK, so JFK had enemies. What president hasn't. That doesn't mean they were behind the assassination. There have been 3 assassination attempts on Trump. Should we believe that the people who hate Trump were behind these attempts or should we believe they were acts committed by deranged individuals? In lieu of any evidence to the contrary, I choose to believe the latter.
Wiretaps recorded some Mafia leaders expressing a wish to see JFK dead before the assassination, and two informants reported that they heard Mafia leaders talking about a plot to kill Kennedy in the months leading up to JFK's death. Moreover, after the assassination, a government informant heard Mafia kingpin Carlos Marcello admit to playing a role in the assassination.
Now all you need is evidence connecting these Mafia figures to the assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald.
Three of the best books on the evidence that certain Mafia elements were involved in the assassination are Anthony Summers' 2013 book Not in Your Lifetime: The Defining Book on the J.F.K. Assassination (updated version), Lamar Waldron's 2013 book The Hidden History of the JFK Assassination, and Dr. David Kaiser's 2008 book The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy.
Are we supposed to believe every conspiracy book that comes down the pike? What makes these books more credible than all of the others?
Summers was a Pulitzer Prize finalist in 2012 and has twice won the Crime Writers' Association's award for top non-fiction works. In recognition of his scholarship, Summers was made a Fellow of the Literary & Historical Society of University College Dublin.
Waldron is a respected journalist and historian. His historical research and non-fiction books have won praise from Publishers Weekly, Vanity Fair, the Boston Globe, the San Francisco Chronicle, and major publications in Europe. His research has been the subject of two prime-time specials on the Discovery Channel, produced by NBC News. He has been featured on CNN and the History Channel.
Kaiser is a respected historian. When Kaiser wrote his JFK book, he was a professor of history at the Naval War College. He later held professorships at Harvard University, Williams College, and Carnegie Mellon University. He earned his B.A. and Ph.D. in history from Harvard. He is now retired. (On a side note, Kaiser concluded that the HSCA's acoustical evidence was valid.)
Really smart people are perfectly capable of coming up with really stupid ideas.
-
delete
-
I am on the conspiracy side mostly because of the the nature of the JFK/JBC wounds and the timing difference in the shots that came “close together” whether 1 and 2 or 2 and 3.
Sure, which is why I have made clear that I am open-minded toward a plausible CT scenario, which to my mind means a gunman in or on the Dal-Tex or County Records building, with Oswald as either a knowing participant or one who was duped into participating in a conspiracy that was different from what he thought it was. I lean toward the Mafia because the motive was simply perfect, but it could have been an anti-Castro or even pro-Castro gunman. Once things start getting more complex than this, it quickly loses me.
What MTG hopes to accomplish by insisting I am a foaming-at-the-mouth CT-baiting LN zealot is beyond me. If I thought he had any money and I was confident I could testify witout giggling, I'd sue him for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and possibly even malicious res ipsa loquitur. The humor is that he has absolutely zero awareness that he is shooting himself and the entire CT community in the foot (feet?) with his grandiose claims that literally everything including Ruth Paine's kitchen sink points toward a conspiracy. It's too bad he's not a Garrison cultist - he'd be perfect.
I seem to be unusual (weird?) in that I enjoy trying on different hats and different personas to see if I can talk myself out of a particular line of thinking.
-
When they jimmy the elapsed firing time from 6+ Seconds to 10+ Seconds, you KNOW there is a problem with the 1 shooter scenario. The trailing team always wants to change the rules.
-
When they jimmy the elapsed firing time from 6+ Seconds to 10+ Seconds, you KNOW there is a problem with the 1 shooter scenario. The trailing team always wants to change the rules.
Who is "they" other than the KGB-obsessed He Who Shall Not Be Named? Sure, anything even a second longer improves the three-shot narrative. The two-shot (by Oswald anyway) scenario eliminates all problems even for the LN narrative. But what does this have to do with logic and critical thinking? On this question, the issue is simply where the best evidence points. If the best evidence points to Oswald firing two shots but three or more shots having been fired, then this would suggest a conspiracy. The effort to move back the supposed first shot is nothing more than an attempt to improve the scenario of Oswald firing three shots, which generates its own implausibilities and isn't even necessary to the LN narrative. When there is no real evidence of this early first shot, the estimates are all over the map, and many witnesses described the first shot as sounding distinctly different, logic and critical thinking suggest to me that the early first shot is mostly a convenient invention to preserve the scenario of Oswald firing three shots. When we factor in the problematical SBT and all the issues surrounding it, as well as the witnesses who insisted two shots were extremely close together, then it seems to me that a conspiracy along the lines of what I have suggested has to at least be taken seriously.
-
When they jimmy the elapsed firing time from 6+ Seconds to 10+ Seconds, you KNOW there is a problem with the 1 shooter scenario. The trailing team always wants to change the rules.
The people who you say jimmied the elapsed time to 10+ seconds did no such thing. 10+ seconds was allowed for in the WC's conclusion on the subject of the timing. From the last sentence in Chapter 3 on page 117 of the WCR, I quote:
"Since the preponderance of the evidence indicated that three shots were fired, the Commission concluded that one shot probably missed the Presidential limousine and its occupants, and that the three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8 to IN EXCESS OF (emphasis mine) 7 seconds."
While I do not subscribe to the 10+ second timeframe for the three shots, it is compatible with the WCR's conclusion. They could not put a limit on the timeframe for all three shots because the could not determine with ccertainty when the first (or last) shot was fired. To this day, we have no definitive proof. My own belief, which I acknowledge is not a proven fact, is that the first shot was fired at or about Z147. With the third shot fired at or about Z310, that leads to a total time of 8.9 seconds for all three shots (163 / 18.3).
-
MTG--
I strongly suspect LHO took a shot at General Walker. Ergo, LHO had an inclination to shoot a major public figures.
I am definitely open to Greg Doudna's conclusions on the Walker shooting, which exonerates Oswald of malicious intent and has some else doing the shooting and with a different rifle. I think Doudna may well be correct.
One thing that has never made sense about the Walker shooting is the unlikelihood of completely missing Walker from such a short range while firing from a supported position. Standard residential window glass, such as the kind at Walker's house, would have had very little effect on the bullet's path, and it is hard to believe that the gunman would have fired with the window frame anywhere near his aiming point.
Also, I view as credible Gen. Walker's rejection of CE 573 as the bullet that was removed from his wall. Walker, an experienced soldier and combat vet, knew bullets and was adamant that CE 573 was not the bullet that was removed from his wall.
-
This is the first post of several that I will present in this thread.
In numerous surveys done in the U.S. and Europe over the years, including fairly recently, the percentage of people who have said they believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy has ranged from 56% to 85%, with about 6% to 10% undecided. Even in the 1970s, surveys found that a sizable majority of Americans did not buy the Warren Commission's lone-gunman story. I think one of the reasons for the rejection of the single-assassin scenario is that it does not hold up when analyzed with logic and critical thinking.
The evidence is what one needs to base conclusions on. The evidence exists whether it is logical or not for it to exist. Logic has more to do with assessing probabilities that the evidence that exists is wrong. Critical thinking is important in making sure one is not fooling oneself due to one's assumptions and biases. It is about looking objectively at the evidence, without bias or preconceived ideas, to reach conclusions that rationally follow from the evidence.
Let us begin by looking at the key issue of motive.
-- The lone-gunman theory is unable to provide a believable, credible motive for its alleged lone gunman. By all accounts, Oswald liked JFK. No one ever claimed to hear Oswald voice any intent to harm JFK. If Oswald's motive was to make a name for himself in history, why did he vehemently deny shooting JFK? If Oswald had killed JFK to make himself famous, one would logically expect that he would have proudly taken credit for JFK's death and announced his justifications to the world, but he did no such thing.
A lone-nut does not need a rational motive. So if you are assuming there must be a rational, credible motive you have just admitted you are approaching this with a pre-conceived idea about the assassin - that he cannot be a lone-nut. I thought you were urging critical thinking.
But Oswald behaved in a completely different manner. At every opportunity, whether under police interrogation or when speaking with journalists, he fiercely denied shooting anyone, and he told the police--and his brother--that the evidence against him was fraudulent, even going so far as to claim he was a patsy.
You were expecting the assassin to admit guilt? You forgot to mention that his brother never believed him.
Furthermore, according to the lone-gunman theory, Oswald tried to shoot right-wing extremist General Edwin Walker in April 1963. Now why, oh why, oh why would the same allegedly pro-Soviet and pro-Cuban Marxist who supposedly tried to shoot the ultra-conservative General Walker turn around and shoot the center-left JFK, who was publicly trying to make peace with the Soviets, especially given the fact that JFK had publicly disgraced Walker and had relieved Walker of command? That makes no sense.
If you are assuming Oswald did only what made sense you are abandoning critical thinking. Given that Oswald did not speak Russian and had never been to a communist country, did it make sense for Oswald to move to the USSR in October 1959 after his discharge from the US Marines? Did it make sense for him to file a request with the US Embassy in Moscow in October 1959 to revoke his US citizenship?
-- The conspiracy theory of the assassination can provide concrete, documented motives for its suspects. It has been amply documented, including with filmed interviews, that certain CIA officers who worked with the anti-Castro Cubans, along with some of the anti-Castro Cubans themselves, viscerally hated JFK and regarded him as a traitor. And we have two credible anecdotal accounts of CIA officers proudly admitting to close associates that they played a role in JFK's death.
One of the best books on evidence that some CIA officers and anti-Castro Cubans were involved in the assassination is former HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi's 1993 book The Last Investigation.
There is even stronger evidence of motive for certain Mafia elements. The historical record is clear, and no reputable scholar denies, that the Kennedy administration was waging an intense war against the Mafia, and that the Mafia viewed JFK and RFK as threats to their very existence.
Wiretaps recorded some Mafia leaders expressing a wish to see JFK dead before the assassination, and two informants reported that they heard Mafia leaders talking about a plot to kill Kennedy in the months leading up to JFK's death. Moreover, after the assassination, a government informant heard Mafia kingpin Carlos Marcello admit to playing a role in the assassination.
Three of the best books on the evidence that certain Mafia elements were involved in the assassination are Anthony Summers' 2013 book Not in Your Lifetime: The Defining Book on the J.F.K. Assassination (updated version), Lamar Waldron's 2013 book The Hidden History of the JFK Assassination, and Dr. David Kaiser's 2008 book The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy.
Summers was a Pulitzer Prize finalist in 2012 and has twice won the Crime Writers' Association's award for top non-fiction works. In recognition of his scholarship, Summers was made a Fellow of the Literary & Historical Society of University College Dublin.
Waldron is a respected journalist and historian. His historical research and non-fiction books have won praise from Publishers Weekly, Vanity Fair, the Boston Globe, the San Francisco Chronicle, and major publications in Europe. His research has been the subject of two prime-time specials on the Discovery Channel, produced by NBC News. He has been featured on CNN and the History Channel.
Kaiser is a respected historian. When Kaiser wrote his JFK book, he was a professor of history at the Naval War College. He later held professorships at Harvard University, Williams College, and Carnegie Mellon University. He earned his B.A. and Ph.D. in history from Harvard. He is now retired. (On a side note, Kaiser concluded that the HSCA's acoustical evidence was valid.)
If you are truly engaged in critical thinking, you might be wondering why they present no evidence - just hearsay anecdotes; and why these stories appear only in books written by people who make money off these kinds of stories. You might also ask why they were able to bury the "truth" for 60+ years without a peep from anyone despite the need, conservatively, of hundreds if not thousands of people to carry out the plan and fabricate the evidence against Oswald and to cover it up afterward.
-
Didn’t the bullet fired at Walker hit part of the window frame?
-
Didn’t the bullet fired at Walker hit part of the window frame?
I recently saw footage of the investigators going over the crime scene and it showed a bullet hole at the very bottom of the sash with the window open about a foot and a half. The fixed iron sights were zeroed at 200 meters meaning at such a short range, the rifle would shoot high, so if Oswald was trying to shoot Walker through the open window, it is understandable why he would miss high and strike the sash. I doubt he would have used the scope for such a short shot but even if he did, it would have to be adjusted for the short range. I don't even know if the scope could be adjusted down to the range Oswald was firing at.
-
Didn’t the bullet fired at Walker hit part of the window frame?
Yes, and it nicked the window pane in the process.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cJ4HKcZZ/walker2.png)
-
Didn’t the bullet fired at Walker hit part of the window frame?
This link might still be valid for another week:
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28924-oswald-and-the-shot-at-walker-redressing-the-balance/#findComment-495251 (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28924-oswald-and-the-shot-at-walker-redressing-the-balance/#findComment-495251)
-
The evidence is what one needs to base conclusions on. The evidence exists whether it is logical or not for it to exist. Logic has more to do with assessing probabilities that the evidence that exists is wrong. Critical thinking is important in making sure one is not fooling oneself due to one's assumptions and biases. It is about looking objectively at the evidence, without bias or preconceived ideas, to reach conclusions that rationally follow from the evidence.
A lone-nut does not need a rational motive. So if you are assuming there must be a rational, credible motive you have just admitted you are approaching this with a pre-conceived idea about the assassin - that he cannot be a lone-nut. I thought you were urging critical thinking.You were expecting the assassin to admit guilt? You forgot to mention that his brother never believed him.
If you are assuming Oswald did only what made sense you are abandoning critical thinking. Given that Oswald did not speak Russian and had never been to a communist country, did it make sense for Oswald to move to the USSR in October 1959 after his discharge from the US Marines? Did it make sense for him to file a request with the US Embassy in Moscow in October 1959 to revoke his US citizenship?
If you are truly engaged in critical thinking, you might be wondering why they present no evidence - just hearsay anecdotes; and why these stories appear only in books written by people who make money off these kinds of stories. You might also ask why they were able to bury the "truth" for 60+ years without a peep from anyone despite the need, conservatively, of hundreds if not thousands of people to carry out the plan and fabricate the evidence against Oswald and to cover it up afterward.
You really should not try to pretend you understand logic and critical thinking, when you plainly do not. You are a diehard lone-gunman theorist who is determined to reject all contrary evidence no matter what. Some of your arguments make me wonder if you even actually understood my statements. Anyway, a few points in reply:
-- Oswald spoke a fair amount of Russian before he went to Russia, and his Russian got even better after living there for over 2 years. The fact that you don't know this indicates your research has been inadequate.
-- No, Oswald was not a nut. He was actually highly intelligent and a voracious reader. You assume he was a nut and then you accuse me of not thinking critically because I did not also assume this! I did not assume this because it is not true, because the evidence shows he was highly intelligent.
Oswald’s tested IQ scores generally ranged from 103 in the fourth grade to 118-119 on subsequent tests. His 118-119 scores put him in the above-average category. Historical and psychiatric evaluations consistently classified his overall intelligence as above average. Notes British scholar Anthony Summers,
. . . evidence suggests Oswald was far from stupid. School records show that in several subjects he was three years ahead of his class, and his intelligence was noted by his officers in the Marine Corps. (Not in Your Lifetime: The Defining Book on the JFK Assassination, p. 77).
It is odd and rather comical that you would cite Oswald's defection as evidence of his supposed mental illness while ignoring the many aspects of his defection that indicate he was a false defector working for U.S. intelligence.
-- Yes, I would certainly expect Oswald to have admitted his guilt if he had killed JFK to make a name for himself in history.
Now that we've established that Oswald was not a nut, what is your theory about his motive? The only motive offered by your side is that Oswald was desperate to make a name for himself in history because he felt so insecure, wronged, and under-appreciated.
-- Your problematic description of critical thinking seems to imply that you believe the majority of Americans and Europeans have failed to use logic and critical thinking with the JFK assassination and that that's why you are in the minority.
-- Your claim that pro-conspiracy JFKA books "present no evidence" proves that you've read few if any of them. A key component of critical thinking is to genuinely and thoroughly consider both sides of an argument before reaching a conclusion. You clearly have not done that.
-- I notice you brushed aside the reports of CIA officers and Mafia leaders admitting involvement in JFK's death, even though some of them are based on wiretap evidence. You have no problem accepting "hearsay anecdotes" that reflect negatively on Oswald, no matter how unlikely many of them are and even though a number of them have been proven to be false, but you wave aside accounts of CIA officers and Mafia leaders admitting guilt in the JFK because most of them are "hearsay anecdotes."
You even say that "these stories appear only in books written by people who make money off these kinds of stories." Oh, so former HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi was just out to make money with his book? And, BTW, some of those accounts come from informant reports and wiretaps.
One of your comments deserve special notice, because it reveals your bias and lack of research:
You might also ask why they were able to bury the "truth" for 60+ years without a peep from anyone despite the need, conservatively, of hundreds if not thousands of people to carry out the plan and fabricate the evidence against Oswald and to cover it up afterward.
One, where do you get "60+ years"? Fonzi's book, for example, came out in 1993, 30 years after the assassination and was substantially based on information that he obtained during the 1970s. Many of the accounts of Mafia leaders being involved in the assassination surfaced in the 1970s and 1980s--and, again, some were based on informant reports and wiretaps.
Two, it would not have required "hundreds if not thousands of people to carry out the plan and fabricate the evidence against Oswald and to cover it up afterward." That timeworn strawman has been knocked too many times to count. You guys just keep repeating the same debunked arguments over and over again, thread after thread, reply after reply, no matter how many times they're debunked before your very eyes.
The core problem here is that you simply don't know what you're talking about and you're too biased to do some actual research to educate yourself on the other side of the story.
There's a reason that only about 1/4 to 1/3 of the Western world buys your version of the assassination, and it's not because everyone who disagrees with you is failing to use logic and critical thinking--it's because you are failing to use logic and critical thinking.
-
-- No, Oswald was not a nut. He was actually highly intelligent and a voracious reader. You assume he was a nut and then you accuse me of not thinking critically because I did not also assume this! I did not assume this because it is not true, because the evidence shows he was highly intelligent.
The term "nut" is not a clinical term so it can mean different things to different people. I don't believe Oswald was legally insane but he clearly had a twisted mind. Anyone who believes in political assassinations of duly elected leaders is clearly not right in the head.
-
-- Oswald spoke a fair amount of Russian before he went to Russia, and his Russian got even better after living there for over 2 years. The fact that you don't know this indicates your research has been inadequate.
I said he could not speak Russian. I didn’t say he didn’t know some basic words and phrases. Oswald had a self-taught primitive understanding of Russian. Oswald had studied Russian phrasebooks and the Russian alphabet. He could order soup in Moscow and find places like the US embassy when he arrived. I use phrasebooks when I go to Italy so I can say “ Dove informazioni turistico?” and order “pizza con formaggio, per favore”. I don’t say I speak Italian.
- No, Oswald was not a nut. He was actually highly intelligent and a voracious reader. You assume he was a nut and then you accuse me of not thinking critically because I did not also assume this! I did not assume this because it is not true, because the evidence shows he was highly intelligent.
I didn’t suggest otherwise. Do you think only unintelligent people can be mentally ill?
It is odd and rather comical that you would cite Oswald's defection as evidence of his supposed mental illness while ignoring the many aspects of his defection that indicate he was a false defector working for U.S. intelligence.
Oh. I wasn’t aware there was evidence that he was a false defector working for the US. I am sure you will let us all know what that evidence is.
-- Yes, I would certainly expect Oswald to have admitted his guilt if he had killed JFK to make a name for himself in history.
Just like he owned up to shooting at General Walker? Or do you think Marina was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald?
Maybe he wanted to be a hero but not until he was living in Cuba.
Now that we've established that Oswald was not a nut, what is your theory about his motive?
Oswald was impulsive. What was his motive for shooting at General Walker or shooting Officer Tippitt? Impulsive people are not always acting with rational motives. He may have had a motive that made sense to him at the time but there is not sufficient evidence to conclude anything.
-- Your claim that pro-conspiracy JFKA books "present no evidence" proves that you've read few if any of them. A key component of critical thinking is to genuinely and thoroughly consider both sides of an argument before reaching a conclusion. You clearly have not done that.
You are right that I have not read all the pro-conspiracy books. But if they presented real evidence I am pretty sure would have heard about it. I don’t read books by Holocaust deniers either.
One of your comments deserve special notice, because it reveals your bias and lack of research:
One, where do you get "60+ years"? Fonzi's book, for example, came out in 1993, 30 years after the assassination and was substantially based on information that he obtained during the 1970s. Many of the accounts of Mafia leaders being involved in the assassination surfaced in the 1970s and 1980s--and, again, some were based on informant reports and wiretaps.
So where is the evidence of the wire taps? Then where is the evidence to prove that the things said in them are actually true?
-
In his 2009 article on evidence that Cuban intelligence had foreknowledge of the assassination and that Castro approved/allowed the hit on JFK, Gus Russo claims that while Oswald was at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City, he wept and proclaimed that he would prove his revolutionary loyalty by killing "that Barsteward, Kennedy":
At the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City, Oswald pulled a gun, wept, and claimed that he would prove his revolutionary loyalty by killing "that Barsteward, Kennedy." ("Did Castro Okay the Kennedy Assassination?", American Heritage, winter 2009, https://www.americanheritage.com/did-castro-okay-kennedy-assassination)
This was the basic fable that was energetically pushed by elements of the Intelligence Community and the news media soon after the assassination, i.e., that Oswald the devout Marxist killed JFK in the service of or in support of the Soviet Union and Cuba. This tale is still peddled by some lone-gunman theorists to this day.
Yet, this tale makes it all the more puzzling that Oswald did not do what other ideologically motivated presidential assassins have done, namely, proudly take credit for his deed and justify his deed as a worthy act done in support of a noble cause and/or done as a necessary act to combat evil.
Oswald did the exact opposite. He adamantly insisted he was innocent. He fiercely denied shooting JFK and/or Tippit. He said the evidence against him was fraudulent. He even said he was a patsy.
-
In his 2009 article on evidence that Cuban intelligence had foreknowledge of the assassination and that Castro approved/allowed the hit on JFK, Gus Russo claims that while Oswald was at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City, he wept and proclaimed that he would prove his revolutionary loyalty by killing "that Barsteward, Kennedy":
At the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City, Oswald pulled a gun, wept, and claimed that he would prove his revolutionary loyalty by killing "that Barsteward, Kennedy." ("Did Castro Okay the Kennedy Assassination?", American Heritage, winter 2009, https://www.americanheritage.com/did-castro-okay-kennedy-assassination)
This was the basic fable that was energetically pushed by elements of the Intelligence Community and the news media soon after the assassination, i.e., that Oswald the devout Marxist killed JFK in the service of or in support of the Soviet Union and Cuba. This tale is still peddled by some lone-gunman theorists to this day.
Yet, this tale makes it all the more puzzling that Oswald did not do what other supposedly ideologically motivated presidential assassins have done, namely, proudly take credit for his deed and justify his deed as a worthy act done in support of a noble cause and/or done as a necessary act to combat evil.
Oswald did the exact opposite. He adamantly insisted he was innocent. He fiercely denied shooting JFK and/or Tippit. He said the evidence against him was fraudulent. He even said he was a patsy.
Why do you keep insisting that there is a rule book that all assassins are supposed to follow? The three previous presidential assassins use a handgun at close range. Oswald carried out his assassination with a rifle at a longer range. So what. He chose a different method and had different reasons than the others. So what?
-
I thought this thread was supposed to be about applying logic and critical thinking? It appears that a more apt title would have been Rehashing the Same Old Crap.
Given the circumstances of the JFKA, a logical supposition would be that Oswald did not expect to survive (and perhaps didn't care if he did). He was clearly thinking in this vein with the Walker attempt, which was vastly less risky. If this were true, his failure to leave some sort of manifesto or at least a note is puzzling to me as I have previously stated. Extremely puzzling, in fact. Once he survived and was in custody, bragging about his deed would not have been in his legal or ideological interests. It appears to me that the wheels started turning immediately, which is why he wanted Communist Party showman Abt to represent him. My guess is that he was thinking in terms of a grand show trial that would cement his place in history as a hero of the Cuban people and a deep Marxist thinker.
-
I thought this thread was supposed to be about applying logic and critical thinking? It appears that a more apt title would have been Rehashing the Same Old Crap.
It's a 62 year old murder case. If we didn't rehash old crap, what else would there be to talk about?
Given the circumstances of the JFKA, a logical supposition would be that Oswald did not expect to survive (and perhaps didn't care if he did).
That's something I beleive but not something I know. Nobody knows what Oswald was thinking.
He was clearly thinking in this vein with the Walker attempt, which was vastly less risky. If this were true, his failure to leave some sort of manifesto or at least a note is puzzling to me as I have previously stated.
Why do people think that there was a rule book Oswald was supposed to follow. He had his reasons for doing what he did and didn't do. He was under no obligation to tell anybody what those reasons were.
Extremely puzzling, in fact. Once he survived and was in custody, bragging about his deed would not have been in his legal or ideological interests.
I see no point in wondering why Oswald didn't do what I think I would have done if I was in his shoes.
It appears to me that the wheels started turning immediately, which is why he wanted Communist Party showman Abt to represent him. My guess is that he was thinking in terms of a grand show trial that would cement his place in history as a hero of the Cuban people and a deep Marxist thinker.
You are certainly entitled to guess. Your guess might even be right. In fact, I hope it is. I hope he was looking forward to his trial. It means Oswald got robbed of the infamy he thought he would gain. At least, he didn't get to live to enjoy it, thanks to Jack Ruby. I wonder if Oswald's last conscious thought was, "Life is so damn unfair". I chuckle just thinking about it.
-
Oh boy more lectures about logic from Michael T Griffith, who believes all the evidence is fake. Absurd!
-
[/font]
Quote from: Kevin Balch on Yesterday at 04:19:07 AM
Didn’t the bullet fired at Walker hit part of the window frame?
Yes, and it nicked the window pane in the process.
This is a good example of confirmation bias and faulty assumptions.
Apparently, it has not occurred to WC apologists that the fact that the bullet hit the window frame actually logically suggests that the gunman was not trying to hit Walker and that this was a staged shooting attempt, the scenario that Greg Doudna has developed with massive, ground-breaking research.
Even our supposed "Marine sharpshooter" would not have fired with the window frame anywhere near his point of aim, whether he was using the iron sights or the scope. He would have simply moved a foot or two to his right or left so that he had a clear shot at Walker, a shot in which the window frame was far from his point of aim.
The gunman was no more than 127 feet from Walker when he fired. That's barely 40 yards. That was a very, very easy shot, even with the iron sights, especially since Walker was sitting at his desk, and since the gunman had plenty of time to take aim.
Add to this the fact that Walker himself insisted that CE 573 was not the bullet that was recovered from his wall. He said he was certain of this. Mind you, Walker was a general and a combat veteran. He knew bullets.
I encourage interested readers to read Greg Doudna's ground-breaking research on the Walker shooting. You can find it here: https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1815.
-
A bullet that nicks a window frame "logically" suggests the gunman was trying to miss and the attempt was staged? There would be 100 ways to miss, but the gunman zeroed in on the edge of a window frame? This is Conspiracy Logic 101, a/k/a Alice In Wonderland logic, a/k/a Anti-Logic.
I waded through Gerg Doudna's Walker scenario just as I waded through his Tippit scenario. It is a clever but completely preposterous effort by someone almost pathethically desperate to make a mark in JFKA research. I believe it might have been Kevin Balch who characterized his Tippit effort as an "off-Broadway production" - i.e., an entire cast of not very talented actors with a not very believable script.
-
Didn’t the bullet fired at Walker hit part of the window frame?
Yes, and it nicked the window pane in the process.
This is a good example of confirmation bias and faulty assumptions.
Apparently, it has not occurred to WC apologists that the fact that the bullet hit the window frame [...]
OK, Mr. Iron Logic. What part of "the bullet hit the window frame/pane" is fact, and what part is confirmation bias and faulty assumptions?
-
Yes, and it nicked the window pane in the process.
This is a good example of confirmation bias and faulty assumptions.
Apparently, it has not occurred to WC apologists that the fact that the bullet hit the window frame [...]
OK, Mr. Iron Logic. What part of "the bullet hit the window frame/pane" is fact, and what part is confirmation bias and faulty assumptions?
Oh, I can answer that! It's your confirmation bias and faulty assumptions that causes you to think that someone who shoots and misses must have simply shot and missed. If you weren't a victim of such faulty thinking, cold logic would tell you that he intentionally missed and that this was a staged effort to try to give the apperance of an attempt on Walker. This is Greg Doudna's scenario. It's not clear to me, victim of confirmation bias and faulty assumptions that I am, how one could be certain that a bullet glancing off a wooden window frame would actually miss. It seems like it would be much safer just to aim a couple of inches to the side of Walker and shoot through the glass.
-
A bullet that nicks a window frame "logically" suggests the gunman was trying to miss and the attempt was staged? There would be 100 ways to miss, but the gunman zeroed in on the edge of a window frame? This is Conspiracy Logic 101, a/k/a Alice In Wonderland logic, a/k/a Anti-Logic.
Just one question. Are you serious?
-
Just one question. Are you serious?
Just one question back at you: What on earth are you talking about?
I'm beginning to think you have the reading comprehension of a newt turnip.
My bad - I insulted newts. Apparently they can read at about an 8th grade level.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSc-ssgvLZ9i4h9s_rhUwUQFkN6Z5ZHkwJHsQ&s)
-
Since some are perhaps not familiar with Greg Doudna's off-Broadway production "The Walker Follies," here it is in a nutshell from one of Greg's recent posts at the Ed Forum:
The reconstruction in the staged shot is that Walker was signaled by man No. 1 who was standing in the southwest end of the church parking lot away from his car with its engine running and headlights turned on a short distance away, standing near the wooden stockade fence over which Kirk Coleman would climb and look seconds later after the shot. Walker could see man No. 1 through the north-facing window right next to where Walker was sitting at his desk. When signaled by man No. 1, Walker would drop to the floor. In the alley, after man No. 1 signaled to them, Surrey and Oswald have a rifle and one of them--since Surrey is in command, was more experienced with shooting, and was protective of Walker's safety, probably was the actual shooter, rather than Oswald—fires a single shot through the west-facing window at where Walker's head would have been if Walker were sitting normally at his desk--then hands the rifle to Oswald who runs off with it in the other direction, while Surrey takes a few steps out into the parking lot and is seen by Coleman walking to his parked car to drive away normally.
Your first sanity check: Could you read that without giggling? If you could not - indeed, you giggled, tittered, chuckled and guffawed - you pass. MTG apparently did not pass. Did not pass big-time.
If Walker - whom, you hopefully understand, is an active participant in the Follies - wants to stage an assassination attempt, WHY THE HELL is ANY of this elaborate scenario required??? And MTG takes this nuttiness even further and has hitting the window frame somehow EVIDENCE it was a staged attempt. I mean, WHAT???
If Doudna and MTG, both of whom are educated and intelligent, are actually serious, they have more loose screws than ACE Hardware. And people like Tom Gram think Greg is really onto something here. WHAT???
I keep waiting for folks who posit these silly scenarios to say "Hey, of course, I'm just goofing around, playing with ideas just for fun." But they never do.
Why do I mostly not engage with MTG's dark "facts"? Because his underlying theories are irrational to the point of "this guy belongs in an institution."
Why do people not understand that the THRESHOLD inquiry is:
DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER OUT HERE IN THE REAL WORLD?
The problem with the lunatic fringe of conspiracy theorizing, which is where MTG and Doudna are solidly ensconced, is that they DON'T EVEN CARE if it makes sense.
-
Good morning Lance. I don’t believe you understand the issues here. I assure you I care very much about the truth and facts. The issue is new information, not possibly known before 2019 but known now (because of the car identification), that Walker aide Robert Surrey was witnessed having walked out of the alley position from where the shot was fired, only seconds after the shot was fired. Yet he does not have a rifle. But it was him.
Now it is all well and good for you to say it makes no sense that Oswald would be there too at the same time as Surrey in that alley, but you need to explain then do you think Oswald was or was not there too with Surrey. One starts with facts first, not with interpretation and then deny facts because the interpretation doesn’t seem to make sense.
And if you are tempted to kneejerk deny Kirk Coleman’s man No. 2 was Surrey going to Surrey’s car, then I don’t think you have read and appreciate the argument there.
Even the FBI in their investigation thought Coleman’s man No 2 was either a Walker person, involved in the shot, or a frightened witness, one of those three, take your pick—who are you to know better. Maybe show a little more humility in commenting on things you haven’t read or understand. That said, I normally like your astute analyses on most things. You’ve got this one wrong here though.
My abstract of the argument:
https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Walker-chapter-summaries-110pdf.pdf
-
Good morning Lance. I don’t believe you understand the issues here. I assure you I care very much about the truth and facts. The issue is new information, not possibly known before 2019 but known now (because of the car identification), that Walker aide Robert Surrey was witnessed having walked out of the alley position from where the shot was fired, only seconds after the shot was fired. Yet he does not have a rifle. But it was him.
Now it is all well and good for you to say it makes no sense that Oswald would be there too at the same time as Surrey in that alley, but you need to explain then do you think Oswald was or was not there too with Surrey. One starts with facts first, not with interpretation and then deny facts because the interpretation doesn’t seem to make sense.
And if you are tempted to kneejerk deny Kirk Coleman’s man No. 2 was Surrey going to Surrey’s car, then I don’t think you have read and appreciate the argument there.
Even the FBI in their investigation thought Coleman’s man No 2 was either a Walker person, involved in the shot, or a frightened witness, one of those three, take your pick—who are you to know better. Maybe show a little more humility in commenting on things you haven’t read or understand. That said, I normally like your astute analyses on most things. You’ve got this one wrong here though.
My abstract of the argument:
https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Walker-chapter-summaries-110pdf.pdf
I did read or at least skim most of the long thread at the Ed Forum. My point in regard to your Walker scenario is different from my points in relation to the alteration of the Z film. I am going to post again on that thread because I want to keep that discussion in one place. Yes, your Walker theory is creative and internally consistent. Where it makes no sense to me is when we pose the question, "Why would General Walker, if wishing to be able to claim that an attempt had been made on his life, have resorted to such an elaborate scenario with so many obvious risks when the same claim could have been made on the basis of an extremely simple scenario?" No one had the presence of mind to say "Uh, General, couldn't we just ....?" With both Walker and Tippit, there seems to be a desire on your part for innovative, mind-boggling complexity. Everyone in those scenarios seems to me to have been completely lacking in common sense. But I will await your 140,000-word book and contribute my shekels if it's on Kindle.
-
You can't make this stuff up. On his own thread about logic and critical thinking, Our Hero immediately commits at least two logical fallacies.
Are you really surprised given what Michael T. Griffith believes about the Kennedy assassination?
-
Lance, I believe I addressed the question you raise in my chapter 16 summary. Yes, I agree that it would make no sense from a Walker staged shot point of view, for Oswald to have been involved, unless there was anticipation or intent for Oswald himself, as the “Communist”, to be immediately publicly implicated and/or arrested for it. If that were not the expectation or anticipation, then i agree it doesn’t make sense. However the facts are Oswald was both involved and that did not happen, which calls for explanation.
So I am not actually disagreeing with your reasoning, only the unwarranted conclusion you draw (apparently, that the facts therefore aren’t true to begin with). The problem I attempted to address was why the expected, anticipated arrest and/implication of Oswald immediately in that shot did not happen. That is the puzzle that calls for explanation.
-
Lance, I believe I addressed the question you raise in my chapter 16 summary. Yes, I agree that it would make no sense from a Walker staged shot point of view, for Oswald to have been involved, unless there was anticipation or intent for Oswald himself, as the “Communist”, to be immediately publicly implicated and/or arrested for it. If that were not the expectation or anticipation, then i agree it doesn’t make sense. However the facts are Oswald was both involved and that did not happen, which calls for explanation.
So I am not actually disagreeing with your reasoning, only the unwarranted conclusion you draw (apparently, that the facts therefore aren’t true to begin with). The problem I attempted to address was why the expected, anticipated arrest and/implication of Oswald immediately in that shot did not happen. That is the puzzle that calls for explanation.
It would make perfect sense for Oswald's handlers to have involved him in a staged shooting of Walker so that this could later be used to help implicate him in JFK's death.
I don't understand the logic that we should expect that Oswald would have been immediately arrested for trying to shoot Walker if he were involved in a staged Walker shooting. This would have raised the obvious question: Why would someone who wanted to kill the rabidly anti-Kennedy Walker then turn around and kill Kennedy when Kennedy had publicly disgraced Walker and had relieved Walker of command? I just don't understand that logic.
Plus, if Oswald had been arrested for trying to shoot Walker, he may have ended up in jail and would have been unavailable to supposedly shoot JFK.
I see some folks have howled at my argument that the gunman purposely missed Walker. The same guy who supposedly went 2/2 in 5.6 seconds from 60 feet up should have had no problem whatsoever missing the window pane/frame and at least hitting Walker somewhere on his torso when firing from no more than 147 feet and having plenty of time to carefully take aim.
-
It would make perfect sense for Oswald's handlers to have involved him in a staged shooting of Walker so that this could later be used to help implicate him in JFK's death.
Oh, goody. I haven't heard about Oswald's handlers in years. They are an invention by some CTs to explain why Oswald did so many things that made him look guilty. His handlers made him do it.
It reminds me of Flip Wilson's Geraldine character. "The devil made me do it.".
I don't understand the logic that we should expect that Oswald would have been immediately arrested for trying to shoot Walker if he were involved in a staged Walker shooting. This would have raised the obvious question: Why would someone who wanted to kill the rabidly anti-Kennedy Walker then turn around and kill Kennedy when Kennedy had publicly disgraced Walker and had relieved Walker of command? I just don't understand that logic.
You make the mistake of assuming Oswald was on one side or the other. The fact is he was a Marxist who was far to the left of both men. JFK was not a leftist like his brother Teddy became. He was the most conservative of all the candidates running for the Democrats running for POTUS in 1960. Both Eleanor Roosevelt and Harry Truman were opposed to him being the nominee. He was staunchly anti-Communist and a friend and ally of Nixon in their early days in Congress. He donated $1000 to Nixon's Senate campaign against leftist Helen Douglas. The Kennedys were close allies of Joe McCarthy who dated one of the Kennedy sisters and was godfather to RFK's first born.
Plus, if Oswald had been arrested for trying to shoot Walker, he may have ended up in jail and would have been unavailable to supposedly shoot JFK.
How would anyone know in March of 1963 that Oswald would be handed a golden opportunity to kill JFK the following November?
I see some folks have howled at my argument that the gunman purposely missed Walker. The same guy who supposedly went 2/2 in 5.6 seconds from 60 feet up should have had no problem whatsoever missing the window pane/frame and at least hitting Walker somewhere on his torso when firing from no more than 147 feet and having plenty of time to carefully take aim.
I should copy this down so I wouldn't have to type it up again. Oswald fired at Walker from very close range. The fixed iron sights were zeroed for 200 meters and were not adjustable. The scope was adjustable but I doubt it could have been adjusted down to the range Oswald fired at. No matter which sights Oswald chose, it would have aimed high. Instead of firing through the open window, the shot hit the very bottom of the sash and barely missed Walker.
-
The next issue I'd like to discuss regarding using logic and critical thinking in the JFK assassination is the lone-gunman theory's problematic and implausible shooting scenario: Oswald firing three shots in 4.8 to 11 seconds, wildly missing his first and closest and easiest shot, and then scoring two hits in 5.6 seconds after JFK reemerged into view from beneath the oak tree at Z210. This scenario shows a pronounced lack of logic and critical thinking.
There is wide disagreement among lone-gunman theorists about when Oswald started firing and when his first hit occurred. However, the majority view among lone-gunman theorists is that the first shot occurred well before Z166 and missed (not only missed JFK but the entire huge limousine), that the second shot hit JFK and Connally at Z224, and that the third shot hit JFK's head at Z312. This is why they say Oswald would have had up to 11 seconds to fire his supposed three shots.
Here is one giant problem with this scenario: Oswald's alleged shooting feat has never been duplicated. Never. Not even once. In all the rifle tests that have been done, not even experienced, expert riflemen have scored two hits in three shots in 4.8 to 11 seconds on their first attempt and with their two hits landing in an area no more than 14 inches tall and 4 inches wide (previously I've said 12 x 4 inches, but I'll posit 14 x 4 inches just to be extra cautious).
What makes this fact even more telling and devastating is that not one of the rifle tests included all the conditions under which Oswald supposedly fired. Consider:
-- The rifle tests allowed the participants to fire practice rounds before firing for record, but Oswald would have had no such opportunity.
-- The rifle tests included rifles that had been zeroed, but the alleged murder weapon's scope was misaligned, and a Marine Corps rifle expert told the WC that it would have taken 10 shots to zero the alleged murder weapon and that using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat even more difficult. Plus, there is no evidence that Oswald zeroed his alleged rifle in the weeks leading up to the assassination.
-- The rifle tests did not simulate the cramped, inhibiting conditions of the sixth-floor sniper's nest. Pat Speer has done an excellent job of documenting those conditions.
-- The rifle tests, such as the WC's rifle test and the 1967 CBS rifle test, counted as "hits" many shots that landed far outside the 14 x 4-inch area in which Oswald's alleged shots supposedly landed. Even then, not one of the WC's Master-rated riflemen was able to duplicate Oswald's supposed shooting feat, which is especially revealing because the WC's test was the only test that used the alleged murder weapon and because the riflemen fired from only 30 feet up and were allowed to take as much time as they wanted for their first shot. Also, only one of the 12 riflemen in the CBS test was able to score two "hits" in three shots on his first attempt, but not all of his hits landed in the required 14 x 4-inch area.
-- Nearly all the participants in the rifle tests were experienced, highly skilled riflemen, whereas Oswald was at best a mediocre marksman and was regarded as a poor shot by nearly everyone who saw him shoot in the Marine Corps and in his hunting club in Minsk.
In the rifle tests, most of the riflemen's first hits came on their first shots. This only makes sense because their first shots were the closest and easiest, just as would have been the case with the sixth-floor gunman. Yet, most lone-gunman theorists contend that Oswald missed both JFK and the entire huge limo with his first, closest, and easiest shot, with some of them floating the illogical and fanciful theory that Oswald hit the guy rod or the support arm of the traffic signal on Elm Street with his first shot and long before Z166.
Even if one wants to assume Oswald would have had up to 11 seconds to fire, if he had missed with his first shot, he would have had to go 2/2 on his final two shots starting at Z210, which means he would have only had 5.6 seconds to fire those two shots. In the WC's rifle test, the three Master-rated riflemen missed nearly every one of their second and third shots.
It should be noted that many if not most lone-gunman theorists--certainly all the ones who regularly post in this forum--make the surprising, discrediting claim that Oswald's alleged shooting feat would not have been difficult, with many claiming it would have been "easy." WC staffer Wesley Liebeler told the WC in an internal memo that the portrayal of the alleged shooting feat as not very difficult was "simply dishonest" (11 HSCA 230).
The inability of lone-gunman theorists to admit that the alleged shooting feat would have been extremely difficult even for a highly skilled marksman indicates a marked lack of objectivity, a key component of critical thinking.
Finally, there are three other pronounced problems with the lone-gunman shooting scenario:
One, there is strong, convincing evidence that more than three shots were fired during the assassination, which renders the lone-gunman shooting scenario invalid from the outset. We have a number of credible accounts of extra bullets and missed shots in Dealey Plaza, two of them supported by photographic evidence. Lone-gunman theorists lamely reply that every single one of the witnesses in every single one of these accounts must have been "mistaken," another display of their tendency to judge the evidence by their theory rather than judge their theory by the evidence. They conclude that all those witnesses "must" have been mistaken because they cannot allow that more than three shots were fired.
Two, there is strong, convincing evidence that CE 543, the dented shell found in the sixth-floor sniper's nest, could not have fired a bullet during the assassination. So convincing is the evidence on this point that it has led some lone-gunman theorists to make the untenable claim that the sixth-floor gunman only fired two shots, with some of these theorists even arguing that Oswald did not fire the ammo that hit JFK in the head in Z312 but that Secret Service agent George Hickey accidentally shot JFK in the head (the mortal-error theory).
Three, the single-bullet theory (SBT) has been refuted. Without the SBT, there can be no single-assassin scenario. JFK's clothing provides hard physical evidence that refutes the SBT. In 2023, the respected forensic engineering firm Knott Laboratories conducted the most sophisticated, data-intensive SBT trajectory analysis ever done and found that the SBT is impossible. Also, Gov. John Connally, who was supposedly hit by the alleged SBT bullet at Z224, refuted this myth. After viewing the Zapruder film a few times, he informed the WC that he was not hit before Z230. Two years later, in 1966, LIFE magazine gave Connally the chance to study a high-quality print of the Zapruder film under high magnification to determine when he was hit, and he concluded he was unquestionably not hit before Z229 and identified Z234 as the moment of impact.
Even if one buys the mortal-error theory, the collapse of the SBT means that JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets fired by two gunman from behind.
For more information on these issues, I recommend interested readers check out the following sources:
The 1967 CBS Rifle Test: More Evidence Against the Lone-Gunman Theory
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4580.0.html
What Would a Valid Lone-Gunman Rifle Test Look Like?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4589.0.html
When Could Oswald Have "Zeroed" (Sighted-In) the Alleged Murder Weapon?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4543.0.html
Chapter 15 in Pat Speer's online book A New Perspective on the John F. Kennedy Assassination
https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-15
Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view
The Dented Bullet Shell: Hard Evidence of Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ihue8a0GmN_Ptl38bPjpu1F99nqU0Z6f/view
JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view?usp=sharing
Ten Reasons I Reject the Single-Bullet Theory
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-7AW56BXCumXFsOwyN6lE0WTBltOzeYI/view
Knott Laboratory's Historic 2023 SBT Trajectory Analysis
https://knottlab.com/cases/knott-lab-presents-digital-reconstruction-and-findings-on-the-assassination-of-president-john-f-kennedy/
https://knottlab.com/knott-lab-uses-forensic-science-to-refute-warren-commission-findings-on-jfk-assassination/
-
The next issue I'd like to discuss regarding using logic and critical thinking in the JFK assassination is the lone-gunman theory's problematic and implausible shooting scenario: Oswald firing three shots in 4.8 to 11 seconds, wildly missing his first and closest and easiest shot, and then scoring two hits in 5.6 seconds after JFK reemerged into view from beneath the oak tree at Z210. This scenario shows a pronounced lack of logic and critical thinking.
The first shot was the closest but by far was the most difficult and it did not require a wild miss. His target was in the extreme right of the limo and only had to miss a foot or two to the right to miss the limo. I've listed the difficulties of the first shot before but I will do so again:
1. He would have had to acquire and track his target as it was making the turn onto Elm St. it would have been moving in an arc rather than a straight line.
2. His target was moving across his line of fire rather down the line of fire as it was for the subsequent shots. This created a difficult cross shot at a moving target.
3. Firing downward at such a steep angle would have forcedd him to raise up out of either the sitting or kneeling position that he would have had for his subsequent shot. He would have been firing
from an unsteady crouching position.
4. The boxes he stacked to create a rifle rest would have been of little to no use in steadying the rifle on a near vertical shot.
5. With the window open only about a foot or so, the bottom of the sash would have partially obscured his view, especially if he was using the scope. This might have forced him to use the iron sights.
6. His target was about to pass under the true which could have forced him to rush the shot.
Given these difficulties which would not have been present for the second or third shots, it's easy to understand why he would miss his first shot.
There is wide disagreement among lone-gunman theorists about when Oswald started firing and when his first hit occurred. However, the majority view among lone-gunman theorists is that the first shot occurred well before Z166 and missed (not only missed JFK but the entire huge limousine), that the second shot hit JFK and Connally at Z224, and that the third shot hit JFK's head at Z312. This is why they say Oswald would have had up to 11 seconds to fire his supposed three shots.
Missing the limo would be hard to believe if he was trying to shoot the limo which I'm betting he was not. He was trying to shoot a guy on the extreme right side of the limo and only had to pull his shot to miss the limo.
Here is one giant problem with this scenario: Oswald's alleged shooting feat has never been duplicated. Never. Not even once.
No shooting feat has ever been duplicated. Never. Not once. Every shooting is unique with its own set of variables.
[/u][/i] In all the rifle tests that have been done, not even experienced, expert riflemen have scored two hits in three shots in 4.8 to 11 seconds on their first attempt and with their two hits landing in an area no more than 14 inches tall and 4 inches wide (previously I've said 12 x 4 inches, but I'll posit 14 x 4 inches just to be extra cautious).
All such tests I am aware of did not give the shooters 11 seconds. They were expected to fire 3 shots in 5.6 seconds. A limitation Oswald was not operating under.
What makes this fact even more telling and devastating is that not one of the rifle tests included all the conditions under which Oswald supposedly fired. Consider:
-- The rifle tests allowed the participants to fire practice rounds before firing for record, but Oswald would have had no such opportunity.
Oswald had 8 months to practice with his rifle. We don't know how many practice rounds he fired but he fired one shot at Walker and had four more rounds in his rifle when he commenced firing. The ammo was sold in boxes of 20 so that leaves 15 rounds unaccounted for and we don't know how many boxes he purchased.
-- The rifle tests included rifles that had been zeroed, but the alleged murder weapon's scope was misaligned, and a Marine Corps rifle expert told the WC that it would have taken 10 shots to zero the alleged murder weapon and that using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat even more difficult. Plus, there is no evidence that Oswald zeroed his alleged rifle in the weeks leading up to the assassination.
The rifle as tested aimed a few inches high and to the right. This approximates the amount of lead Oswald would have had to make on his target. Oswald might have known this, he might not have known this and just got lucky, or the scope might have been knocked out of alignment when he dropped it behind the row of boxes on the 6th floor. Whatever the combination of circumstances were with the rifle, we know that rifle put two rounds into JFK because the only two recovered bullets were fired by that rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles in the world. SOMEBODY used that rifle to kill JFK and the overwhelming amount of forensic evidence tells us that somebody was Oswald.
-- The rifle tests did not simulate the cramped, inhibiting conditions of the sixth-floor sniper's nest. Pat Speer has done an excellent job of documenting those conditions.
Oswald was not a large man so it was not that cramped for him. Given that his rifle was the murder weapon and 3 shells from that rifle were found in the sniper's nest, we can safely say SOMEBODY fired the shots from "the cramped, inhibiting conditions of the sixth floor sniper's nest". Again, the overwhelming amount of forensic evidence tells us that somebody was Oswald.
-- The rifle tests, such as the WC's rifle test and the 1967 CBS rifle test, counted as "hits" many shots that landed far outside the 14 x 4-inch area in which Oswald's alleged shots supposedly landed. Even then, not one of the WC's Master-rated riflemen was able to duplicate Oswald's supposed shooting feat, which is especially revealing because the WC's test was the only test that used the alleged murder weapon and because the riflemen fired from only 30 feet up and were allowed to take as much time as they wanted for their first shot. Also, only one of the 12 riflemen in the CBS test was able to score two "hits" in three shots on his first attempt, but not all of his hits landed in the required 14 x 4-inch area.
This is why I said earlier that no shooting has ever been duplicated. Oswald was not required to duplicate anybody else's shots. He just needed to put a bullet on his target which he did twice in three shots with deadly consequences. [/quote]
-- Nearly all the participants in the rifle tests were experienced, highly skilled riflemen, whereas Oswald was at best a mediocre marksman and was regarded as a poor shot by nearly everyone who saw him shoot in the Marine Corps and in his hunting club in Minsk.[/quote]
Even a mediocre trained Marine was capable of making those shots. Even the USMC's minimum qualifying standards required Oswald to be able to consistently hit his target at 200 yard. His longest shot in Dealey Plaza was only 88 yards.
In the rifle tests, most of the riflemen's first hits came on their first shots. This only makes sense because their first shots were the closest and easiest, just as would have been the case with the sixth-floor gunman. Yet, most lone-gunman theorists contend that Oswald missed both JFK and the entire huge limo with his first, closest, and easiest shot, with some of them floating the illogical and fanciful theory that Oswald hit the guy rod or the support arm of the traffic signal on Elm Street with his first shot and long before Z166.
None of the tests I've seen required the shooters to shoot from an awkward stance at a target moving across the target line. The targets were moving in a straight line away from the shooters, making their first shots fairly easy as compared to what Oswald faced. Again, no shooting can be duplicated because it is impossible to duplicate all the variables.
Even if one wants to assume Oswald would have had up to 11 seconds to fire, if he had missed with his first shot, he would have had to go 2/2 on his final two shots starting at Z210, which means he would have only had 5.6 seconds to fire those two shots. In the WC's rifle test, the three Master-rated riflemen missed nearly every one of their second and third shots.
Were they asked to fire 2 shots or 3 in the 5.6 seconds?
It should be noted that many if not most lone-gunman theorists--certainly all the ones who regularly post in this forum--make the surprising, discrediting claim that Oswald's alleged shooting feat would not have been difficult, with many claiming it would have been "easy." WC staffer Wesley Liebeler told the WC in an internal memo that the portrayal of the alleged shooting feat as not very difficult was "simply dishonest" (11 HSCA 230). [/quote]
That would be true if Oswald had to fire 3 shots in 5.6 seconds.
The inability of lone-gunman theorists to admit that the alleged shooting feat would have been extremely difficult even for a highly skilled marksman indicates a marked lack of objectivity, a key component of critical thinking.
If you were really interested in critical thinking, you would have applied it to your own arguments. You would have considered the points I have made to your arguments.
Finally, there are three other pronounced problems with the lone-gunman shooting scenario:
One, there is strong, convincing evidence that more than three shots were fired during the assassination,
That's true if one believes in junk science. If one relies on solid forensic evidence, there is only a basis for a 3 shot scenario.[/quote]
which renders the lone-gunman shooting scenario invalid from the outset. We have a number of credible accounts of extra bullets and missed shots in Dealey Plaza, two of them supported by photographic evidence. Lone-gunman theorists lamely reply that every single one of the witnesses in every single one of these accounts must have been "mistaken," another display of their tendency to judge the evidence by their theory rather than judge their theory by the evidence. They conclude that all those witnesses "must" have been mistaken because they cannot allow that more than three shots were fired.[/quote]
Wrong again. It is only necessary to believe SOME of the witnesses were wrong and since the witnesses gave differing accounts of the shooting, we KNOW some of them had to be wrong.
Two, there is strong, convincing evidence that CE 543, the dented shell found in the sixth-floor sniper's nest, could not have fired a bullet during the assassination. So convincing is the evidence on this point that it has led some lone-gunman theorists to make the untenable claim that the sixth-floor gunman only fired two shots, with some of these theorists even arguing that Oswald did not fire the ammo that hit JFK in the head in Z312 but that Secret Service agent George Hickey accidentally shot JFK in the head (the mortal-error theory).
The FBI expert who examined the shells disagrees with your assessment. He had the actual shells to examine instead of low resolution copies of photos of the shells examined by amateur sleuths. I'm going with the FBI's expert on this one.
Three, the single-bullet theory (SBT) has been refuted.
The SBT has been disputed, not refuted. Critics keep telling us it is impossible but are never able to give us a valid reason why it is impossible. I have asked you to explain why on numerous occasions and I have yet to see you attempt to do so. Have I missed your reply?
Without the SBT, there can be no single-assassin scenario. JFK's clothing provides hard physical evidence that refutes the SBT.
Now you are just making shit up.
In 2023, the respected forensic engineering firm Knott Laboratories conducted the most sophisticated, data-intensive SBT trajectory analysis ever done and found that the SBT is impossible.
Like you, they didn't explain why it was impossible. They thought just saying so would suffice. I guess it did suffice for the CT who paid for the study, that being John Orr.
Also, Gov. John Connally, who was supposedly hit by the alleged SBT bullet at Z224, refuted this myth.
JBC refuted the SBT because he believed the myth that JFK had been hit by the first shot. He knew he had been hit by the second shot. If JFK had also been hit by the second shot, that would mean they were both hit by the same shot.
After viewing the Zapruder film a few times, he informed the WC that he was not hit before Z230.
Not a bad guess. He was only off by about 1/2 second,
Two years later, in 1966, LIFE magazine gave Connally the chance to study a high-quality print of the Zapruder film under high magnification to determine when he was hit, and he concluded he was unquestionably not hit before Z229 and identified Z234 as the moment of impact.
Not as good as his earlier guess. That one was off by 2/3 of a second.
Even if one buys the mortal-error theory, the collapse of the SBT means that JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets fired by two gunman from behind.
I'll leave it to the people who believe that nonsense to reply to that.
For more information on these issues, I recommend interested readers check out the following sources:
The 1967 CBS Rifle Test: More Evidence Against the Lone-Gunman Theory
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4580.0.html
What Would a Valid Lone-Gunman Rifle Test Look Like?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4589.0.html
When Could Oswald Have "Zeroed" (Sighted-In) the Alleged Murder Weapon?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4543.0.html
Chapter 15 in Pat Speer's online book A New Perspective on the John F. Kennedy Assassination
https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-15
Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view
The Dented Bullet Shell: Hard Evidence of Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ihue8a0GmN_Ptl38bPjpu1F99nqU0Z6f/view
JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view?usp=sharing
Ten Reasons I Reject the Single-Bullet Theory
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-7AW56BXCumXFsOwyN6lE0WTBltOzeYI/view
Knott Laboratory's Historic 2023 SBT Trajectory Analysis
https://knottlab.com/cases/knott-lab-presents-digital-reconstruction-and-findings-on-the-assassination-of-president-john-f-kennedy/
https://knottlab.com/knott-lab-uses-forensic-science-to-refute-warren-commission-findings-on-jfk-assassination/
I think I've dealt with enough of your nonsense. I don't have to go on a scavenger hunt to dig up more. I feel like I've traveled back in time to 1991 when I first started to refute these same arguments made by you and your Prodigy cohorts back then. Nothing much has changed. Same old crap. Oswald wasn't a good enough marksman. The rifle couldn't have made the kill shots. The SBT is impossible. Blah, blah, blah. The irony is that you called for logic and critical thinking in the title of this thread and yet you don't seem to have applied either to your goofy ideas.
-
The first shot was the closest but by far was the most difficult and it did not require a wild miss. His target was in the extreme right of the limo and only had to miss a foot or two to the right to miss the limo.
More like three or four feet:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Wb5GnLP9/car-under-trafficlight3.jpg)
but even a foot at 100 feet is a huge miss. If he actually tried a shot that early and missed he would have incorrectly estimated the lead. So one would expect the bullet to hit too far ahead or too far behind. In that case he missed by 15 feet.
-
The first shot was the closest but by far was the most difficult and it did not require a wild miss. His target was in the extreme right of the limo and only had to miss a foot or two to the right to miss the limo.
LOL! "Only" had to miss "a foot or two to the right" to miss the limo?! "Only"?!
And, pray tell, where would that bullet have gone at that early point in the shooting? Huh? It certainly could not have caused the Tague curb strike and the wound on Tague's cheek, nor could it have been the bullet that struck the manhole cover and the grass near the manhole cover far down Elm Street.
And, BTW, your supposed lone gunman would have had to miss by at least 3 feet to miss the limo. You don't know what you're talking about.
I've listed the difficulties of the first shot before but I will do so again:
1. He would have had to acquire and track his target as it was making the turn onto Elm St. it would have been moving in an arc rather than a straight line.
2. His target was moving across his line of fire rather down the line of fire as it was for the subsequent shots. This created a difficult cross shot at a moving target.
3. Firing downward at such a steep angle would have forcedd him to raise up out of either the sitting or kneeling position that he would have had for his subsequent shot. He would have been firing
from an unsteady crouching position.
4. The boxes he stacked to create a rifle rest would have been of little to no use in steadying the rifle on a near vertical shot.
5. With the window open only about a foot or so, the bottom of the sash would have partially obscured his view, especially if he was using the scope. This might have forced him to use the iron sights.
6. His target was about to pass under the true which could have forced him to rush the shot.
I guess it just never occurred to you that your argument begs the question: "Why, then, would even a mediocre marksman have tried to take such a shot in the first place?!"
You've done nothing but validate my point that it is illogical to posit a shot from the sixth-floor window at that time in the shooting.
Given these difficulties which would not have been present for the second or third shots, it's easy to understand why he would miss his first shot.
You really need to sign yourself up for a class in basic logic and critical thinking. Your posts contain numerous textbook examples of circular reasoning, hasty generalization, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and begging the claim.
Again, given the difficulties of such an early first shot, not even a novice gunman would have been dumb enough to fire at that time. Yet, even then, it is hard to fathom how he could have missed so wildly as to miss the entire gigantic limo.
Missing the limo would be hard to believe if he was trying to shoot the limo which I'm betting he was not. He was trying to shoot a guy on the extreme right side of the limo and only had to pull his shot to miss the limo.
More silliness. Even someone literally hanging out the window and firing with one hand would have had a hard time missing the entire gigantic limo--21.25 x 6.5 feet--from that range.
No shooting feat has ever been duplicated. Never. Not once. Every shooting is unique with its own set of variables.
Yeah, let's just toss aside the established science of shooting incident reconstruction! Sheesh, you must be kidding. Do you have any idea how silly you're making yourself look with this stuff?
All such tests I am aware of did not give the shooters 11 seconds. They were expected to fire 3 shots in 5.6 seconds. A limitation Oswald was not operating under.
What?! Eee-gads. Once again, you prove you don't know what in the world you're talking about. I have to wonder if you've even read the WC volumes (I know you haven't read the HSCA volumes or the ARRB materials).
Obviously, you're not aware that the WC's Master-rated riflemen took well over 5.6 seconds for a number of their shooting sequences. Hendrix's fastest sequence was 7.0 seconds, while his slowest was 8.25 seconds. Staley's fastest sequence was 6.45 seconds, while his slowest sequence was 6.75 seconds. Miller was the fastest of the three, firing his third sequence in 4.45 seconds, his first sequence in 4.6 seconds, and his second sequence in 5.15 seconds, but all three of his second shots missed the entire target silhouette, and all three of his third shots landed nowhere near the head. (Miller fired three sequences, while Hendrix and Staley fired two, because Miller fired one sequence using the iron sights instead of the scope.)
Similarly, in the CBS rifle test, a number of the 12 riflemen took longer than 5.6 seconds, with some sequences taking 6.5 seconds or longer. You'd know these things if you had done a modicum of balanced research.
You keep ignoring a fact that virtually everyone else on both sides has acknowledged: if the first shot came before Z166 and missed, the gunman would have had to go 2/2 in 5.6 seconds after the limo reemerged from beneath the oak tree. It doesn't matter if you assume he fired at Z100; he still would have had only 5.6 seconds (actually 5.57 seconds) to go 2/2 because Z210 to Z312 is 102 frames.
Oswald had 8 months to practice with his rifle. We don't know how many practice rounds he fired but he fired one shot at Walker and had four more rounds in his rifle when he commenced firing. The ammo was sold in boxes of 20 so that leaves 15 rounds unaccounted for and we don't know how many boxes he purchased.
Wow, this stuff was debunked literally decades ago. One, the FBI could find no evidence that Oswald ever bought ammo or even gun-cleaning supplies--not one bullet or gun-cleaning item was found in his belongings. Two, the FBI could find no evidence that Oswald ever practiced shooting at targets in the months leading up to the assassination. Three, the FBI couldn't even establish that Oswald picked up the mail-order rifle and admitted that no "Hidell" was authorized on Oswald's mail form to pick up mail from his post office box. Four, General Walker himself said that the bullet that was recovered from his wall was not the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used.
The rifle as tested aimed a few inches high and to the right. This approximates the amount of lead Oswald would have had to make on his target. Oswald might have known this, he might not have known this and just got lucky, or the scope might have been knocked out of alignment when he dropped it behind the row of boxes on the 6th floor.
More dated, debunked claims. The rifle was not "dropped" behind the row of boxes but was carefully slid in between them and covered with other boxes. Even with the scope zeroed for the WC's rifle test, the Master-rated riflemen were unable to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat.
Whatever the combination of circumstances were with the rifle, we know that rifle put two rounds into JFK because the only two recovered bullets were fired by that rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles in the world.
You are decades behind the information curve. I've made you aware of the fact that the skull x-rays show bullet fragmentation that is totally inconsistent with the fragmentation caused by the kind of ammo that Oswald supposedly used. There is no way that an FMJ bullet would shatter into dozens of tiny pieces inside the skull and also leave several fragments in the rear outer table (and in a location that couldn't be associated with an entry wound).
One of the bullet fragments supposedly recovered from the limo shows damage that would never have occurred from transiting a human skull. None of the known fragments from any of the various wound ballistics tests have emerged with a flap folded a 180 degrees and razor-sharp edge.
SOMEBODY used that rifle to kill JFK and the overwhelming amount of forensic evidence tells us that somebody was Oswald.
LOL! Uh, the overwhelming forensic evidence, as confirmed by Dr. Vincent DiMaio, among many other experts, says that FMJ bullets will never shatter into dozens of tiny fragments, and that if an x-ray shows a cloud of tiny fragments, this rules out FMJ ammo. Let me once again quote DiMaio:
An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . . usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has perforated bone such as the skull or spine.If any fragments are seen, they are very sparse in number. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)
And:
In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a 'lead snowstorm'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318)
Notice two crucial points: (1) In the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" fragments, and (2) if an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," this "rules out" FMJ ammo.
Why do you keep ducking this fact?
Oswald was not a large man so it was not that cramped for him.
Oh, just stop. I know you haven't even looked at the relevant crime-scene photos and reconstruction photos, or else you wouldn't float this stuff. Oswald was of average height and weight for a man in 1963. In fact, he was slightly taller than the average height of 5'8". And, yes, the sniper's nest would have been quite cramped for him, as Pat Speer has proved.
Given that his rifle was the murder weapon and 3 shells from that rifle were found in the sniper's nest, we can safely say SOMEBODY fired the shots from "the cramped, inhibiting conditions of the sixth floor sniper's nest". Again, the overwhelming amount of forensic evidence tells us that somebody was Oswald.
No, we can safely say that you will continue to ignore the compelling evidence that Oswald's ammo could not have caused the bullet fragmentation seen in the autopsy skull x-rays, that you will continue to ignore the fact that neither of the rear head entry wounds can be aligned back with the sixth-floor window (unless we simply ignore the damage inside the skull and ignore the position of JFK's head when the hit occurred), that you will continue to ignore the fact no one has ever duplicated Oswald's alleged shooting feat, that you will continue to ignore the severe and undeniable conflicts between the autopsy brain photos and the skull x-rays, that you will continue to ignore the evidence that Oswald was not even on the sixth floor during the shooting, etc., etc.
This is why I said earlier that no shooting has ever been duplicated. Oswald was not required to duplicate anybody else's shots. He just needed to put a bullet on his target which he did twice in three shots with deadly consequences.
This fluff would get you an F grade in a high school debate class. If a valid lone-gunman rifle test were ever held and at least one rifleman actually duplicated Oswald's alleged shooting performance, you would be trumpeting this from the rooftops. But, oops, no such test has ever been held, and the two tests that duplicated most of the conditions failed to produce a single rifleman who could duplicate the alleged feat.
MG: -- Nearly all the participants in the rifle tests were experienced, highly skilled riflemen, whereas Oswald was at best a mediocre marksman and was regarded as a poor shot by nearly everyone who saw him shoot in the Marine Corps and in his hunting club in Minsk.
JC: Even a mediocre trained Marine was capable of making those shots.
You bet, and never you mind that even the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test, firing from only 30 feet up and firing at stationary targets, failed to make those shots, or that only one of the 12 riflemen in the CBS rifle test scored two hits on his first attempt and only because the test counted as "hits" any shots that landed anywhere on the target silhouettes.
Even the USMC's minimum qualifying standards required Oswald to be able to consistently hit his target at 200 yard. His longest shot in Dealey Plaza was only 88 yards.
Again, just stop. If you knew anything about rifles and marksmanship and Oswald's Marine Corps rifle scores, you would know there is a world of difference between firing a superb semi-automatic rifle like the M1 at stationary targets that you've practiced against for weeks and when the fastest you have to fire is 6 seconds per shot vs. going 2/3 with a bolt-action rifle in 4.8 to 11 seconds and with your two hits having to come in the final 5.6 seconds. There's just no comparison.
None of the tests I've seen required the shooters to shoot from an awkward stance at a target moving across the target line.
Yeah, that's because they didn't buy the idiotic, illogical scenario that the sixth-floor gunman fired before Z133.
The targets were moving in a straight line away from the shooters, making their first shots fairly easy as compared to what Oswald faced.
You mean as compared to your absurd theory that has Oswald practically hanging out the window and firing virtually straight down on his first shot, yet still missing the entire gigantic limo. Yeah, uh-huh.
Were they asked to fire 2 shots or 3 in the 5.6 seconds?
Do you just not understand the English I'm using? Do you still not grasp the erroneous assumption you're making with this argument, which you keep repeating? Again, if the first shot was a miss, the two hits would have had to come after Z209 and would have had to be made within 5.6 seconds. If you don't believe me, go ask a grade school math teacher to tell you how many seconds would elapse in 102 frames (Z210-Z312) with the camera filming at the speed of 18.3 frames per second. I promise you the teacher will tell you that the answer is 5.57 seconds, which everyone usually rounds up to 5.6 seconds.
MG: It should be noted that many if not most lone-gunman theorists--certainly all the ones who regularly post in this forum--make the surprising, discrediting claim that Oswald's alleged shooting feat would not have been difficult, with many claiming it would have been "easy." WC staffer Wesley Liebeler told the WC in an internal memo that the portrayal of the alleged shooting feat as not very difficult was "simply dishonest" (11 HSCA 230).
JC: That would be true if Oswald had to fire 3 shots in 5.6 seconds.
Sigh. . . . See above. . . . It is astounding that you don't even understand such a basic fact about the shooting sequence.
If you were really interested in critical thinking, you would have applied it to your own arguments. You would have considered the points I have made to your arguments.
Yeah, you bet! Somewhere deep in the back of your mind you have to at least suspect that you are blundering badly and are trying to obscure your incompetence by posturing that I'm not interested in critical thinking.
I've actually had two courses on critical thinking. What training have you had on the subject?
That's true if one believes in junk science. If one relies on solid forensic evidence, there is only a basis for a 3 shot scenario.
This is your answer to the evidence of extra bullets and missed shots, which includes photographic evidence?! I bet you didn't even read my article on the subject, did you? I'd like to see you respond to that article ("Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza").
If your "junk science" comment is aimed at the HSCA's acoustical evidence, even though I didn't mention it in my reply and in my "Extra Bullets and Missed Shots" article, we already saw in an exchange in another thread that you haven't even read the NAS panel's report, much less the HSCA's acoustical research, Dr. Donald Thomas's research, and the follow-up research that was done by BBN scientists in 2019-2020 and published in Dr. Josiah Thompson's book Last Second in Dallas.
That exchange proved that you obviously had no idea that the NAS scientists were not even acoustical scientists and that they didn't even try to explain the windshield distortion correlations, the presence of N-waves on the dictabelt, and the presence of muzzle blasts and muzzle-blast echoes on the dictabelt, not to mention the fact that those phenomena come in the correct sequence and interval, an astonishing coincidence if the dictabelt did not record shots during the assassination. You also obviously had no idea that the NAS scientists admitted there was a 93% chance that the time-movement correlations identified by the BBN scientists occurred because the recording was made by a motorcycle moving in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, and that there was a 77.7% chance that the 144.9 impulse pattern on the dictabelt was caused by gunfire from the grassy knoll.
MG: which renders the lone-gunman shooting scenario invalid from the outset. We have a number of credible accounts of extra bullets and missed shots in Dealey Plaza, two of them supported by photographic evidence. Lone-gunman theorists lamely reply that every single one of the witnesses in every single one of these accounts must have been "mistaken," another display of their tendency to judge the evidence by their theory rather than judge their theory by the evidence. They conclude that all those witnesses "must" have been mistaken because they cannot allow that more than three shots were fired.
JC: Wrong again. It is only necessary to believe SOME of the witnesses were wrong and since the witnesses gave differing accounts of the shooting, we KNOW some of them had to be wrong.
HUH? If some of the witnesses were right, then there were more than three shots fired. How can you not understand this? Clearly, you haven't even bothered to read the accounts of extra bullets and missed shots, or else you'd know better than to present such a vacuous argument.
The FBI expert who examined the shells disagrees with your assessment. He had the actual shells to examine instead of low resolution copies of photos of the shells examined by amateur sleuths. I'm going with the FBI's expert on this one.
Uh-huh, of course you are. What shells did this FBI expert examine? Did he examine the shells from the HSCA's ballistics test, of which we have good pictures, and none of which emerged as dented as CE 543? Did the FBI expert examine the shells from Zimmerman's test, of which we have good pictures, and none of which emerged as dented as CE 543? Dr. Chapman examined CE 543 himself. So did ballistics and firearms expert Howard Donahue. So did Dr. Josiah Thompson. In addition, Dr. Chapman did his own test and concluded that CE 543's dent was too large for the case to have fired a bullet during the assassination.
The SBT has been disputed, not refuted. Critics keep telling us it is impossible but are never able to give us a valid reason why it is impossible. I have asked you to explain why on numerous occasions and I have yet to see you attempt to do so. Have I missed your reply?
Say what?! I've written entire articles on why the SBT is impossible. I've posted numerous replies on why the SBT is impossible. Knott Laboratory's forensic engineers have explained why their SBT trajectory analysis proves the SBT is impossible. What in the world are you talking about?
Now you are just making &*&^% up.
No, you are. I know you didn't read my article on why JFK's clothing proves the SBT is impossible. You have a habit of making emphatic statements based on little or no actual knowledge. You also have a habit of attacking research that you haven't even read.
Like you, they didn't explain why it was impossible. They thought just saying so would suffice. I guess it did suffice for the CT who paid for the study, that being John Orr.
Umm, as mentioned, Knott Laboratory's forensic engineers did in fact explain why their SBT trajectory analysis proves the SBT is impossible. I provided two links to their articles. Obviously, you didn't bother to read either of them, and then you get on here and make the erroneous claim that they didn't explain why the SBT is impossible.
Do you not understand how much you discredit yourself when you pull this stunt? And you pull this stunt quite often.
JBC refuted the SBT because he believed the myth that JFK had been hit by the first shot. He knew he had been hit by the second shot. If JFK had also been hit by the second shot, that would mean they were both hit by the same shot.
Another example of faulty logic and flawed a priori assumptions.
Anyway, Connally only heard one shot before he was hit, but this does not mean there was only one shot before he was hit. The Zapruder film shows two sets of readily visible shot reactions before Z224. In addition, two of the strongest blur episodes identified by the HSCA's photographic experts occur before Z224, i.e., Z158-165 and Z189-197.
Blur episodes are important because they indicate that Zapruder jiggled his camera in response to hearing a shot. Tests have proved that a person will jiggle their camera in a reflex reaction when they hear gunfire, even if they know it is coming. By even the most conservative criteria, there are at least four significant blur episodes in the Zapruder film.
Not a bad guess. He was only off by about 1/2 second, Not as good as his earlier guess. That one was off by 2/3 of a second.
I already answered this argument. You keep ignoring contrary facts and then repeating your talking points and acting like you've proven your point. As I've explained to you before, forensic science tells us that when people experience a sharp, sudden pain, it only takes 150-300 milliseconds to react with a pained facial expression, and Connally's face shows a pained expression starting in Z239. There's no way this was a "delayed reaction" to a severe wounding that occurred 825 milliseconds/15 frames earlier at Z224.
You lamely brush aside the fact that Connally saw no significance in any of the few minor pre-Z229 movements that you claim are wound reactions. I mean, nah, what did he know, right? He was just the guy who actually experienced the wounding and who knew himself better than anyone else. Oh, but he "must" have been "mistaken"--because otherwise the SBT collapses.
I'll leave it to the people who believe that nonsense to reply to that.
You even duck easy issues like this one. If the SBT is false, then it is self-evident that Connally must have been hit by a separate bullet fired by a second gunman from behind. How can you not figure this out? It doesn't matter if you accept or reject the mortal error theory. If, as your theory says, Oswald only fired three shots, and if Connally was not hit by the alleged SBT bullet, then another gunman firing from behind must have shot Connally, since your theory says Oswald's first shot missed and his third shot hit JFK's head. If one accepts the mortal error theory, which says Oswald only fired two shots, then if the SBT is false, this still means a second gunman must have been firing from behind. I mean, this is simple math and basic logic.
I think I've dealt with enough of your nonsense.
No, you've either ducked and dodged or offered blundering arguments in response to inconvenient facts. I hate to put it this way, and I rarely say this even when it's deserved, but you are far out of your league. I'll get back to this point in a moment.
I don't have to go on a scavenger hunt to dig up more.
In other words, you're still going to refuse to read any scholarly research that challenges your theory of the shooting, and then you're going to get back on here and once again either ignore or mischaracterize that research, all the while pretending that you've proven your point.
I feel like I've traveled back in time to 1991 when I first started to refute these same arguments made by you and your Prodigy cohorts back then. Nothing much has changed. Same old crap. Oswald wasn't a good enough marksman. The rifle couldn't have made the kill shots. The SBT is impossible. Blah, blah, blah.
Oh, yes, we've seen how you've "refuted" my arguments here! Honestly, you have no business pretending to be any kind of an authority on the JFK case. You should be here to learn from people who have done far, far more research on the case than you have.
You should feel like you've traveled back in time to the 1960s because you repeatedly show you know nothing about many of the important disclosures and developments that have occurred since the 1970s. You appear to know almost nothing about the historic ARRB disclosures and the JFKRCA-related disclosures since then. Moreover, it seems obvious that you haven't even read all of the WC volumes, much less the HSCA volumes.
Who are you, anyway? Where's your JFKA website? (I have one of the most frequently visited JFKA websites around). What books have you published? (I've published two.) How many books and articles have cited your research? (Numerous books and articles have cited my research, but I can't find any that have cited your research.) How many major news outlets have interviewed you on the JFK case? (BBC Canada interviewed me on the case; two local radio stations have interviewed me on the case; and two JFKA podcasts have interviewed me.) How many of your articles have been reprinted or linked on other JFKA sites? (Many of my articles have been reprinted/linked on other JFKA websites, but I can't find a single article you have written, much less any sites that have reprinted/linked one of them.)
And what are your qualifications? I spent 21 years in Army military intelligence and continued to work in the Intelligence Community as a contractor for some years afterward, so I know my way around the intelligence aspects of the case. I qualified at all three levels of Army marksmanship (marksman, sharpshooter, and expert). I've conducted a ballistics test on the effects of bullets on clothing. When it comes to the acoustical evidence, my signals intel training included courses on radio wave propagation, modulation, the effects of automatic gain control, RF theory, the electromagnetic spectrum, etc. I don't claim to be an acoustical expert, but I know more about the subject than your average Joe. I've interviewed numerous photographic lab technicians, professors of photography, and professional photographers about the backyard rifle photos. I've interviewed a former Army sniper about Oswald's alleged shooting feat.
The irony is that you called for logic and critical thinking in the title of this thread and yet you don't seem to have applied either to your goofy ideas.
No, the irony is that you clearly lack the education to credibly even discuss what constitutes logic and critical thinking in the first place, and that you've proved over and over that you don't have a handle on many of the basics of the JFK case or even on all the components of the lone-gunman theory.
-
LOL! "Only" had to miss "a foot or two to the right" to miss the limo?! "Only"?!
Yes, only. Firing an unbraced rifle from an awkward stance at a target moving across the line of fire and having to rush the shot before the target went under the tree makes a miss of two feet quite possible. There was a reason Oswald stacked the boxes for form a rifle rest because it is a great aid in reducing he arcing of the sights which is a necessity to accurate shooting.
And, pray tell, where would that bullet have gone at that early point in the shooting? Huh? It certainly could not have caused the Tague curb strike and the wound on Tague's cheek, nor could it have been the bullet that struck the manhole cover and the grass near the manhole cover far down Elm Street.
Struck a manhole cover??? Where do you get this crap? You don't think it's plausible that Oswald could have missed JFK by a couple feet but you are perfectly willing to accept that some other shooter firing at JFK missed so badly the bullet struck the manhole cover. This is a perfect example of your lack of critical thinking.
And, BTW, your supposed lone gunman would have had to miss by at least 3 feet to miss the limo. You don't know what you're talking about.
That's called projection.
I guess it just never occurred to you that your argument begs the question: "Why, then, would even a mediocre marksman have tried to take such a shot in the first place?!"
It's very simple. A low percentage shot has a better chance of hitting the target than not taking a shot at all. Wayne Gretzky once said "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.".
You've done nothing but validate my point that it is illogical to posit a shot from the sixth-floor window at that time in the shooting. [/quote]
I can't ever remember you making a valid point and that's going back 35 years.
You really need to sign yourself up for a class in basic logic and critical thinking.
If you took such a class, you should demand your money back.
Your posts contain numerous textbook examples of circular reasoning, hasty generalization, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and begging the claim.
More projection.
Again, given the difficulties of such an early first shot, not even a novice gunman would have been dumb enough to fire at that time. Yet, even then, it is hard to fathom how he could have missed so wildly as to miss the entire gigantic limo.
So in one sentence you are acknowledging the difficulties of he shot but don't think it's plausible the shot could have missed badly.
More silliness. Even someone literally hanging out the window and firing with one hand would have had a hard time missing the entire gigantic limo--21.25 x 6.5 feet--from that range.
That would be hard to believe if that person was trying to shoot the limo.
Yeah, let's just toss aside the established science of shooting incident reconstruction! Sheesh, you must be kidding. Do you have any idea how silly you're making yourself look with this stuff?
Name me another case in which a shooting was duplicated.
What?! Eee-gads. Once again, you prove you don't know what in the world you're talking about. I have to wonder if you've even read the WC volumes (I know you haven't read the HSCA volumes or the ARRB materials).
Obviously, you're not aware that the WC's Master-rated riflemen took well over 5.6 seconds for a number of their shooting sequences. Hendrix's fastest sequence was 7.0 seconds, while his slowest was 8.25 seconds. Staley's fastest sequence was 6.45 seconds, while his slowest sequence was 6.75 seconds. Miller was the fastest of the three, firing his third sequence in 4.45 seconds, his first sequence in 4.6 seconds, and his second sequence in 5.15 seconds, but all three of his second shots missed the entire target silhouette, and all three of his third shots landed nowhere near the head. (Miller fired three sequences, while Hendrix and Staley fired two, because Miller fired one sequence using the iron sights instead of the scope.)
I noticed you didn't mention how many hits these riflemen scored when taking the extra time. Why is that?
Similarly, in the CBS rifle test, a number of the 12 riflemen took longer than 5.6 seconds, with some sequences taking 6.5 seconds or longer. You'd know these things if you had done a modicum of balanced research.
m
By my calculations, Oswald fired his 3 shots in 8.9 seconds. Some have hypothesized he too even longer.
You keep ignoring a fact that virtually everyone else on both sides has acknowledged: if the first shot came before Z166 and missed, the gunman would have had to go 2/2 in 5.6 seconds after the limo reemerged from beneath the oak tree.
So?
It doesn't matter if you assume he fired at Z100; he still would have had only 5.6 seconds (actually 5.57 seconds) to go 2/2 because Z210 to Z312 is 102 frames.
Actually I have him making those two hits in 5 seconds. Very doable. [/quote]
Wow, this stuff was debunked literally decades ago. One, the FBI could find no evidence that Oswald ever bought ammo or even gun-cleaning supplies--not one bullet or gun-cleaning item was found in his belongings.[/quote]
Yet some how he still had 4 rounds left on the day he shot JFK. [quote}
Two, the FBI could find no evidence that Oswald ever practiced shooting at targets in the months leading up to the assassination.[/quote]
I wasn't aware that records are kept of when a person takes target practice.
Three, the FBI couldn't even establish that Oswald picked up the mail-order rifle and admitted that no "Hidell" was authorized on Oswald's mail form to pick up mail from his post office box. Four, General Walker himself said that the bullet that was recovered from his wall was not the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used.
Yet somehow, he was photographed with the rifle, his palm print was on the rifle, and fibers matching the shirt he wore that day were on the rifle. But there's no evidence he ever picked up the rifle.
<chuckle>
More dated, debunked claims. The rifle was not "dropped" behind the row of boxes but was carefully slid in between them and covered with other boxes.
Oh, were you there?
Even with the scope zeroed for the WC's rifle test, the Master-rated riflemen were unable to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat.
Still clinging to he no-one-has-ever-duplicated-Oswald's-shooting red herring argument. Please tell me about one shooting that has been perfectly duplicated.
You are decades behind the information curve.
It would be quite charitable to call the shit CTs dream up "information".
I've made you aware of the fact that the skull x-rays show bullet fragmentation that is totally inconsistent with the fragmentation caused by the kind of ammo that Oswald supposedly used. There is no way that an FMJ bullet would shatter into dozens of tiny pieces inside the skull and also leave several fragments in the rear outer table (and in a location that couldn't be associated with an entry wound).
A fine example of the shit CTs dream up. Can you name a qualified medical examiner who has seen the medical evidence and shares your opinion on this. The only thing you've ever made me aware if is that you have some really goofy ideas.
One of the bullet fragments supposedly recovered from the limo shows damage that would never have occurred from transiting a human skull. None of the known fragments from any of the various wound ballistics tests have emerged with a flap folded a 180 degrees and razor-sharp edge.
More crapola you have dreamed up all on your own. Can you cite a real ballistics expert who shares your opinion?
LOL! Uh, the overwhelming forensic evidence, as confirmed by Dr. Vincent DiMaio, among many other experts, says that FMJ bullets will never shatter into dozens of tiny fragments, and that if an x-ray shows a cloud of tiny fragments, this rules out FMJ ammo.
That's a really amazing claim given that the Secret Service found just such a shattered FMJ bullet in the limo.
Let me once again quote DiMaio:An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . . usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has perforated bone such as the skull or spine.If any fragments are seen, they are very sparse in number. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)
Did you happen to notice the word "usually" in your quote.
And:
In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a 'lead snowstorm'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318)
Notice two crucial points: (1) In the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" fragments, and (2) if an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," this "rules out" FMJ ammo.
Isn't it amazing that the only two bullets recovered from the shooting were FMJ bullets.
Why do you keep ducking this fact?
Your crap is not fact.
Oh, just stop. I know you haven't even looked at the relevant crime-scene photos and reconstruction photos, or else you wouldn't float this stuff. Oswald was of average height and weight for a man in 1963. In fact, he was slightly taller than the average height of 5'8". And, yes, the sniper's nest would have been quite cramped for him, as Pat Speer has proved.
It's amazing what you will and won't acceptt as proof.
No, we can safely say that you will continue to ignore the compelling evidence that Oswald's ammo could not have caused the bullet fragmentation seen in the autopsy skull x-rays, that you will continue to ignore the fact that neither of the rear head entry wounds can be aligned back with the sixth-floor window (unless we simply ignore the damage inside the skull and ignore the position of JFK's head when the hit occurred), that you will continue to ignore the fact no one has ever duplicated Oswald's alleged shooting feat, that you will continue to ignore the severe and undeniable conflicts between the autopsy brain photos and the skull x-rays, that you will continue to ignore the evidence that Oswald was not even on the sixth floor during the shooting, etc., etc.
Your evidence is only compelling to really gullible people.
This fluff would get you an F grade in a high school debate class. If a valid lone-gunman rifle test were ever held and at least one rifleman actually duplicated Oswald's alleged shooting performance, you would be trumpeting this from the rooftops. But, oops, no such test has ever been held, and the two tests that duplicated most of the conditions failed to produce a single rifleman who could duplicate the alleged feat.
If a gunman duplicated Oswald's shooting, it would be a minor miracle. Elements of a shooting can be recreated but never duplicated. There are far too many variables for that to happen. I would be more than willing to bet that if one of those Master shooters you cited tried to duplicate one of the other's shots, he would be unable to do it.
You bet, and never you mind that even the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test, firing from only 30 feet up and firing at stationary targets, failed to make those shots, or that only one of the 12 riflemen in the CBS rifle test scored two hits on his first attempt and only because the test counted as "hits" any shots that landed anywhere on the target silhouettes.
Yup. It's extremely difficult to fire 3 accurate shots in just 5.6 seconds. That's barely over the minimum amount of time the testers said would be required to fire three aimed shots.
Again, just stop. If you knew anything about rifles and marksmanship and Oswald's Marine Corps rifle scores, you would know there is a world of difference between firing a superb semi-automatic rifle like the M1 at stationary targets that you've practiced against for weeks and when the fastest you have to fire is 6 seconds per shot vs. going 2/3 with a bolt-action rifle in 4.8 to 11 seconds and with your two hits having to come in the final 5.6 seconds. There's just no comparison.
Why did you leave out the part where the USMC qualifying is done at ranges of 200 yards and up.
Yeah, that's because they didn't buy the idiotic, illogical scenario that the sixth-floor gunman fired before Z133.
I don't buy that one either. You'll have to take that one up with Tom Graves.
You mean as compared to your absurd theory that has Oswald practically hanging out the window and firing virtually straight down on his first shot, yet still missing the entire gigantic limo. Yeah, uh-huh.
Why do you keep thinking Oswald was trying to shoot the limo?
Do you just not understand the English I'm using?
Barely.
Do you still not grasp the erroneous assumption you're making with this argument, which you keep repeating? Again, if the first shot was a miss, the two hits would have had to come after Z209 and would have had to be made within 5.6 seconds. If you don't believe me, go ask a grade school math teacher to tell you how many seconds would elapse in 102 frames (Z210-Z312) with the camera filming at the speed of 18.3 frames per second. I promise you the teacher will tell you that the answer is 5.57 seconds, which everyone usually rounds up to 5.6 seconds.
Why do you get so frustrated when someone points out your logical fallacies. You seem to do that with Lance as well.
Sigh. . . . See above. . . . It is astounding that you don't even understand such a basic fact about the shooting sequence.
I understand it perfectly which is how I know the last two shots were fired in about 5 seconds, not 5.6 seconds.
Yeah, you bet! Somewhere deep in the back of your mind you have to at least suspect that you are blundering badly and are trying to obscure your incompetence by posturing that I'm not interested in critical thinking.
You might be interested in it. You just aren't very good at it.
I've actually had two courses on critical thinking. [/quoe]
You should demand your money back.
What training have you had on the subject?
Do you think someone has to take a course to learn how to do it. I do it with your posts all the time, but to be fair, that's like shooting fish in a barrel.
This is your answer to the evidence of extra bullets and missed shots, which includes photographic evidence?! I bet you didn't even read my article on the subject, did you? I'd like to see you respond to that article ("Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza").
The crap you write isn't exactly must reading.
If your "junk science" comment is aimed at the HSCA's acoustical evidence, even though I didn't mention it in my reply and in my "Extra Bullets and Missed Shots" article, we already saw in an exchange in another thread that you haven't even read the NAS panel's report, much less the HSCA's acoustical research, Dr. Donald Thomas's research, and the follow-up research that was done by BBN scientists in 2019-2020 and published in Dr. Josiah Thompson's book Last Second in Dallas.
Oh, goody. You've found another CT who shares your opinion. Am I supposed to be impressed? It's not working.
That exchange proved that you obviously had no idea that the NAS scientists were not even acoustical scientists and that they didn't even try to explain the windshield distortion correlations, the presence of N-waves on the dictabelt, and the presence of muzzle blasts and muzzle-blast echoes on the dictabelt, not to mention the fact that those phenomena come in the correct sequence and interval, an astonishing coincidence if the dictabelt did not record shots during the assassination. You also obviously had no idea that the NAS scientists admitted there was a 93% chance that the time-movement correlations identified by the BBN scientists occurred because the recording was made by a motorcycle moving in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, and that there was a 77.7% chance that the 144.9 impulse pattern on the dictabelt was caused by gunfire from the grassy knoll.
For starters, there is photographic evidence that Officer McLain was not where the acoustics team said he was during the shooting and the open mike wasn't even on his motorcycle. The impulses were not gunshots but static. But hang on to your myths. Since there is no evidence to support your beliefs, myths are all you have.
HUH? If some of the witnesses were right, then there were more than three shots fired. How can you not understand this? Clearly, you haven't even bothered to read the accounts of extra bullets and missed shots, or else you'd know better than to present such a vacuous argument.
If some of the witnesses were right, there were only two shots.
If some of the witnesses were right, there were three shots.
If some of the witnesses were right, there were four shots.
Do you see the problem here?
Uh-huh, of course you are. What shells did this FBI expert examine? Did he examine the shells from the HSCA's ballistics test, of which we have good pictures, and none of which emerged as dented as CE 543? Did the FBI expert examine the shells from Zimmerman's test, of which we have good pictures, and none of which emerged as dented as CE 543? Dr. Chapman examined CE 543 himself. So did ballistics and firearms expert Howard Donahue. So did Dr. Josiah Thompson. In addition, Dr. Chapman did his own test and concluded that CE 543's dent was too large for the case to have fired a bullet during the assassination.
I'm not surprised that someone who believes a shooting can be duplicated would expect shells to be dented the same amount.
Say what?! I've written entire articles on why the SBT is impossible. I've posted numerous replies on why the SBT is impossible. Knott Laboratory's forensic engineers have explained why their SBT trajectory analysis proves the SBT is impossible. What in the world are you talking about?
In every article about the Knott tests that I've googled, the only thing they said was the wounds didn't line up. No explanation other than that.
No, you are. I know you didn't read my article on why JFK's clothing proves the SBT is impossible. [/quote]
I read enough of your crap on this forum. I don't need to hunt for more.
You have a habit of making emphatic statements based on little or no actual knowledge.
That's not true. I have lots of knowledge that he stuff you right is crap.
[[You also have a habit of attacking research that you haven't even read.
I've seen plenty of examples of your research. It's not impressive.
Umm, as mentioned, Knott Laboratory's forensic engineers did in fact explain why their SBT trajectory analysis proves the SBT is impossible. I provided two links to their articles. Obviously, you didn't bother to read either of them, and then you get on here and make the erroneous claim that they didn't explain why the SBT is impossible.
Do you not understand how much you discredit yourself when you pull this stunt? And you pull this stunt quite often.
OK, I found the Knott article and this is really funny. The don't have JBC far enough left and they show him facing straight ahead. His shoulders were still rotated to his right when the bullet struck. Even with their own FUBAR alignment, it is obvious that a bullet exiting JFK's throat would have hit JBC more toward the middle of his back. That bullet could not have missed him. Classic case of garbage in, garbage out.
Another example of faulty logic and flawed a priori assumptions.
Anyway, Connally only heard one shot before he was hit, but this does not mean there was only one shot before he was hit. The Zapruder film shows two sets of readily visible shot reactions before Z224. In addition, two of the strongest blur episodes identified by the HSCA's photographic experts occur before Z224, i.e., Z158-165 and Z189-197.
So you think the assassin tried to fire through the branches of the tree.
Blur episodes are important because they indicate that Zapruder jiggled his camera in response to hearing a shot. Tests have proved that a person will jiggle their camera in a reflex reaction when they hear gunfire, even if they know it is coming. By even the most conservative criteria, there are at least four significant blur episodes in the Zapruder film.
Yes, I know. I've made this point many times. It is how I calculated Oswald fired his 3 shots at Z147-148, Z219-220, and Z310-311. A cameraman will jiggle his camera upon hearing the blast of a high powered rifle. But that is not the only thing that will cause a jiggle. Every shot will be followed by a jiggle but not every jiggle is preceded by a shot.
I already answered this argument. You keep ignoring contrary facts and then repeating your talking points and acting like you've proven your point. As I've explained to you before, forensic science tells us that when people experience a sharp, sudden pain, it only takes 150-300 milliseconds to react with a pained facial expression, and Connally's face shows a pained expression starting in Z239. There's no way this was a "delayed reaction" to a severe wounding that occurred 825 milliseconds/15 frames earlier at Z224.
JBC testified when the bullet hit, he felt no immediate pain. You still have no explanation for JBC's Z226 arm flip which was simultaneous with JFK raising his arms.
You lamely brush aside the fact that Connally saw no significance in any of the few minor pre-Z229 movements that you claim are wound reactions. I mean, nah, what did he know, right? He was just the guy who actually experienced the wounding and who knew himself better than anyone else. Oh, but he "must" have been "mistaken"--because otherwise the SBT collapses.[/quoote]
He wasn't looking for his Z226 arm flip because that was an involuntary reflexive response which he had no memory of making.
You even duck easy issues like this one. If the SBT is false, then it is self-evident that Connally must have been hit by a separate bullet fired by a second gunman from behind. How can you not figure this out? It doesn't matter if you accept or reject the mortal error theory. If, as your theory says, Oswald only fired three shots, and if Connally was not hit by the alleged SBT bullet, then another gunman firing from behind must have shot Connally, since your theory says Oswald's first shot missed and his third shot hit JFK's head. If one accepts the mortal error theory, which says Oswald only fired two shots, then if the SBT is false, this still means a second gunman must have been firing from behind. I mean, this is simple math and basic logic.
Faulty premises yield faulty conclusions. The SBT is not false.
No, you've either ducked and dodged or offered blundering arguments in response to inconvenient facts. I hate to put it this way, and I rarely say this even when it's deserved, but you are far out of your league. I'll get back to this point in a moment.
Your desperation is showing.
In other words, you're still going to refuse to read any scholarly research that challenges your theory of the shooting, and then you're going to get back on here and once again either ignore or mischaracterize that research, all the while pretending that you've proven your point.
It's amazing what you consider scholarly research.
Oh, yes, we've seen how you've "refuted" my arguments here! Honestly, you have no business pretending to be any kind of an authority on the JFK case. You should be here to learn from people who have done far, far more research on the case than you have.
Dreaming up false narratives is not research.
You should feel like you've traveled back in time to the 1960s because you repeatedly show you know nothing about many of the important disclosures and developments that have occurred since the 1970s. You appear to know almost nothing about the historic ARRB disclosures and the JFKRCA-related disclosures since then. Moreover, it seems obvious that you haven't even read all of the WC volumes, much less the HSCA volumes.
I've seen just about every nutty conspiracy theory that has come down the pike and I have a knack for recognizing BS when I see it. Vincent Bugliosi wrote 1600 pages exposing the BS. Unlike you, he did real research.
Who are you, anyway? Where's your JFKA website? (I have one of the most frequently visited JFKA websites around). What books have you published? (I've published two.) How many books and articles have cited your research? (Numerous books and articles have cited my research, but I can't find any that have cited your research.) How many major news outlets have interviewed you on the JFK case? (BBC Canada interviewed me on the case; two local radio stations have interviewed me on the case; and two JFKA podcasts have interviewed me.) How many of your articles have been reprinted or linked on other JFKA sites? (Many of my articles have been reprinted/linked on other JFKA websites, but I can't find a single article you have written, much less any sites that have reprinted/linked one of them.)
And what are your qualifications? I spent 21 years in Army military intelligence and continued to work in the Intelligence Community as a contractor for some years afterward, so I know my way around the intelligence aspects of the case. I qualified at all three levels of Army marksmanship (marksman, sharpshooter, and expert). I've conducted a ballistics test on the effects of bullets on clothing. When it comes to the acoustical evidence, my signals intel training included courses on radio wave propagation, modulation, the effects of automatic gain control, RF theory, the electromagnetic spectrum, etc. I don't claim to be an acoustical expert, but I know more about the subject than your average Joe. I've interviewed numerous photographic lab technicians, professors of photography, and professional photographers about the backyard rifle photos. I've interviewed a former Army sniper about Oswald's alleged shooting feat.
Tony Marsh and Tom Rossley had websites. Theirs were full of beans too. Having a website doesn't make someone an authority. Rossley's website is still up, last I checked.
whokilledjfk.net
No, the irony is that you clearly lack the education to credibly even discuss what constitutes logic and critical thinking in the first place, and that you've proved over and over that you don't have a handle on many of the basics of the JFK case or even on all the components of the lone-gunman theory.
Coming from he likes of you, I consider tha a compliment
-
A few follow-up points about the alleged shooting feat, zeroing the rifle, and Oswald's Marine Corps rifle scores:
-- Marine Corps rifle expert MSG Jamess Zahm explained to the WC why using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat harder:
Mr. SPECTER. Can you characterize the increased efficiency of a marksman in using a four-power scope as opposed to using only the iron sights?
Sergeant ZAHM. Well, with the iron sights you have more room for error in the fact that you have three variables. You have your targets, your front sight and your rear sight, and you have the possibility of an error in aligning the sights, and then you also have the possibility of an error in the sights on the targets, which we refer to as the sight picture. Looking through aperture or even the open buckhorn type sights, when you are concentrating on your sights, your targets tend to become blurred because of the close focus of your eye in aligning the sights. (11 H 307)
-- Not a single bullet was found in Oswald's possessions. In addition, no gun-cleaning equipment, no gun-cleaning oil, no spent cartridges, no nothing related to maintaining or using a rifle was found among his possessions.
-- The three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat, even though two of them took 6.45 to 8.0 seconds to fire their two sets of three shots. Moreover, they fired their most inaccurate shots on their second and third shots, i.e., the shots fired at the two farthest targets, the same two shots that Oswald allegedly nailed in 5.6 seconds. And they were firing from only 30 feet up, took as much time as they wanted for their first shot, and were allowed to fire practice shots before the test began.
-- Here's what FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the WC about the problems they discovered when he and other FBI technicians tried to sight-in (zero) the rifle with the scope:
When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope.
And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots.
We found in this telescopic sight on this rifle that this ring was shifting in the telescope tube so that the gun could not be sighted-in merely by changing the screws. It was necessary to adjust it, and then fire several shots to stabilize the crosshair ring by causing this spring to press tightly against the screws (3 H 405-406)
-- As for the specious suggestion that the supposed lone gunman would not have needed to zero the rifle in the weeks leading up to the shooting, WC staffer Wesley Liebeler addressed this issue in an internal WC memo:
There is a great deal of testimony in the record that a telescopic sight is a sensitive proposition. You can't leave a rifle and scope laying around in a garage underfoot for almost 3 months, just having brought it back from New Orleans in the back of a station wagon, and expect to hit anything with it, unless you take the trouble to fire it and sight the scope in.
This would have been a problem that should have been dealt with in any event, and now that it turns out that there actually was a defect in the scope, it is perfectly clear that the question must be considered. The present draft leaves the Commission open to severe criticism. Furthermore, to the extent that it leaves testimony suggesting that the shots might not have been so easy out of the discussion, thereby giving only a part of the story, it is simply dishonest. (11 HSCA 230)
-- Regarding the fact that Oswald barely qualified in the second of three rifle qualification categories in the Marine Corps, it would be helpful to note just how relatively easy the Marine Corps rifle qualification standards were when compared to the alleged shooting, keeping in mind, too, that Oswald was using a superb semi-automatic rifle (the M1) when firing at Marine rifle ranges:
In Stage One-Slow Fire, the person had 12 minutes (yes, minutes) to fire 10 rounds.
In Stage Two-Slow Fire, the person had 6 minutes (yes, minutes) to fire 5 rounds.
In Stage Five-Rapid Fire, the person had 50 seconds to fire 10 rounds.
In Stage Six-Rapid Fire, the person had 50 seconds to fire 10 rounds.
Some sources say 60 seconds for the two rapid-fire phases, but I recently found a source that says 50 seconds, so I'll err on the side of caution and go with 50 seconds. That still means Oswald had 5 seconds per shot in the "rapid fire" phases.
-
A few follow-up points about the alleged shooting feat, zeroing the rifle, and Oswald's Marine Corps rifle scores:
-- Marine Corps rifle expert MSG Jamess Zahm explained to the WC why using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat harder:
Mr. SPECTER. Can you characterize the increased efficiency of a marksman in using a four-power scope as opposed to using only the iron sights?
Sergeant ZAHM. Well, with the iron sights you have more room for error in the fact that you have three variables. You have your targets, your front sight and your rear sight, and you have the possibility of an error in aligning the sights, and then you also have the possibility of an error in the sights on the targets, which we refer to as the sight picture. Looking through aperture or even the open buckhorn type sights, when you are concentrating on your sights, your targets tend to become blurred because of the close focus of your eye in aligning the sights. (11 H 307)
-- Not a single bullet was found in Oswald's possessions. In addition, no gun-cleaning equipment, no gun-cleaning oil, no spent cartridges, no nothing related to maintaining or using a rifle was found among his possessions.
-- The three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat, even though two of them took 6.45 to 8.0 seconds to fire their two sets of three shots. Moreover, they fired their most inaccurate shots on their second and third shots, i.e., the shots fired at the two farthest targets, the same two shots that Oswald allegedly nailed in 5.6 seconds. And they were firing from only 30 feet up, took as much time as they wanted for their first shot, and were allowed to fire practice shots before the test began.
-- Here's what FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the WC about the problems they discovered when he and other FBI technicians tried to sight-in (zero) the rifle with the scope:
When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope.
And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots.
We found in this telescopic sight on this rifle that this ring was shifting in the telescope tube so that the gun could not be sighted-in merely by changing the screws. It was necessary to adjust it, and then fire several shots to stabilize the crosshair ring by causing this spring to press tightly against the screws (3 H 405-406)
-- As for the specious suggestion that the supposed lone gunman would not have needed to zero the rifle in the weeks leading up to the shooting, WC staffer Wesley Liebeler addressed this issue in an internal WC memo:
There is a great deal of testimony in the record that a telescopic sight is a sensitive proposition. You can't leave a rifle and scope laying around in a garage underfoot for almost 3 months, just having brought it back from New Orleans in the back of a station wagon, and expect to hit anything with it, unless you take the trouble to fire it and sight the scope in.
This would have been a problem that should have been dealt with in any event, and now that it turns out that there actually was a defect in the scope, it is perfectly clear that the question must be considered. The present draft leaves the Commission open to severe criticism. Furthermore, to the extent that it leaves testimony suggesting that the shots might not have been so easy out of the discussion, thereby giving only a part of the story, it is simply dishonest. (11 HSCA 230)
-- Regarding the fact that Oswald barely qualified in the second of three rifle qualification categories in the Marine Corps, it would be helpful to note just how relatively easy the Marine Corps rifle qualification standards were when compared to the alleged shooting, keeping in mind, too, that Oswald was using a superb semi-automatic rifle (the M1):
In Stage One-Slow Fire, the person had 12 minutes (yes, minutes) to fire 10 rounds.
In Stage Two-Slow Fire, the person had 6 minutes (yes, minutes) to fire 5 rounds.
In Stage Five-Rapid Fire, the person had 50 seconds to fire 10 rounds.
In Stage Six-Rapid Fire, the person had 50 seconds to fire 10 rounds.
Some sources say 60 seconds for the two rapid-fire phases, but I recently found a source that says 50 seconds, so I'll err on the side of caution and go with 50 seconds. That still means Oswald had 5 seconds per shot in the "rapid fire" phases.
All of your perceived faults with Oswald's rifle and/or scope are rendered moot by the fact the recovered bullets from the shooting were matched to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world. It is painfully obvious to any thinking person that Oswald's rifle with that scope fired the shots that killed JFK. There is ample other forensic evidence establishing that Oswald was he one who fired those shots.
CTs refuse to accept that obvious conclusion which is why they make illogical arguments about the capabilities of Oswald and his rifle.
-
I figured out why my sources on the Marine Corps rifle qualification standards differed somewhat in the allotted times for the slow-fire and rapid-fire phases: the source I'd been using was for the 1943-1955 standards, whereas the source I found last week includes the 1943-1955 standards and the 1955-1968 standards. Oswald was in the Marine Corps from October 1956 to September 1959.
The 1955-1968 rifle qualification standards prove it is untenable to cite Oswald's Marine Corps rifle scores as evidence he could have performed the alleged shooting feat.
First off, we must keep in mind that when firing for qualification in the Marines, Oswald was using a superb semi-automatic rifle, either the M1 or the M14 (the M14 replaced the M1 in 1957, but the M1 was still often used for rifle practice and qualification). Thus, whether using the M1 or the M14, he had no bolt to manually operate--he just had to aim and squeeze the trigger. This is a huge difference compared to firing a bolt-action rifle where you have to manually operate the bolt for each shot.
Second, when firing for qualification, Oswald was firing at stationary targets, targets that he had practiced against several times beforehand.
Third, and this is a crucial point, to score a hit at 200 and 300 yards, Oswald had to hit a black circle on the target sheet that was 10 inches in diameter (10 inches wide and 10 inches tall), nearly twice as wide and 22% taller than the average male head. The average male head is 5.5-6.0 inches wide and 7.8 inches tall (from bottom of chin to top of head). To score a hit at 500 yards, Oswald had to hit a black circle that was 20 inches in diameter, more than triple the width and more than double the height of the average male head.
Fourth, even in the two "rapid-fire" phases, Oswald had 5 seconds to fire each shot. For the four slow-fire phases, he had 72 seconds (1.2 minutes) to fire each shot. Let's look at all the times for all the phases:
Stage One-Slow Fire
200 yards
12 minutes
10 rounds
Firing rate: 1.2 minutes per shot
Stage Two-Slow Fire
Stage Three-Slow Fire
300 yards
6 minutes
5 rounds
Firing rate: 1.2 minutes per shot
Stage Four-Slow Fire
500 yards
12 minutes
10 rounds
Firing rate: 1.2 minutes per shot
Stage Five-Rapid Fire
200 yards
50 seconds
10 rounds
Firing rate: 5.0 seconds per shot
Stage Six-Rapid Fire
300 yards
50 seconds
10 rounds
Firing rate: 5.0 seconds per shot
See: https://www.wwmcmillan.info/usmc_FirearmsQual.html.
Fifth, to qualify in the "sharpshooter" category, Oswald only had to achieve a score of 210 out of a possible 250, with each shot counting as 5 points. This means he could miss 8 of his 50 shots and still qualify as a "sharpshooter"--and, again, this was while using a semi-automatic rifle against 10-inch and 20-inch targets that he had practiced against several times beforehand.
Sixth, Oswald was always firing from a level position at Marine Corps rifle ranges, and never from an elevation, not to mention an elevation of 60 feet. Thus, he never had to worry about the high-low factor when firing from an elevation. It is doubtful he ever even heard of the high-low factor.
Clearly, his Marine Corps rifle scores tell us little about his ability to use a bolt-action rifle from 60 feet up while firing through a half-open window in cramped conditions and to score 2 hits in 3 shots in a 14 x 4-inch area in no more than 11 seconds and to score his 2 hits in 5.6 seconds (since everyone agrees the alleged lone-gunman's first shot missed).
-
I figured out why my sources on the Marine Corps rifle qualification standards differed somewhat in the allotted times for the slow-fire and rapid-fire phases: the source I'd been using was for the 1943-1955 standards, whereas the source I found last week includes the 1943-1955 standards and the 1955-1968 standards. Oswald was in the Marine Corps from October 1956 to September 1959.
The 1955-1968 rifle qualification standards prove it is untenable to cite Oswald's Marine Corps rifle scores as evidence he could have performed the alleged shooting feat.
Oswald's performance on 11/22/1963 proved he was capable of making the shots that killed JFK because the evidence he did that is overwhelming. The burden of proof is on the CTs to provide the evidence that he was NOT capable of making he shots.
First off, we must keep in mind that when firing for qualification in the Marines, Oswald was using a superb semi-automatic rifle, either the M1 or the M14 (the M14 replaced the M1 in 1957, but the M1 was still often used for rifle practice and qualification). Thus, whether using the M1 or the M14, he had no bolt to manually operate--he just had to aim and squeeze the trigger. This is a huge difference compared to firing a bolt-action rifle where you have to manually operate the bolt for each shot.
A semi-auto like the M1 does automate the chambering of each round after the clip is inserted, but once the round is in the chamber, the fundamentals for making an accurate shot are pretty much the same. Both rifles have significant recoil which will require the shooter to reacquire the target and put the sight on the intended target. A bolt action rifle has the added step of manually operating the bolt to eject the spent round and chamber the next round in the clip.
Second, when firing for qualification, Oswald was firing at stationary targets, targets that he had practiced against several times beforehand.
A slow moving target moving almost directly away from the shooter is almost stationary in that there is very little movement in relation to the line of fire. That would have been true for Oswald's second and third shots but not for his first which is why that shot was by far the most difficult.
Third, and this is a crucial point, to score a hit at 200 and 300 yards, Oswald had to hit a black circle on the target sheet that was 10 inches in diameter (10 inches wide and 10 inches tall), nearly twice as wide and 22% taller than the average male head. The average male head is 5.5-6.0 inches wide and 7.8 inches tall (from bottom of chin to top of head). To score a hit at 500 yards, Oswald had to hit a black circle that was 20 inches in diameter, more than triple the width and more than double the height of the average male head.
The effect of firing at greater ranges effectively makes the target smaller. I guess during your critical thinking you failed to take that into account.
Fourth, even in the two "rapid-fire" phases, Oswald had 5 seconds to fire each shot. For the four slow-fire phases, he had 72 seconds (1.2 minutes) to fire each shot. Let's look at all the times for all the phases:
Stage One-Slow Fire
200 yards
12 minutes
10 rounds
Firing rate: 1.2 minutes per shot
Stage Two-Slow Fire
Stage Three-Slow Fire
300 yards
6 minutes
5 rounds
Firing rate: 1.2 minutes per shot
Stage Four-Slow Fire
500 yards
12 minutes
10 rounds
Firing rate: 1.2 minutes per shot
Stage Five-Rapid Fire
200 yards
50 seconds
10 rounds
Firing rate: 5.0 seconds per shot
Stage Six-Rapid Fire
300 yards
50 seconds
10 rounds
Firing rate: 5.0 seconds per shot
See: https://www.wwmcmillan.info/usmc_FirearmsQual.html.
Fifth, to qualify in the "sharpshooter" category, Oswald only had to achieve a score of 210 out of a possible 250, with each shot counting as 5 points. This means he could miss 8 of his 50 shots and still qualify as a "sharpshooter"--and, again, this was while using a semi-automatic rifle against 10-inch and 20-inch targets that he had practiced against several times beforehand.
Let me see if I can do the arithmetic without a calculator. Oswald had to hit 42 out of 50 shots to qualify. That's an 84% hit rate. When shooting at JFK, he hit his target 2 out or 3 times. That's a hit rate of 67%. Sounds like Oswald was a little sharper when shooting in the USMC, but let's cut him some slack. He was firing with a bolt action rifle.
Sixth, Oswald was always firing from a level position at Marine Corps rifle ranges, and never from an elevation, not to mention an elevation of 60 feet. Thus, he never had to worry about the high-low factor when firing from an elevation. It is doubtful he ever even heard of the high-low factor.
When firing from a level position or an elevated position, gravity starts to take effect as soon as the bullet leaves the barrel. The shorter the distance, the less the bullet will drop while in flight. Oswald's longest shot was 88 yards, so gravity had less effect on his shot.
Clearly, his Marine Corps rifle scores tell us little about his ability to use a bolt-action rifle from 60 feet up while firing through a half-open window in cramped conditions and to score 2 hits in 3 shots in a 14 x 4-inch area in no more than 11 seconds and to score his 2 hits in 5.6 seconds (since everyone agrees the alleged lone-gunman's first shot missed).
14 x 4 inch area? I didn't know JFK was a pinhead.
-
Oswald's performance on 11/22/1963 proved he was capable of making the shots that killed JFK because the evidence he did that is overwhelming.
LOL! Look up the term "circular reasoning."
The burden of proof is on the CTs to provide the evidence that he was NOT capable of making he shots.
We've done that, in spades. You just won't admit it. Any credible, serious person would acknowledge that Oswald was not capable of performing his alleged feat given the fact that his alleged feat has never been duplicated in any halfway realistic Oswald rifle test. You keep ignoring the fact that virtually everyone who saw him shoot in the Marine Corps and in Russia said he was a poor shot.
A semi-auto like the M1 does automate the chambering of each round after the clip is inserted, but once the round is in the chamber, the fundamentals for making an accurate shot are pretty much the same. Both rifles have significant recoil which will require the shooter to reacquire the target and put the sight on the intended target. A bolt action rifle has the added step of manually operating the bolt to eject the spent round and chamber the next round in the clip.
IOW, you are so blindly biased that you can't even admit the self-evident, demonstrable fact that accurately firing a semi-automatic rifle is easier than accurately firing a bolt-action rifle.
A slow moving target moving almost directly away from the shooter is almost stationary in that there is very little movement in relation to the line of fire.
One, 11 mph is not a "slow moving target." If you ran 100 meters in 20 seconds, that would be 11 mph. 11 mph is a fairly rapid sprint. And you seem to forget that Elm Street sloped downward. I know you're just blindly repeating talking points you've read on lone-gunman sites, but you should have thought about this claim before repeating it.
That would have been true for Oswald's second and third shots but not for his first which is why that shot was by far the most difficult.
I've refuted this nonsense several times, but you just keep repeating it. Among the problems I've noted with this specious argument, I'll repeat the fact that the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes 13 out of 14 times with their second and third shots, even though they were firing at stationary target boards from only 30 feet up.
The effect of firing at greater ranges effectively makes the target smaller. I guess during your critical thinking you failed to take that into account.
Gee, I had no idea! I guess you "failed to take into account" that using a 4-power scope, as Oswald allegedly did, makes targets seem much closer than they are because of the magnification.
Let me see if I can do the arithmetic without a calculator. Oswald had to hit 42 out of 50 shots to qualify. That's an 84% hit rate. When shooting at JFK, he hit his target 2 out or 3 times. That's a hit rate of 67%. Sounds like Oswald was a little sharper when shooting in the USMC, but let's cut him some slack. He was firing with a bolt action rifle.
It would be hard to dream up a worse example of grade-school-level faulty logic and evasion. As I proved in my reply, it is clearly invalid to use Oswald's Marine Corps rifle scores as evidence he could have performed the alleged lone-gunman shooting feat. Yet, here are you are doing exactly that, ignoring all the factors that I listed that show that scoring a 210 in Marine Corps rifle qualification back then would have been far, far, far easier than scoring 2 hits in 3 shots in a max of 11 seconds and scoring both hits in 5.6 seconds.
When firing from a level position or an elevated position, gravity starts to take effect as soon as the bullet leaves the barrel. The shorter the distance, the less the bullet will drop while in flight.
You really should stop pretending to know anything about marksmanship.
Oswald's longest shot was 88 yards, so gravity had less effect on his shot.
But it would have had some effect. You might want to read what former Marine Corps sniper Craig Roberts has said about Oswald's alleged shooting feat. Why do you suppose that the most legendary Marine Corps sniper in the modern era, Gunny Carlos Hathcock, scoffed at the idea that Oswald could have done the shooting feat that your side claims he did?
And I see you're still assuming a priori that Oswald fired the shots, yet you refuse to deal with the fact that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used, that CE 543 could not have fired a bullet during the shooting, that acoustical science shows that at least 4 shots were fired, that a number of eyewitness accounts rule out Oswald being on the sixth-floor during the shooting, etc., etc.
14 x 4 inch area? I didn't know JFK was a pinhead.
An area 14 inches high and 4 inches wide is hardly a pinhead. And we're actually probably talking about an area only 12-13 inches high, but I'm erring on the side of caution. Go look at the target silhouettes from the WC's rifle test. The WC's three Master-rated riflemen missed a larger area in the head-and-neck region 20 out of 21 times, but you say Oswald hit a smaller area twice in 5.6 seconds.
-
LOL! Look up the term "circular reasoning."
There is ample forensic proof that Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK that do not require circular reasoning. Of course you will use cockamamie excuses to dismiss each and every one of those pieces of evidence rather than accept the obvious conclusion that Oswald was the assassin.
We've done that, in spades. You just won't admit it. Any credible, serious person would acknowledge that Oswald was not capable of performing his alleged feat given the fact that his alleged feat has never been duplicated in any halfway realistic Oswald rifle test.
Once again you ignore he fact that shootings cannot be duplicated. Each is unique. It is a preposterous demand the CTs have made for years. I can't even think of another shooting in which somebody even tried to duplicate it. I was juror in a gunshot murder case. The prosecution didn't even try to duplicate the shooting, he defense didn't demand the shooting be duplicated, and we as a jury didn't expect the prosecution to duplicate the shooting to show it was possible. Guess what? We convicted the perp anyway.
You keep ignoring the fact that virtually everyone who saw him shoot in the Marine Corps and in Russia said he was a poor shot.
Anecdotal evidence. The record says otherwise.
IOW, you are so blindly biased
It's hilarious that you of all people would hurl that accusation at somebody else.
that you can't even admit the self-evident, demonstrable fact that accurately firing a semi-automatic rifle is easier than accurately firing a bolt-action rifle.
It's only easier to fire it rapidly. Once the round is chambered, which the semi-auto does for you, the process of making an accurate shot is pretty much the same. The 1903 Springfield rifle and the WWII era semi--auto M1 Garand both fired the same .30-06 round with equal proficiency. Famed Marine sniper Carlos Hathcock used several models of bolt action rifles for his long range kills in the Vietnam War. The sniper's motto is "One shot. One kill". This makes rapid fire unnecessary. Bolt action rifles are plenty accurate.
One, 11 mph is not a "slow moving target." If you ran 100 meters in 20 seconds, that would be 11 mph.
That's really, really slow.
11 mph is a fairly rapid sprint.
Are you serious? I'm 74 years old and 50 lbs. overweight and I know I could still run 100 meters in under 20 seconds.
And you seem to forget that Elm Street sloped downward. I know you're just blindly repeating talking points you've read on lone-gunman sites, but you should have thought about this claim before repeating it.
What the hell difference does that make. 11 mph going downhill isn't any faster than 11 mph on a level surface. They both will take you 11 miles in one hour. The fact that Elm St was sloped actually reduces the amount of relative movement of the target to the line of fire.
The only LN website I remember visiting recently is David Von Pein's and that was to reference his excellent section on the SBT.
I've refuted this nonsense several times,
In your mind.
but you just keep repeating it. Among the problems I've noted with this specious argument, I'll repeat the fact that the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes 13 out of 14 times with their second and third shots, even though they were firing at stationary target boards from only 30 feet up.
How fast were they firing?
Gee, I had no idea! I guess you "failed to take into account" that using a 4-power scope, as Oswald allegedly did, makes targets seem much closer than they are because of the magnification.
Yes it does. So what's your point?
It would be hard to dream up a worse example of grade-school-level faulty logic and evasion. As I proved in my reply,
The only thing you ever prove in your replies is that you are really, really bad at critical thinking.
it is clearly invalid to use Oswald's Marine Corps rifle scores as evidence he could have performed the alleged lone-gunman shooting feat.
It is the CTs who try to use Oswald's USMC scores to prove he couldn't. They fail miserably in their effort. He had to hit targets at much longer ranges to achieve he scores he did, even at is lower score of 191. His best score of 212 was only 2 points lower than Charles Whitman's USMC score and he killed about a dozen people from higher up and at longer ranges than Oswald.
The LN position is that the forensic evidence clearly proves Oswald was the shooter in Dealey Plaza. That is all that is needed to prove he could do the shooting. I guess logic isn't your strong suit either.
Yet, here are you are doing exactly that, ignoring all the factors that I listed that show that scoring a 210 in Marine Corps rifle qualification back then would have been far, far, far easier than scoring 2 hits in 3 shots in a max of 11 seconds and scoring both hits in 5.6 seconds.
You've claimed that absent any reasoning or logic.
You really should stop pretending to know anything about marksmanship.
I'll gladly put my knowledge up against yours any day.
But it would have had some effect. You might want to read what former Marine Corps sniper Craig Roberts has said about Oswald's alleged shooting feat. Why do you suppose that the most legendary Marine Corps sniper in the modern era, Gunny Carlos Hathcock, scoffed at the idea that Oswald could have done the shooting feat that your side claims he did?
There is no record of Hathcock saying that. I see no reason to think Hathcock who had a record kill shot of 2500 hundred yards couldn't have made a kill shot at 88 yards in his sleep. He once shot out the scope of a North Vietnamese sniper's scope at 800 yards only being able to see the sun reflecting off the scope. He aimed at the center of the reflection. He later said he could have only made that shot if the other sniper had Hathcock in his scope. Hathcock squeezed off his round just in time. In fact at a range of 800 yards, there was a real possibility they could have killed each other with their bullets passing each other in flight.
And I see you're still assuming a priori that Oswald fired the shots,
That's not an assumption. An assumption is a conclusion made in absence of evidence. There is overwhelming evidence that Oswald was the shooter, even if you invent silly excuses to dismiss that evidence.
yet you refuse to deal with the fact that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used,
BS.
that CE 543 could not have fired a bullet during the shooting,
More BS.
that acoustical science shows that at least 4 shots were fired,
High tech BS.
that a number of eyewitness accounts rule out Oswald being on the sixth-floor during the shooting, etc., etc.
The fact that you think eyewitness accounts can prove anything shows just how bad your are at critical thinking. Eyewitness accounts don't prove or disprove anything unless you can prove through corroborating evidence that the eyewitnesses are correct. Eyewitness accounts are the least reliable form of evidence our courts will accept which is why when a judge instructs a jury, they are told to weigh such testimony for credibility.
An area 14 inches high and 4 inches wide is hardly a pinhead. And we're actually probably talking about an area only 12-13 inches high, but I'm erring on the side of caution. Go look at the target silhouettes from the WC's rifle test. The WC's three Master-rated riflemen missed a larger area in the head-and-neck region 20 out of 21 times, but you say Oswald hit a smaller area twice in 5.6 seconds.
Just how wide do you think JFK's head was? How broad was his torso?
-
Regarding Oswald's alleged shooting feat and Oswald's rifle skills, for those who might be interested, I have published revised and expanded versions of two articles of mine on the subject:
"Was Oswald a Poor Shot?"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BI-gU_SUKh6o3J92P8oEGwBUGi5E9nkp/view?usp=sharing
"How Long Would Oswald Have Had to Fire?"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FjVfqgS0npzCsDuIgVNDqJVXQ_tf7Td0/view?usp=sharing
-
Regarding Oswald's alleged shooting feat and Oswald's rifle skills, for those who might be interested, I have published revised and expanded versions of two articles of mine on the subject:
Oh, goody.
"Was Oswald a Poor Shot?"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BI-gU_SUKh6o3J92P8oEGwBUGi5E9nkp/view?usp=sharing
"How Long Would Oswald Have Had to Fire?"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FjVfqgS0npzCsDuIgVNDqJVXQ_tf7Td0/view?usp=sharing
Now I have two more of your inane writings I can ignore.
-
The next issue I'd like to discuss on using logic and critical thinking in the JFK case is the wound ballistics aspects of the case.
Before doing so, let's recap the issue of Oswald's marksmanship and his alleged shooting feat.
One, nearly everyone who saw Oswald shoot in the Marine Corps (MC) or in Russia said he was a poor shot, and Oswald's MC rifle scores show he was only a mediocre shot even when using a superb semi-automatic rifle against stationary targets that he had practiced against for hours and while having no less than 5 seconds per shot in the fastest of the firing phases.
Two, Oswald's alleged shooting feat has never been duplicated. In the only rifle test that used the alleged murder weapon itself, three NRA-Master-rated riflemen failed to hit the head and neck area of the target silhouettes 20 out of 21 times, even though the rifle had been zeroed with the scope, even though they were firing from only 30 feet up, even though they were firing at stationary target boards, even though they took practice shots before the test, and even though they took all the time they wanted for their first shot.
In the 1967 CBS rifle test, only one of the 12 experienced riflemen, many of whom were expert marksmen, scored two hits in three shots in under 6 seconds on his first attempt, and that was only because the test counted as "hits" any shots that landed anywhere on the target silhouettes, even if they landed far from the 14 x 4-inch area that Oswald allegedly hit two out of two times in 5.6 seconds. I should add that the rifle in the CBS test was zeroed and that the riflemen were allowed to fire nine practice shots before the test.
Wound Ballistics Problems: Really Big Problems
One of the most glaring contradictions and illogical aspects of the lone-gunman theory involve its claims about the behavior of the two alleged Oswald bullets that supposedly hit Kennedy. Oswald supposedly used 6.5 mm full-metal-jacketed (FMJ) bullets, which are built to have tremendous penetrating power without markedly fragmenting. The lone-gunman theory says that his first alleged hit struck Kennedy in the back of the neck and that his second alleged hit struck the back of the head (we will not delve into the two severely inconsistent proposed entry points for this bullet). These two bullets behaved in dramatically different ways.
According to the lone-gunman theory's single-bullet theory (SBT), the first supposed Oswald bullet that hit JFK tore through JFK's neck, exited his throat, hit Governor Connally in the back, tore through Connally's chest while shattering 4 inches of rib bone, exited Connally's chest, hit his wrist and fractured the distal radius bone (one of the hardest bones in the body), exited the wrist, and buried itself in the governor's left thigh. And this bullet, CE 399, after supposedly doing all this destruction, emerged with minimal damage, with its lands and grooves intact, with no deformation to its nose, and with the loss of only 3-4 grains of its substance.
Yet, the alleged Oswald bullet that supposedly hit JFK in the head shattered into several large fragments and into dozens of tiny fragments, allegedly leaving at least two fragments on the rear outer table of the skull, leaving dozens of tiny fragments in a veritable "lead snowstorm" near the top of the skull around the right coronal suture, and leaving two sizable fragments just behind the right orbit.
What in the world?! So one FMJ bullet tears through seven layers of human skin, shatters 4 inches of rib bone, and fractures the distal radius bone--but somehow emerges with its lands and grooves intact, suffers no deformation to its nose, and loses only 3-4 grains of its substance. Yet, the other FMJ bullet penetrates the rear of a skull and then shatters into dozens of tiny fragments and also several sizable fragments while impossibly leaving at least two fragments at its entry point on the outer table of the skull.
Leaving aside the fact that no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has ever behaved the way the SBT bullet behaved or the way the head-shot bullet behaved, how could two FMJ bullets behave so drastically differently as these two bullets supposedly did?
It is hard to say which bullet's alleged behavior is more problematic. No genuine, realistic SBT wound ballistics test has ever produced a bullet that emerged looking like CE 399. Even some severely rigged SBT tests failed to duplicate the SBT. In the WC's SBT wound ballistics test, bullets that were merely fired into cotton wadding emerged with more deformity than CE 399, which is one reason the Army's top wound ballistics expert, Dr. Joseph Dolce, told the WC the SBT was impossible.
On the other hand, forensic science tells us that FMJ bullets will never, ever, ever shatter into dozens of tiny fragments after penetrating bone, skull bone or otherwise. Dr. Vincent DiMaio, considered one of the greatest forensic pathologists of the 20th and 21st centuries, made this clear in his famous forensic handbook Gunshot Wounds:
An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . . usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has perforated bone such as the skull or spine.If any fragments are seen, they are very sparse in number. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)
In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a 'lead snowstorm'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318)
Notice the two key points: (1) In the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" fragments. (2) If an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," i.e., a cluster of numerous tiny fragments, this "rules out" FMJ ammo.
Thus, it is not surprising that the skull x-rays from the WC's head-shot wound ballistics test show a fragmentation pattern that looks nothing like the pattern seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.
-
The next issue I'd like to discuss on using logic and critical thinking in the JFK case is the wound ballistics aspects of the case.
Before doing so, let's recap the issue of Oswald's marksmanship and his alleged shooting feat.
One, nearly everyone who saw Oswald shoot in the Marine Corps (MC) or in Russia said he was a poor shot, and Oswald's MC rifle scores show he was only a mediocre shot even when using a superb semi-automatic rifle against stationary targets that he had practiced against for hours and while having no less than 5 seconds per shot in the fastest of the firing phases.
Two, Oswald's alleged shooting feat has never been duplicated. In the only rifle test that used the alleged murder weapon itself, three NRA-Master-rated riflemen failed to hit the head and neck area of the target silhouettes 20 out of 21 times, even though the rifle had been zeroed with the scope, even though they were firing from only 30 feet up, even though they were firing at stationary target boards, even though they took practice shots before the test, and even though they took all the time they wanted for their first shot.
In the 1967 CBS rifle test, only one of the 12 experienced riflemen, many of whom were expert marksmen, scored two hits in three shots in under 6 seconds on his first attempt, and that was only because the test counted as "hits" any shots that landed anywhere on the target silhouettes, even if they landed far from the 14 x 4-inch area that Oswald allegedly hit two out of two times in 5.6 seconds. I should add that the rifle in the CBS test was zeroed and that the riflemen were allowed to fire nine practice shots before the test.
Wound Ballistics Problems: Really Big Problems
One of the most glaring contradictions and illogical aspects of the lone-gunman theory involve its claims about the behavior of the two alleged Oswald bullets that supposedly hit Kennedy. Oswald supposedly used 6.5 mm full-metal-jacketed (FMJ) bullets, which are built to have tremendous penetrating power without markedly fragmenting. The lone-gunman theory says that his first alleged hit struck Kennedy in the back of the neck and that his second alleged hit struck the back of the head (we will not delve into the two severely inconsistent proposed entry points for this bullet). These two bullets behaved in dramatically different ways.
According to the lone-gunman theory's single-bullet theory (SBT), the first supposed Oswald bullet that hit JFK tore through JFK's neck, exited his throat, hit Governor Connally in the back, tore through Connally's chest while shattering 4 inches of rib bone, exited Connally's chest, hit his wrist and fractured the distal radius bone (one of the hardest bones in the body), exited the wrist, and buried itself in the governor's left thigh. And this bullet, CE 399, after supposedly doing all this destruction, emerged with minimal damage, with its lands and grooves intact, with no deformation to its nose, and with the loss of only 3-4 grains of its substance.
Yet, the alleged Oswald bullet that supposedly hit JFK in the head shattered into several large fragments and into dozens of tiny fragments, allegedly leaving at least two fragments on the rear outer table of the skull, leaving dozens of tiny fragments in a veritable "lead snowstorm" near the top of the skull around the right coronal suture, and leaving two sizable fragments just behind the right orbit.
What in the world?! So one FMJ bullet tears through seven layers of human skin, shatters 4 inches of rib bone, and fractures the distal radius bone--but somehow emerges with its lands and grooves intact, suffers no deformation to its nose, and loses only 3-4 grains of its substance. Yet, the other FMJ bullet penetrates the rear of a skull and then shatters into dozens of tiny fragments and also several sizable fragments while impossibly leaving at least two fragments at its entry point on the outer table of the skull.
Leaving aside the fact that no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has ever behaved the way the SBT bullet behaved or the way the head-shot bullet behaved, how could two FMJ bullets behave so drastically differently as these two bullets supposedly did?
It is hard to say which bullet's alleged behavior is more problematic. No genuine, realistic SBT wound ballistics test has ever produced a bullet that emerged looking like CE 399. Even some severely rigged SBT tests failed to duplicate the SBT. In the WC's SBT wound ballistics test, bullets that were merely fired into cotton wadding emerged with more deformity than CE 399, which is one reason the Army's top wound ballistics expert, Dr. Joseph Dolce, told the WC the SBT was impossible.
On the other hand, forensic science tells us that FMJ bullets will never, ever, ever shatter into dozens of tiny fragments after penetrating bone, skull bone or otherwise. Dr. Vincent DiMaio, considered one of the greatest forensic pathologists of the 20th and 21st centuries, made this clear in his famous forensic handbook Gunshot Wounds:
An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . . usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has perforated bone such as the skull or spine.If any fragments are seen, they are very sparse in number. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)
In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a 'lead snowstorm'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318)
Notice the two key points: (1) In the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" fragments. (2) If an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," i.e., a cluster of numerous tiny fragments, this "rules out" FMJ ammo.
Thus, it is not surprising that the skull x-rays from the WC's head-shot wound ballistics test show a fragmentation pattern that looks nothing like the pattern seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.
This article was posted by Natalie on a ladies beauty products site, She seems to know a lot more about it than you do.
Understanding The Fragmentation Of Full Metal Jacket Bullets
Last updated
Feb 21, 2024 Posted by
Natalia
To summarize, the velocity at which a full metal jacket bullet is traveling, the construction and shape of the bullet, the type of target, the angle of impact, and the distance at which the bullet is fired are all factors that can determine whether the bullet will fragment upon impact. These factors interact with each other and can vary depending on the specific circumstances, so it is difficult to make generalizations about whether a full metal jacket bullet will fragment in any given situation.
However, it is important to note that FMJ bullets can still fragment to a certain extent, depending on various factors. When a FMJ bullet strikes a hard or dense material, such as bone or metal, it can chip or break, leading to fragmentation. Similarly, when the bullet strikes a soft or fluid-filled target, such as gel or water, it can cause cavitation and disrupt the surrounding tissues, resulting in fragmentation.
Maybe we can contact Natalie if you have any further questions on fragmenting FMJ bullets.