Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
I don’t think that there is any mystery to it Jack. Here’s another AI response:

The Ejection Impact PointsWhen you cycle the action too fast, the physics of the Carcano system cause distinct contact points:The Locking Abutment / Inside Wall: As the case mouth clears the chamber, the fixed ejector violently kicks the base of the brass to the right. If the bolt velocity is high, the pivoting case mouth swings outward so fast that it slaps the inside right wall of the receiver before it can fully clear the action.The Rear Receiver Bridge: Because the cartridge is simultaneously moving backward with the bolt, a rapid cycle can fling the spinning case neck directly into the forward edge of the rear receiver split/bridge (the solid metal loop housing the bolt handle when locked).Optics Mounts: If your Carcano is a modified or scoped sporter model, a fast ejection will frequently slam the case neck into the underside of the scope base or the windage turret.


The two cartridges in question look very similar to me based on the photos I have seen. But if you are right and the dents are drastically different, then the two different potential impact points might explain the differences. In the image below I have drawn an arrow to the rear receiver bridge area. There is an empty cartridge shown flying above the action after turning end for end about 90-degrees. In the case where the bolt is pulled back extremely fast, the cartridge would spin end for end much faster and such that the neck impacts the rear receiver bridge area before it clears the receiver area. For me, that might explain the dent in CE 543.




JN: The HSCA dent was in at the top and downward in appearance

COPILOT: You’re describing the geometry exactly right, and this is the key point most summaries gloss over:

The HSCA test‑fired dent was “in at the top” and sloped downward — a downward‑angled inward crush — whereas CE 543’s dent is a compound deformation with an inward dimple and an outward flare.

----------------------------------------

If the bolt velocity is high, the pivoting case mouth swings outward so fast that it slaps the inside right wall of the receiver

No, There is no inside right wall to be slapped against. The right receiver is below the level of the shell casing. In the picture, you are looking at the inside wall of the left receiver wall, not the outside of the right wall.

--------------------
The Rear Receiver Bridge: Because the cartridge is simultaneously moving backward with the bolt, a rapid cycle can fling the spinning case neck directly into the forward edge of the rear receiver split/bridge (the solid metal loop housing the bolt handle when locked)

It is not even remotely possible for the mouth of the shell casing to hit the rear receiver bridge.
2
The ballistic team of Luke and Michael Haag did experiments which showed Oswald's bullet would not have ricocheted off the pavement. It would have created a small crater in the asphalt and the bullet would have been pulverized. The crater in the asphalt would have been smoothed out by environmental forces within days of the bullet striking the pavement.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/the-shot-that-missed/

They also tested to see if the oak tree could have caused any deflection of the bullet. Their experiments indicated there would be very little deflection.
3
You lie. Bennett clearly states he was looking at the crowd to the right of the limo when he HEARD the first shot. He then turned toward JFK in time to see the SECOND shot hit JFK. He then saw the third shot hit JFK in the head. That makes three shots. 

Brehm can still be seen clapping after JFK had been hit by the SECOND shot. That's some witness.
You're making excuses to dismiss all of these three witnesses who were closer to the gunman than anyone in Dealey Plaza and all of whom testified they heard three shots.
Your lies don't bother me at all.

Glenn Bennett: We made a left hand turn and then a quick right. The President's auto moved down a slight grade and the crowd was very sparse. At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. I immediately, upon hearing the supposed firecracker, looked at the boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder. A second shoot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the boss's head.

In what world does his handwritten two shot statement translate into an early missed shot
--------------
Brehm 11/22 Dallas Herald

The witness Brehm was shaking uncontrollably as he further described the shooting. "The first shot must not have been too solid, because he just slumped. Then on the second shot he seemed to fall back." Brehm seemed to think the shots came from in front of or beside the President. He explained the President did not slump forward as if he would have after being shot from the rear. The book depository building stands in the rear of the President's location at the time of the shooting.

Another two shot witness. First shot and JFK slumped.
---------------------------------
If only there was a witness or evidence of some kind to an early missed shot.
4
Hasn't anyone considered That a Full metal jacket (the only projectile for any military rifle) makes ONLY thru and thru wounds ? It is Specifically made NOT to fragment.

But the Only thing that can make a mans head vaporize is a Hollow Point projectile

The authors of this paper and this one would disagree with your view on that.
5
You are unserious, a borderline troll. I notice that, yet again, you declined to address a single fact that I presented.

Of course, I don't blame you for not attempting to address the facts, since you've usually gotten your clock cleaned when you've done so.

Apparently I am living in your head, and rent free at that.

MTG cuts me to the quick (where is my quick anyway?). I am an exceedingly serious, well-over-the-borderline troll and proud of it.

The problem in dealing with cranks like MTG is that it's essentially hopeless. I will spend the time to bust an occasional MTG-type factoid when it interests me, but I recognize I'm just amusing myself. Cranks like MTG will be repeating the factoid the next day and the day after that. There is something seriously wrong with the thought processes of these people. If you take MTG seriously, there is something seriously wrong with you. Seriously wrong.

Let's just take the factoid with which MTG closes one of his posts above, to wit:

BTW, Oswald's former landlady in New Orleans, Mrs. Jesse Garner, told HSCA investigators that Ferrie visited her home shortly after the assassination and asked about Oswald's library card. Of course, the answer from WC defenders is that Mrs. Garner must have been "mistaken" or "fabricating."

Uh, not exactly - and there is no real mystery. Bannister buddy Jack Martin, who hated Ferrie, started a rumor that Ferrie's library card had been found on Oswald when he was arrested. Understandably, this sent Ferrie into a bit of a panic. On November 23, the day after the assassination, the Times Picayune ran a story about Oswald that had numerous quotations from two neighbors who had lived on either side of him on Magazine Street, including Mrs. Garner. Ferrie, as part of his effort to determine what the heck this library card story was all about, visited both of these neighbors - apparently on November 26. Fred Litwin goes into all this in considerable detail at his site, https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/did-lee-harvey-oswald-have-david-ferrie-s-library-card. There is no suggestion that Mrs. Garner was fabricating.

Mrs. Garner was interviewed by the New Orleans Police Department, the FBI, the Secret Service and the Warren Commission in 1963-64. Oddly, she said nothing about any visit by Ferrie. In 1969, at the Shaw trial, she identified Ferrie as having visited her home either the evening of the JFKA or the next evening. She said nothing about any library card, although hearsay objections prohibited her from testifying as to what Ferrie had said. When interviewed by an HSCA investigator in 1978, she now said it was the very night of the assassination at 10:30 or 11 PM. When she testified to the HSCA, it was now 9 PM on the night of the JFKA.

The HSCA was skeptical of Mrs. Garner's timing of the visit. The night of the JFKA was before Martin had even started his rumor. Moreover, Ferrie, Beauboeuf and Coffey said that on the night of the JFKA they ate dinner in Kenner from 7-9 PM, then left for Houston. This dovetails with an arrival in Houston at 4:30 AM, when they checked in. The other neighbor Ferrie had visited, Doris Eames, was clear that the visit was after the JFKA and identified the date as November 26.

So there is no big mystery. Ferrie did indeed visit these women in a panic over a Martin-fueled rumor that Oswald had been arrested with his library card. No one is suggesting that Mrs. Garner was fabricating. She was simply off on the date.

The proverbial much ado about nothing. No dark conspiratorial implications at all.

Will MTG go right on repeating this and 1000 other bogus factoids to promote his wacky ideas? But of course! Hey, if you're as nutty as he is, lap it up. If not, listen to us serious, non-borderline trolls.

6
Why did no one else in the secret service car including Kennedy loyalists Powers and O’Donnel hear an AR-15 being fired?
7

  The only noise about gas prices is coming from The Media. Over the Memorial Day Holiday, record number of people were driving across the USA. That says more about the price of gas than anything The Media has to say. That stuff is  BS: and you repeat it. This results in added  BS:.  Food prices are up, but people are eating out in record numbers. Trump is tied up with the war stuff or he would be touting his economic numbers. Record breaking. And that's saying something when Trump is Not blowing his own horn. 
8
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.

Quote
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 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.
Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
-- 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. 
9
So where is the ricochet damage to the limousine?


If the shot was fired from the Dal-Tex building, it could have continued on parallel to the limo. But the Dal-Tex building was thoroughly searched and anyone inside was thoroughly questioned.
10
Orest Pena, J. Kenneth McDonald, Clay Shaw, Polly wants a cracker, squawk squawk squawk.

The problem I have with all these types of discussions is that it's just regurgitating the same stuff over and over and over, ad nauseam. Virtually everything MTG posts is right out of one of his previous writings, to which he endlessly refers us. Unless it's just self-promotion, which I suspect it mostly is in the case of MTG and Jimbo and many others, what's the point? I assume that 99% of people who gravitate to a site such as this have a pretty fair base of knowledge about the JFKA, so what is the point of regurgitating "What about this?" and "What about that?" over and over and over as though the audience were junior high schoolers? And then those regurgitated points generate the same countervailing points that have likewise been regurgitated over and over and over. Is there some purpose in all this, or is it just self-promotion and mental masturbation? Every time I participate for any length of time, I start asking myself these questions and coming up with no better answer than mental masturbation (but at least I'm having fun with it!).

This was why I was excited to read Phantom Shot. It was something NEW! I hadn't heard it 974 times before. It was pretty persuasive and made me think. Ditto with John Orr's work. It's not just regurgitating the same tired talking points, and the same tired responses, for the 974th time.

Orest Pena, J. Kenneth McDonald, Clay Shaw, Polly wants a cracker, squawk squawk squawk.

Now, come on people: MTG's tedious posts or THIS? No contest.

You are unserious, a borderline troll. I notice that, yet again, you declined to address a single fact that I presented.

Of course, I don't blame you for not attempting to address the facts, since you've usually gotten your clock cleaned when you've done so.

Apparently I am living in your head, and rent free at that.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10