What sensible person wouldn't ignore the nonsense you post. I give it far more attention than it deserves. You seem to think what you post is a fountain of wisdom. I won't say what it is that you do spew, but it flows downhill and nobody wants to be in that valley.

Lee Bowers said he heard three shots and none originated from behind the fence. Again just three shots. All from one location (either end of Elm Street). He said he saw no one behind the fence at the time of shooting.

Here is Bowers: "Now I could see back, or the South side, of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have - uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there - um - at the moment that the shots were fired."

Could he be wrong? Of course. His account needs corroboration, more support. And other evidence indicates there may have been a shooter behind the fence. We need to weight it all.

But in conspiracy world, in the cartoon world of Michael Griffith, Bower's account is not simply uncorroborated, not reliable; it's evidence that there *was* a shooter behind the fence. Up is now down. Why? Because the conspirators (unnamed, unseen, undocumented) intimidated him into changing his story.

Here we have a perfect witness for events behind the fence. Again, he could be mistaken. But to take his account and turn it into evidence of a shooter behind the fence when he explicitly said there was no one is classic conspiracy thinking.

As I said, it's hopeless trying to reason with this view.

Another surreal reply where you simply ignore a mass of information that has been presented and documented to you and then repeat your same old arguments that are refuted by that information.

What sensible person wouldn't ignore the nonsense you post. I give it far more attention than it deserves. You seem to think what you post is a fountain of wisdom. I won't say what it is that you do spew, but it flows downhill and nobody wants to be in that valley.

Barber has proved no such thing. You are decades behind the information curve. You might want to read my last 10 replies in this thread to educate yourself on the acoustical evidence.

No, you're a complete nutjob who believes every dumb JFK conspiracy theory. I'd love to see you explain exactly why Steve Barber didn't prove the Dictabelt did not record Dealey Plaza gunfire. I'd also love to see you explain which DPD officer was in Dealey Plaza during the murder who also had his mic stuck open. Won't hold my breath...

So, someone firing down at 70degree angle hit K at upward angle as X-ray showed. How did that happen exactly???

JFK was not hit by a bullet at an upward angle. You simply are very bad at geometry.

The first thing I notice is that you never get around to dealing with the fact that not one of the four expert riflemen managed to score two hits in three shots, even though they took 6-8 seconds to fire in the majority of their shot series.

You stated in the OP these riflemen were supposed to take no more than 1.7 seconds between shots. Since the clock starts with the first shot, that would leave them 3.4 seconds to fire two more. With such a ridiculous constraint, and the fact they weren't using the scope, it's not surprising they would have trouble hitting the targets. Even if they actually took more than 3.4 seconds, The fact that they were even trying to fire the rifle as fast as they could would adversely affect their marksmanship. Oswald had neither of these constraints. He could take whatever amount of time between shots he thought was necessary to fire his shots accurately. He could also use the scope if he chose to do so.

A mind bogglingly silly argument.

Huh??? Do you just lack the frontal lobe capacity to understand the obvious fact that once the limo cleared the oak tree at Z210, a sixth-floor gunman would have only had 5.6 seconds to score two hits?

Which is more than 3 times the 1.7 seconds the test shooters were triying to fire their rifle in. In actuality, Oswald took about 4.97 seconds (91 Z-frames) between the two shots he fired after the limo cleared the tree. Perfectly reasonable he could hit the target twice with those two shots. I'll bet the test shooters would have been able to hit the target twice if given that amount of time rather than the 1.7 seconds Blakey imposed upon them.

As I've explained to you countless times, no matter how early you want to assume your alleged lone gunman fired, since you also claim that his first shot missed, he would have had to score his two supposed hits between Z209 and Z313, or 5.6 seconds.

You're being too generous to Oswald. The Z313 strike would have been fired in the Z310-311 window. The second shot which struck JFK in the back would have been fired in the Z219-220 window. That's how we get 91 Z-frames between shots. Perfectly doable for a marksman the caliber of Oswald.

Just shaking my head. Umm, when you're firing at a moving target that is 2-3 seconds away from passing under an overpass, speed of fire is crucial. Again, per your own first-shot-miss scenario, your supposed lone gunman would have had to score his two alleged hits between Z209 and Z313, or 5.6 seconds.

Oswald was firing under a time constraint but not nearly the constraint the test shooters were under. Oswald had chambered the last round in the clip and would have had time to fire it but realized it was unnecessary. Zapruder continued filming for another 113 frames following the headshot and the limo was still in range during that time. Oswald would have had more than 6 additional seconds had he chosen to fire a fourth shot.

It's like your brain just can't process facts that refute your gibberish.

How ironic that somebody as silly as you would hurl that accusation at somebody else.

You just flunked yourself back several grades. You cannot really need me to define what I mean by "duplicated." Once more you act like an insolent teenager who makes childish arguments because he can't bring himself to admit he's wrong.

I would expect to flunk when being graded by a dunce like you. If you are going to make the claim that Oswald's shooting has never been duplicated, it is incumbent upon you to define what would constitute a duplication. It's not surprising that shooters required to fire their rifles much faster than Oswald did would not be as accurate as Oswald and would have difficulty scoring as many hits as Oswald did in considerably less time.

My OP already answered this nonsense.

Yes it did and the reason give was stupid. Blakey was trying to validate the dubious acoustics evidence by showing it was possible for Oswald to accurately fire his rifle in the amount of time between shots that the acoustics team determined. As I understand, the acoustics team determine Oswald fired the first two shots from the sniper's nest in 1.7 seconds. Common sense should have told Blakey how absurd that conclusion was. That would not even be possible if Oswald took the time to aim his second shot. It has been shown that a Carcano can be fired that rapidly on a range if the shooter doesn't bother to take time to aim the rifle but I'm quite sure Oswald was trying to hit a target and not show how fast he could shoot.

By your "calculation" the Earth is flat. This is a probably a waste of time, but let me just repeat the fact that, unless you're assuming your supposed sixth-floor gunman fired while the limo was under the oak tree (an idea that even the WC rejected), he would have had to score two hits in two shots in 5.6 seconds, which equals 2.3 seconds per shot.

Christ, you can't even do basic arithmetic. Half of 5.6 is 2.8, not 2.3 but even 2.8 is not the right answer because the clock would start with the first shot and Oswald would have had an additional 5.6 seconds to fire the second of those shots. The WC determined the limo didn't come into the clear until Z210 and that was 5.6 seconds before the headshot, but even that isn't quite right. It would have taken 2-3 frames for the bullet to reach JFK's head so that the headshot would have been fired in the Z310-311 window. 100 Z-frames works out to about 5.46 seconds between shots. That is the theoretical maximum amount time between the last two shots. That assumes Oswald fired the first those two shots the instant JFK came into the clear. In reality, he fired that shot about a half second later, which works out to about 4.97 seconds between the two shots that struck JFK.

It is just weird that you simply refuse to process such a self-evident fact.

I just gave you a detailed explanation of the calculation but apparently remedial arithmetic isn't your strong suit. I've been reading your crap for 35 years and I have yet to detect what your strong suit is.

     

You don't know? Really? One reason was that some WC apologists, in trying to explain the fact that the scope on the alleged murder rifle was defective, theorized that the supposed single assassin used the iron sights.

Yes, I've seen some LNs theorize Oswald used the iron sights but that hardly establishes that as a fact. Oswald could have used either and only he would know which he used. Whoever made the decision that the test shooters should use the fixed iron sights seems to have assumed Oswald used the fixed iron sights without knowing that to be a fact.

What is a fact is that both the scope and the fixed iron sights would have been aiming high at the range Oswald was firing at. The WC pointed out that would have been an aid to Oswald since he would need to lead his target and to do that he would need to aim high. Whether Oswald had taken all of this into account or just got lucky we don't know. What we do know is that whatever the condition of the Carcano was and whether or not the shooter took that into account, it was the Carcano that fired the only two shots that hit JFK because those were the only two bullets that were recovered, one inside the limo and the other at Parkland.

Some of your fellow WC defenders still float the argument that "Oswald" used the iron sights.

As I just explained, that theory is not an established fact. Only a possibility. The only possibility Blakey seemed to have considered when setting up his silly test. Blakey wasn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Yet another downright silly argument.

As is SOP for you, you declare the argument silly without addressing the points made or explaining why it is silly. That's a pretty good indication you have no rebuttal to the argument made.

Of course, you keep assuming as a given that Oswald did the shooting, and then you proceed from there.

An assumption is a conclusion made in absence of evidence. There is ample evidence Oswald was the shooter. It was his rifle that fired all the recovered shells and the only two recovered bullets from the shooting. His palm print was on the underside of the barrel which could only have been placed there with the rifle disassembled. His palm and fingerprint was on a bag found next to the sniper's nest. That bag was long enough to hold the disassembled rifle and it contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his rifle. The butt plate of the rifle contained fibers that matched the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested. Oswald's fingerprints were on the boxes that had been stacked to form a rifle rest at the sniper's nest window and those fingerprints were oriented as they would be if Oswald was facing down Elm St. In almost 63 years, no CT has ever presented a plausible explanation for how all the above could be true if Oswald was actually innocent. As Dan O'Meara demonstrated within the past day, CTs will offer a vague explanation but the devil is always in the details. No detailed narrative that explains all of the above evidence is possible without concluding Oswald was the assassin. If such a narrative were available, somebody would have thought of it by now.

Did you forget that one of the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test used both the scope and the iron sights?

I thought this thread was about the HSCA test, but all that indicates is that rifleman considered the possibility that Oswald could have used either sight.

The fallacy of Blakey's test wasn't that he had the test done with the iron sights. The fallacy is that he ONLY did the test with the iron sights. That was a boneheaded decision. If he was trying to determine what was possible, he would have tested with both sights.

You're just never going to stop repeating these misleading arguments about Oswald's Marine rifle scores vs. the alleged lone-gunman shooting feat, are you?

Why the hell would I? Even his lower qualifying score of 191 required Oswald to consistent hit a target at ranges of 200 yards and up. His longest shot that day was less than half of that. The killing of JFK at that range was well within the capabilities of someone who qualified as a USMC Marksman.

People who read my replies to these arguments in other threads are going to wonder why you keep repeating them without explaining the facts that contradict them. They're going to wonder why you keep ignoring the fact that when dozens of Marines who served with Oswald were interviewed, the overwhelming majority, like over 90%, said Oswald was a poor shot.

I keep repeating these arguments because they are sound and yours are most definitively not.

And, FYI, many of your fellow WC believers, including some in this forum, have argued that the Carcano was high-quality, reliable weapon.

I am not obligated to accept or defend every argument any LN has made on any forum since  the day the internet became available to the general public. I've seen some LNs make arguments that are almost as dumb as yours.

This is another prime example of your habit of repeating arguments that have been refuted while saying nothing about the facts that refute them. Newcomers would never know that you have been presented several times with facts that refute these arguments, nor would they know that you have been unable to explain those facts. But you conceal all of this by simply repeating your false arguments and saying nothing about the facts that refute them.

I remember a lot of instances in which you have disputed my arguments but none in which you have actually refuted them.

I know you know, because I have personally documented for you, that the recovered bullet fragments were not matched to the alleged murder weapon "to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world." This myth was debunked some 20 years ago by two different groups of scientists, but you just keep ignoring this and keep repeating the myth.

Another of your wild claims that fly in the face of the facts. The FBI crime lab determined that two of the fragments recovered from the limo had sufficient size and markings to positivley match them to Oswald's rifle. From pages 557-558 of the WCR:

"The Rifle Bullets

In addition to the three cartridge cases found in the Texas School Book Depository Building, a nearly whole bullet was found on Governor Connally's stretcher and two bullet fragments were found in the front of the President's car. 40 The stretcher bullet weighed 158.6 grains, or several grains less than the average Western Cartridge Co. 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano bullet.41 It was slightly flattened, but otherwise unmutilated. 42 The two bullet fragments weighed 44.6 and 21.0 grains, respectively. 43 The heavier fragment was a portion of a bullet's nose area, as shown by its rounded contour and the

Page 558

character of the markings it bore. 44 The lighter fragment consisted of bullet's base portion, as shown by its shape and by the presence of a cannelure. 45 The two fragments were both mutilated, and it was not possible to determine from the fragments themselves whether they comprised the base and nose of one bullet or of two separate bullets. 46 However, each had sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis of an identification. 47 Based on a comparison with test bullets fired from the C2766 rifle, the stretcher bullet and both bullet fragments were identified as having been fired from the C2766 rifle."

This conclusion was based on the expert testimony of the FBI's Robert Frazier. Below is a passage from that testimony.

Mr. EISENBERG - I now hand you a bullet fragment, what appears to be a bullet fragment, in a pill box which is labeled jacket and Lead Q-2, and it has certain initials on it. For the record, this was found--this bullet fragment was found--in the front portion of the car in which the President was riding. I ask you whether you are familiar with this object.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG - Is your mark on--
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this? Is this a bullet fragment, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. This consists of a piece of the jacket portion of a bullet from the nose area and a piece of the lead core from under the jacket.
Mr. EISENBERG - How were you able to conclude it is part of the nose area?
Mr. FRAZIER - Because of the rifling marks which extend part way up the side, and then have the characteristic leading edge impressions and no longer continue along the bullet, and by the fact that the bullet has a rounded contour to it which has not been mutilated.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this bullet to determine whether it had been fired from Exhibit 139 to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment was fired in this rifle

Similar testimony was give regarding the other fragment. For those who want to read Frazier's entire testimony on this matter, they can read it here:

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

But the WC did not just accept Frazier's conclusion at face value. They turned to Joseph Nicol of the Illinois crime lab for verification. This, in part, was his testimony:

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Nicol, did you examine the three exhibits which were given to you as Q-1, Q-2, and Q-3, and which are now, I believe 567, 569, and 399?
Mr. NICOL. Yes sir; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. To determine whether or not they had come from the identical barrel as that in which the two--the bullets in Exhibit 572 had been fired?
Mr. NICOL. Yes, I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your conclusions?
Mr. NICOL. Yes. It is my opinion that the same weapon that fired Commission's Exhibit 572 also fired the projectiles in Commission's Exhibits 569, 567, and 399.
Mr. EISENBERG. That would be to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. NICOL. Correct.

So we have a choice here. We can accept the opinions of recognized experts in the field of ballistics, or we can accept your FUBAR amateurish analysis. Gee, that's a tough call.

When you say "bullets," you can only be talking about CE 399, which is a joke. As you know, every single SBT wound-ballistics test has contradicted the claim that CE 399 was the SBT's supposed magic bullet. There is zero evidence that it hit anyone on the day of the shooting, and there is considerable evidence that it had nothing to do with the shooting.

This is a perfect example of "your FUBAR amateurish analysis".

As for the shells, there is no evidence they were used to fire bullets at JFK.

Are you trying to set the record for the most dumba$$ statements in one post. You have to be getting close if you have not already surpassed it.

In fact, one of them could not have been used to fire a bullet at anyone on the day of the shooting because it was too dented.

Still more of "your FUBAR amateurish analysis". 

The shells do not prove that the bullets they housed hit JFK or were even fired at JFK. As you know but won't admit, the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that was contained in those shells.

The shells don't prove that but the recovered bullets do.

You, on the other hand, want to believe JFK was hit by bullets for which no weapon, shells, or bullets were ever recovered. So where the hell is your evidence JFK was killed by a weapon other than Oswald's Carcano?

People who read our previous exchanges on the ammo that hit JFK's head are going to see that you have done nothing but duck and dodge and offer ridiculous special pleading in response to the fact that the JFK autopsy skull x-rays prove that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

Sensible people who have read our exchanges would laugh their asses off at some of the ridiculous arguments you have made. In this thread alone you have provided plenty of comic relief.

Are you ever going to offer a shred of evidence to support your made-up nonsense that WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave differently than all other FMJ bullets?

The only example of what such ammo will do when striking a human skull is the fragmented bullet found in the limo by the Secret Service. You are the one claiming a 6.5 FMJ Carcano bullet would not fragment in that manner. You need to provide the evidence of that. So far you have provided none. That means I have provided one more example than you have.

I mean, you understand that WCC FMJ bullets, like all other FMJ bullets, were designed to leave few or no fragments in order to increase their penetrating power, right? You know this much, right? Yes?

And yet a badly fragmented FMJ Carcano bullet was found in the limo which proves such bullets don't always do what they were designed for. I guess that went right over your head.[/quote]

I know you know, because I have documented for you, that the skull x-rays of the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test prove that the test bullets (all of which were WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets) left only a few fragments and created fragmentation patterns that look nothing like the pattern seen on the JFK skull x-rays. [/quote]

I would have to be seriously head-f****d to believe even half the nonsense you post. [/quote]

Similarly, even the WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets in Lattimer's headshot wound-ballistics test produced far fewer fragments in the test skulls than the dozens of fragments seen in the JFK skull x-rays. [/quote]

Oh, but they did fragment, didn't they, even though they were designed not to fragment. I guess they were supposed to produce the same number of fragments as the bullet that hit JFK's head.

And on and on we could go, but you just brush aside the whole science of wound-ballistics testing with the dishonest, amateurish dodge that no two shootings are exactly alike in every single aspect, never mind that the major aspects are the same (few if any fragments, basic fragmentation patterns, location of fragmentation).

You know nothing of science. One of the hallmarks of good science is to exert skepticism, even of one's own findings. Especially of one's own findings. You, on the other hand, choose to accept any claim made, no matter how baseless, if it supports your cherished belief that JFK was killed by someone other than Oswald. You are completely incapable of critical thinking, which is a prerequisite for applying good science to available data.

You also brush aside the unanimous position in forensic science and ballistics literature that FMJ bullets do not shatter into dozens of fragments when striking skull bone.

So I guess we should just ignore the fragmented FMJ bullet that was found in the limo because "forensic science" tells us it couldn't have fragmented like that.