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
Recent Posts
]
