Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: What about that dent?
« Last post by Lance Payette on June 04, 2026, 06:12:07 PM »
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on June 04, 2026, 05:48:37 PM
Oh? Maybe you misspoke:

Do you not see the contradiction?

No, I do not. My first statement was that the dry-firing shell was still in the chamber of the M-C when it was wrapped in the blanket in Ruth's garage. You rather bizarrely stated that dry-firing a disassembled rifle seemed strange to you (as indeed it would be). I clarified that I was not talking about dry-firing the disassembled rifle but merely leaving the dry-firing shell in the rifle when he disassembled it, which would not be unusual, and then ejecting it after he had assembled the rifle in the TSBD.

Marina said Oswald "practiced" with the rifle on the porch. I recall that some neighbor also saw this. To fit your theory, you want to speculate that he was not dry-firing and thus there was not a dented shell in the chamber that became CE 543. Go ahead. I would suggest that for most of us and probably Oswald, "practicing" with a rifle would involve dry-firing. Dry-firing is basic in the Marines and Oswald reportedly spent considerable time doing this.
92
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / CTers: Do yourself a favor and focus on plausibility
« Last post by Lance Payette on June 04, 2026, 05:52:49 PM »
Ben Cole and I have articulated two tight, minimalist conspiracy theories – G2 (Cuba) and the Mafia respectively. I think we’re both talking about no more than five participants from conception through execution.

I know it’s fun to hypothesize elaborate conspiracies involving everyone but the kitchen sink, but this is just flat-out silly. Give it up, unless you acknowledge you’re just having fun and not trying to articulate a plausible theory.

This was a Presidential assassination. Anyone whose fingerprints were on it in any way was going to be executed. Every real-world conspiracy of any significance involves the minimal number of participants – and this would be true in spades of a Presidential assassination. And it sure as hell wouldn’t have involved an elaborate cover-up extending to Bethesda and beyond. This is just flat-out silly. Weird and fun, but flat-out silly.

Larry Hancock says Someone Would Have Talked – and he thinks someone did. That’s the problem with any conspiracy that isn’t the absolute minimalist scenario. Some of the people Larry thinks talked would not have been allowed anywhere near a Presidential assassination conspiracy unless the planners were Curly, Larry and Moe.

Forget all the “ideologically-oriented” conspiracies. Allen Dulles? Come on, this is science-fiction. Only the following had a real-honest-God motive for whacking JFK:

1. LBJ: perfect
2. The Mafia: perfect
3. Right-wing Texas oilmen: perfect
4. Those with an anti-Castro motive (which overlaps with 1-3 above): good, but somewhat more “ideological” than 1-3 above
5. Castro and/or his supporters: not nearly as strong, but plausible

There are only two plausible roles for Oswald:

1. Knows he’s a gunman in a pro-Castro conspiracy
2. Thinks he’s a gunman in an pro-Castro conspiracy

The key to the plausibility of any conspiracy theory is the implausibility of the SBT. The SBT is possible, but it is implausible for multiple reasons. If Oswald fired only two shots, it is entirely plausible that the rapid bang-bang heard by several witnesses was Oswald’s second shot and another from someplace like the Dal-Tex building or County Records building (as I believe) or the Grassy Knoll (as Ben suggests). I believe my two buildings are simply more plausible.

This is what I think we realistically have to work with. It is possible to construct a tight, highly compartmentalized, realistic conspiracy with any of the five candidates suggested above. Dan O’Meara suggested one with just LBJ, Byrd (who owned the TSBD building), Cason (president of the TSBD business), Bill Shelley, and a hitman other than Oswald; I thought it fell apart inside the TSBD, but it’s in the ballpark of what I’m talking about.

As Dan’s did, a tight, minimalist conspiracy could involve combinations of 1-4 above, but you’d have to make the connections in a tight, minimalist, plausible way.

Even with a tight, minimalist conspiracy, the trick is always to bring Oswald into it in a plausible way. LBJ and Oswald, the Mafia and Oswald, right-wing Texas oilmen and Oswald? Those are challenges. Pro-Castroites or anti-Castroites? Much easier. Of course, LBJ, the Mafia or Texas oilmen could have brought Oswald in via a contact in the pro- or anti-Castro community, but then we have to make a plausible connection between them and this middleman.

Anyway, if I were retained to construct a plausible conspiracy to sell to a jury or the court of public opinion, I believe I would have to work within these realistic parameters. The fact that even very prominent voices in the CT community can’t see that what they are peddling is science fiction is very puzzling. The fact that they pointedly ignore the far more realistic scenarios is not only puzzling but somewhat suspicious. The conspiracy-prone mindset does gravitate toward dark intrigue and unnecessary complexity, so this may be a large part of the explanation.
93
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: What about that dent?
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on June 04, 2026, 05:48:37 PM »
Quote from: Lance Payette on June 04, 2026, 05:36:13 PM
What on earth are you talking about? I didn't "change my story" - I've said the same thing on here 15 times.

Oh? Maybe you misspoke:

Quote
You: Dented shell: Dry firing round in the chamber of the disassembled M-C in Ruth Paine's garage. JFKA: Two shots. Case closed. You're welcome.

You: Not dry-firing in a disassembled rifle. Leaving it there for convenience because mostly what he did with the rifle was dry-fire it.

Do you not see the contradiction?

Quote from: Lance Payette on June 04, 2026, 05:36:13 PM
I'm not sure what Liebeler's doubt about sighting through the scope has to do with anything.

Humm, are you ever going to share your basis for claiming that Oswald dry-fired the rifle? So far, this seems to be pure speculation, not to mention the fact that the forensic evidence proves that the ammo that hit JFK's head could not have been FMJ ammo, that the FBI was never able to establish that Oswald ever picked up the rifle, that no A. Hidell was authorized to pick up mail from Oswald's post office box, etc., etc., etc.

Quote from: Lance Payette on June 04, 2026, 05:36:13 PM
Everyone who owns a rifle, including me, does more dry-firing than live firing, and an empty shell in the chamber prevents damage to the firing pin. Live firing with a large-caliber rifle is damn expensive, and Oswald was not only frugal but had limited opportunities for live practice. I simply believe he likely kept a dry-firing shell in the chamber and it was there when he assembled the rifle in the TSBD. A dented shell that cannot be reloaded is typically used for dry-firing - I myself did it.

This a load of baseless speculation and dubious a priori assumptions that ignores two key points: (1) that CE 543 was supposedly fired in the alleged murder weapon during the assassination but that ballistics evidence shows this was impossible, and (2) that CE 543 could not have been chambered in the alleged murder weapon because it does not have the weapon's chambering impressions on it.


94
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: What about that dent?
« Last post by Lance Payette on June 04, 2026, 05:36:13 PM »
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on June 04, 2026, 03:13:45 PM
Just SMH. So now you're changing your story. Just think about this ludicrous scenario, especially in light of the hard ballistics evidence I've presented about CE 543. You have no idea if Oswald "mostly" dry-fired the alleged murder weapon. Even WC staffer Wesley Liebeler doubted that unsubstantiated tale. Here's what Liebeler said on the matter in internal memos (all the memos are reprinted in 11 HSCA):

1. I do not believe there is any real authority for the proposition that Oswald sighted through the telescopic sight on the porch in New Orleans. Marina Oswald first said she did not know what he did with the rifle out on the porch, and then was led into a statement which might be thought to support the instant proposition. It is not very convincing. . . .

What on earth are you talking about? I didn't "change my story" - I've said the same thing on here 15 times. I'm not sure what Liebeler's doubt about sighting through the scope has to do with anything. Everyone who owns a rifle, including me, does more dry-firing than live firing, and an empty shell in the chamber prevents damage to the firing pin. Live firing with a large-caliber rifle is damn expensive, and Oswald was not only frugal but had limited opportunities for live practice. I simply believe he likely kept a dry-firing shell in the chamber and it was there when he assembled the rifle in the TSBD. A dented shell that cannot be reloaded is typically used for dry-firing - I myself did it.
95
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Gordon Arnold - The Man Who Claimed He Was Attacked By Badgeman
« Last post by Royell Storing on June 04, 2026, 05:24:27 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on June 03, 2026, 08:23:34 PM
You'd have to ask the people who hired Gary Mack that question. The Sixth Floor Museum is a non-profit organization run by the Dallas County Historical Foundation. Do you think they are part of the cover up too?
Gordon Arnold said there were PILES of dirt. Do you know of anybody else who said that?

   When viewing the Darnell Film snippet showing the area between the N-S Picket Fence and the short wall running down from Zapruder, FOCUS on the ground level of The Bench and the feet of the Black Guy standing near The Bench  vs  the ground level/feet of the people on the walkway. The elevation difference is pronounced. On 11/22/63, there was only DIRT on both sides of The Walkway.
96
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: What about that dent?
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on June 04, 2026, 05:06:53 PM »
Quote from: Jack Nessan on June 04, 2026, 04:22:16 PM
Do you honestly not understand the evidence you have presented here.

I do, but you clearly don't. You always pretend to know more than anyone else but then make one blundering statement after another.

Quote from: Jack Nessan on June 04, 2026, 04:22:16 PM
-- CE 543 has three sets of marks on the base that are not found on the two other shells and that were not made on any of the numerous shells that were ejected from the alleged murder weapon during firing tests.
 
The marks are the result of the shell being pressed against the extractor when the trigger is pulled during the process of dry firing. You know Joseph Nicols' testimony to the WC. He was a real life expert, not this pretend nonsense presented here.

LOL! One, CE 543 was supposedly fired during the assassination, but obviously it was not, even according to your amateurish take on Nicols' testimony. Two, this does not explain why there are no chambering impressions on CE 543. 

Quote from: Jack Nessan on June 04, 2026, 04:22:16 PM
-- CE 543 does not have the characteristic chambering impression along the side exhibited by the other cartridges we know to have been seated in the chamber of the alleged murder weapon, i.e.,, CE 544 and CE 545, and also CE 141 (the live round found in the chamber of the rifle. The impression on CE 141 is in the same location but is not as pronounced as on CEs 544 and 545, almost certainly due to the fact that it was not fired.
 
That is the point. Josiah Thompson understood the ramifications of it very well. Wrote about it in his book. It seems the importance of it has gone right over your head.

This is just silly, not to mention dishonest. Yes, that is indeed the point, which I made clear. I tend to doubt that you've even read Thompson's analysis of CE 543. If you did, you didn't understand it.

Quote from: Jack Nessan on June 04, 2026, 04:22:16 PM
You presented CE 141 as evidence but don’t understand the mechanics of how the chamber mark was impressed into the shell casing? You know heat from the other cartridges having been fired before its introduction. Maybe if you had ever been around a firearm, you would know that.

This is another one of your silly and dishonest strawman attacks. Why don't you quote from Thompson's analysis, hey? I wonder if you just don't know that Thompson argues that at least four shots were fired.

Quote from: Jack Nessan on June 04, 2026, 04:22:16 PM
-- CE 543 could not have been marked by the alleged murder weapon’s magazine follower during the assassination because there was a live round left in the rifle’s chamber and only the last shell in the clip is marked by the magazine follower. This fact alone discredits the HSCA firearms experts' claims about the dented shell, as research scientist Dr. Don Thomas has explained:

Your belief is that rifles cannot be loaded and unloaded. They have to be fired to empty the magazine. Again, maybe if you had ever been around a firearm, you would know that is wrong.

LOL! Are you in junior high or something? The level of silliness and dishonesty in your strawman arguments is pitiful. I notice you snipped Dr. Thomas's comments. Gee, I wonder why.

Quote from: Jack Nessan on June 04, 2026, 04:22:16 PM
Seriously, you are posting about your supposed military training and you don't understand any of the info you presented here?

I know far more than you do about firearms. You're a silly troll who pretends to understand issues that you clearly don't understand. Your tactic is to make ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments because you can't deal credibly with the evidence.

Why don't you address the arguments about CE 543 made by recognized firearms experts that I present in my article? I'm guessing you still haven't bothered to read my article on CE 543.

People should know that you're a peddler of the fringe two-shots-only lone-gunman scenario, a theory that even 98% of your fellow lone-gunman theorists reject as ridiculous, including Gerald Posner, Vincent Bugliosi, and Jim Moore.



97
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: What about that dent?
« Last post by Jack Nessan on June 04, 2026, 04:46:46 PM »
Quote from: Jarrett Smith on June 04, 2026, 04:40:45 PM
What fantasy? The first shot was fired around Z-157, the second Z-223

The acoustics is incorrect. IF there were 2 head shots right together his head was pushed forward first then back, not the opposite. 

Many witnesses heard 3 shots the first when JFK slumped, and the third at Z-313. No way Oswald could fire 3 shots in 5 seconds.

Which one is it. The first shot at Z157 or the first shot when JFK slumped.

What witness to a first shot before JFK slumped. That is the point.
98
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: What about that dent?
« Last post by Jarrett Smith on June 04, 2026, 04:40:45 PM »
Quote from: Jack Nessan on June 04, 2026, 03:07:26 PM
Any breakthrough on proving your early missed shot fantasy yet? A rifle shot described by the HSCA Sound Analysis as being too loud to miss, is missed by all the eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza and you are totally OK with that belief. Unbelievable.

What fantasy? The first shot was fired around Z-157, the second Z-223

The acoustics is incorrect. IF there were 2 head shots right together his head was pushed forward first then back, not the opposite. 

Many witnesses heard 3 shots the first when JFK slumped, and the third at Z-313. No way Oswald could fire 3 shots in 5 seconds.
99
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: What about that dent?
« Last post by Jack Nessan on June 04, 2026, 04:22:16 PM »
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on June 04, 2026, 03:13:45 PM
Just SMH. So now you're changing your story. Just think about this ludicrous scenario, especially in light of the hard ballistics evidence I've presented about CE 543. You have no idea if Oswald "mostly" dry-fired the alleged murder weapon. Even WC staffer Wesley Liebeler doubted that unsubstantiated tale. Here's what Liebeler said on the matter in internal memos (all the memos are reprinted in 11 HSCA):

1. I do not believe there is any real authority for the proposition that Oswald sighted through the telescopic sight on the porch in New Orleans. Marina Oswald first said she did not know what he did with the rifle out on the porch, and then was led into a statement which might be thought to support the instant proposition. It is not very convincing. . . .

I should add that when first questioned, Marina said she'd never seen the rifle with a scope on it. She knew nothing about weapons anyway. If she didn't know what Oswald did with the rifle, this is just further proof that the dry-fire story is pure speculation.

Again:

-- CE 543 has three sets of marks on the base that are not found on the two other shells and that were not made on any of the numerous shells that were ejected from the alleged murder weapon during firing tests.

-- CE 543 does not have the characteristic chambering impression along the side exhibited by the other cartridges we know to have been seated in the chamber of the alleged murder weapon, i.e.,, CE 544 and CE 545, and also CE 141 (the live round found in the chamber of the rifle. The impression on CE 141 is in the same location but is not as pronounced as on CEs 544 and 545, almost certainly due to the fact that it was not fired.

-- CE 543 could not have been marked by the alleged murder weapon’s magazine follower during the assassination because there was a live round left in the rifle’s chamber and only the last shell in the clip is marked by the magazine follower. This fact alone discredits the HSCA firearms experts' claims about the dented shell, as research scientist Dr. Don Thomas has explained:

Furthermore, according to the FBI experts, the casing had been marked by the magazine follower. This fact is especially relevant because only the last cartridge in the clip is marked by the magazine follower, and inasmuch as the Oswald rifle still had one live round in the chamber, CE 543 could not have been marked by the magazine follower as an operation of the rifle during the assassination. The failure of the HSCA Firearms Panel to disclose or discuss the discrepancy between their conclusion and the FBI findings forces the conclusion that the Firearms Panel analysis of this problem was less than forthright and certainly less than thorough. (Hear No Evil: Politics, Science, and the Forensic Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination, New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2010, p. 141)

I discuss the dented shell at length in my book A Comforting Lie: They Myth That a Lone Gunman Killed President Kennedy. A condensed version of that discussion is available on my website:

The Dented Bullet Shell: Hard Evidence of Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ihue8a0GmN_Ptl38bPjpu1F99nqU0Z6f/view

Do you honestly not understand the evidence you have presented here.

-- CE 543 has three sets of marks on the base that are not found on the two other shells and that were not made on any of the numerous shells that were ejected from the alleged murder weapon during firing tests.
 
The marks are the result of the shell being pressed against the extractor when the trigger is pulled during the process of dry firing. You know Joseph Nicols' testimony to the WC. He was a real life expert, not this pretend nonsense presented here.


-- CE 543 does not have the characteristic chambering impression along the side exhibited by the other cartridges we know to have been seated in the chamber of the alleged murder weapon, i.e.,, CE 544 and CE 545, and also CE 141 (the live round found in the chamber of the rifle. The impression on CE 141 is in the same location but is not as pronounced as on CEs 544 and 545, almost certainly due to the fact that it was not fired.
 
That is the point. Josiah Thompson understood the ramifications of it very well. Wrote about it in his book. It seems the importance of it has gone right over your head. 

You presented CE 141 as evidence but don’t understand the mechanics of how the chamber mark was impressed into the shell casing? You know heat from the other cartridges having been fired before its introduction. Maybe if you had ever been around a firearm, you would know that.


-- CE 543 could not have been marked by the alleged murder weapon’s magazine follower during the assassination because there was a live round left in the rifle’s chamber and only the last shell in the clip is marked by the magazine follower. This fact alone discredits the HSCA firearms experts' claims about the dented shell, as research scientist Dr. Don Thomas has explained:

Your belief is that rifles cannot be loaded and unloaded. They have to be fired to empty the magazine. Again, maybe if you had ever been around a firearm, you would know that is wrong.

Seriously, you are posting about your supposed military training and you don't understand any of the info you presented here?
100
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: "Overthinking" (or maybe not?) the Walker attempt
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on June 04, 2026, 03:59:49 PM »
For a good summary of some of the problems with the case against Oswald in the Walker shooting, I recommend C.A.A. Savastano's article "The Walker Allegations":

https://www.tpaak.com/walker-allegations

The bullet that was fired at Walker was recovered. Walker said the bullet was mangled, but he also made it clear the bullet was not a WCC Carcano FMJ bullet. He was adamant on this point:

During the HSCA investigation in the 1970’s, General Walker himself said that the bullet in evidence was not the same bullet that was found in his house on 10th April 1963. He wrote to the Attorney General in February 1979 and said that it was “a ridiculous substitute.” He went on to state that “I saw the hunk of lead, picked up by a policeman in my house, and I took it from him and I inspected it carefully. There is no mistake. There has been a substitution for the bullet fired by Oswald and taken out of my house.”
(https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/oswald-and-the-shot-at-walker-redressing-the-balance)

As for Greg Doudna's upcoming book on the Walker shooting, I have great respect for Greg and agree with many of his conclusions about the shooting. You can find Greg's summary of his findings here:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/31469-my-forthcoming-book-on-the-walker-shot/

Of course, WC defenders don't bat an eye when they claim that the same guy who went 2/3 or 2/2 in 5.6 seconds when supposedly shooting JFK somehow completely missed Walker from much closer range and with plenty of time to take aim.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]