scalyblue wrote:

ElegantUniverse wrote:Well, firstly it was ruled a 'probable conspiracy' by a subsequent inquiry. Secondly, the magic bullet theory is just embarrassing. There are other circumstantial issues, such as there's no way I can accept that ANYONE was able to hit Kennedy from the book depository under the conditions described. The monumental volte face in terms of policy on Vietnam almost immediately afterwards.

I simply do not find the official account to be anything other than preposterous. Of course, this is not to say I think there was some clandestine NWO thing going on. The trouble with Kennedy is that he pissed off EVERYBODY. There was no shortage of suspects because he annoyed everyone.

Ultimately it's difficult to say what really happened because of the myth and legend surrounding it. At some level there must have been some sort of a cover up, even if it was a bunch of CIA suits covering their asses. The President of the USA had just had his head blown off on US soil - somebody somewhere was going to have to pay, and I think that there was likely a lot of misdirection in terms of the flow of evidence in the investigation. Oswald may well have been involved, hell, he may have even been a shooter, but when the leader of the free world is assassinated on his own soil then somebody somewhere is going to feel the wrath, in much the same way Saddam got it for 9/11. Whatever did happen, I am certain that Oswald did not fire the three shots as described, and for that to be a lie there must have been, by definition, a conspiracy at some level. Somewhere along the line certain people have colluded to put out an acceptable story and disposed of the killer. It may even be that Oswald did it, but the opportunity was perhaps afforded to him by a monumental CIA fuck up that was subsequently covered up in order to protect the culpable party, not necessarily that it was Caesar's betrayal. My personal feeling is that Kennedy was disposed of not by a lone nut, but by those by whom he was disliked immensely, and whom he threatened.

Any foundations for these posits other than your certainty and your personal feeling?

I've made it fairly clear that a lot of this is induction and suchlike, however, the first paragraph factual in that the assassination was declared 'a probable conspiracy'. The Magic Bullet is, as I said, preposterous. These are glaring issues that I cannot believe were foisted upon the US public. I can only draw upon my own experience using a weapon when discussing the shooting - it wasn't the best vantage point for a single shooter and I would love to see anyone hit a moving target through dense foliage at that distance.

As I said - the Magic Bullet and the Senate decision that it was probably a conspiracy. These are damning.

ElegantUniverse wrote:Secondly, the magic bullet theory is just embarrassing.

Actually the shot itself is easily explained.

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2kEh3Kgwhk0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2kEh3Kgwhk0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

That doesn't explain the many other strange events, no SS agents, for example.

ElegantUniverse wrote:I've made it fairly clear that a lot of this is induction and suchlike, however, the first paragraph factual in that the assassination was declared 'a probable conspiracy'. The Magic Bullet is, as I said, preposterous. These are glaring issues that I cannot believe were foisted upon the US public. I can only draw upon my own experience using a weapon when discussing the shooting - it wasn't the best vantage point for a single shooter and I would love to see anyone hit a moving target through dense foliage at that distance.

As I said - the Magic Bullet and the Senate decision that it was probably a conspiracy. These are damning.

"Probably a conspiracy" is very vague. It could mean anything. It could just mean that Oswald didn't act alone, that he had accomplices. It does not instantly mean "A conspiracy within the US government."

When conspiracy theorists say "magic bullet theory" they're straw-manning single bullet theory which is referring specifically to Oswald's second shot. A shot that went went through both Kennedy's neck and the torso of Senator Connelly (seated in front of him.) The claim made by conspiracy theorists is that if it was one bullet fired from the Book Depository, it would have to have changed direction mid-flight several times in order to produce the entrance and exit wounds found on both men. They then conclude that it couldn't have been done by one bullet (unless the bullet was magic) and must have been done by multiple bullets fired from the grassy knoll. But this entire claim relies on a false representation of the two men's seating arrangements. Firstly, they assume that Kennedy was seated upright when we know from video evidence that he was leaning forward slightly. They also assume that Connelly was facing straight forward when he is clearly turned to the right in. Next, they assume that Kennedy and Connelly's seats were both at the same elevation when the President's seat was actually a few inches higher. Finally, they assume that Connelly's seat was positioned directly in front of the President's when it was actually offset several inches to the center of the vehicle. Once both men and seats are placed in their proper positions, the entrance and exit wounds line up and point directly at Oswald's sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. This has been known for decades but only recent computer recreations have been able to show it with precision. [EDIT: xman's video is better]

I'm curious to know exactly what you're experience with the Carcano M91 is. And what you're experience with rifles in general is. Were you a Marine? Did you qualify as a marksman like Oswald did? One thing I've noticed about gun-related internet discussions is that people who cite "personal experience" as their justification against the capabilities of any given weapon/shooter generally tend to have very little experience at all. Especially those who make claims against Oswald's (and his rifle's) capabilities. Virtually all actual rifle experts (a couple of whom I know personally) unanimously reject every claim made by the JFK conspiracy theorists.

As for Oswald's position being a bad vantage point, I would disagree. Kennedy's motorcade was traveling away from the Book Depository in a straight line and at a steady speed. Those are pretty good shooting conditions, especially for a qualified marksman. It was also not "through thick foliage." The position of the tree in relation to the building and the position of the car shows that Oswald didn't fire until the car had emerged from behind the tree.

I too, used to agree with the JFK conspiracy theory. But like most conspiracy theories, it relies heavily on speculation and misrepresented information and is sustained almost solely through people's political or emotional biases.

Actually, some of those who disbelieve the single bullet theory do so on the basis of the lack of apparent damage to the bullet. I had trouble with that part myself, until the same type of bullet was fired through some ballistic dummies under similar circumstances and ended up with approximately the same amount of damage.

That isn't to say that there aren't questions left in the assassination of JFK, but there isn't enough left to make a conspiracy out of.

BTW: wasn't the HSCA basing the probable conspiracy on a recording by the Dallas Police radio that seemed to have four shots but was later disproved? Or am I misremembering?

Finger wrote:
I'm curious to know exactly what you're experience with the Carcano M91 is. And what you're experience with rifles in general is. Were you a Marine? Did you qualify as a marksman like Oswald did? One thing I've noticed about gun-related internet discussions is that people who cite "personal experience" as their justification against the capabilities of any given weapon/shooter generally tend to have very little experience at all. Especially those who make claims against Oswald's (and his rifle's) capabilities. Virtually all actual rifle experts (a couple of whom I know personally) unanimously reject every claim made by the JFK conspiracy theorists.

It is like you called my name! I'm a former Marine, and I coached marksmanship in the Marines.

The two shots that hit the car were at about 50 and 80 meters, spaced out over about 6 seconds, with the movement of the car being almost perfectly lined up with Oswald's firing position, so all he would have to adjust for is distance. By comparison, part of the Marine marksmanship qualification when I was on active duty in the 1990's involved sitting down, firing five rounds, changing magazines, firing five more rounds, all in a minute at 200 yards. Same thing from standing-to-prone position at 300 yards. That's with iron sights, not a scope. At 50 yards or 80 yards with a scope, I would expect a Marine to be able to shoot a plum off of your head, or easily put two bullets into the passenger compartment of a slow-moving car.

ImprobableJoe wrote:It is like you called my name! I'm a former Marine, and I coached marksmanship in the Marines.

That just means you're in on it. You've had that government brainwashing.

Finger wrote:

ImprobableJoe wrote:It is like you called my name! I'm a former Marine, and I coached marksmanship in the Marines.

That just means you're in on it. You've had that government brainwashing.

I knew it!

Finger wrote:

ImprobableJoe wrote:It is like you called my name! I'm a former Marine, and I coached marksmanship in the Marines.

That just means you're in on it. You've had that government brainwashing.

Yeah, well I think YOU'RE in on it, accusing me of being brainwashed to discredit me!

Finger wrote:

xman wrote:Yeah, I'm irrationally inclined to consider that Oswald wasn't the only shooter. The oddness about the autopsy hasn't been satisfactorily debunked for me ... yet?

Please be specific.

I can't recall the details now (and that's an Achilles heel for me right there) but the brain matter was substantially different in the first and second autopsies as I recall.

Also, and much more importantly, why was there a conspicuous lack of police and secret service presence along the route?

xman wrote:I can't recall the details now (and that's an Achilles heel for me right there) but the brain matter was substantially different in the first and second autopsies as I recall.

Define "different". And even if they were different, how would that prove that his assassination was a US government operation?

xman wrote:Also, and much more importantly, why was there a conspicuous lack of police and secret service presence along the route?

As I recall, it wasn't really suppose to be a parade. The president was headed to a luncheon downtown and told the driver to slow down once he noticed all the people that had gathered along the rout. Do you expect them to check every room of every building and frisk everyone in Dallas just for an afternoon stroll? As far as I'm concerned, the "lack" of security is precisely why Oswald succeeded. That's how these tragedies always happen. Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Challenger, Titanic. Despite all our best plans, something will manage to slip through the cracks and expose the flaws. Its just that some people refuse to see the flaws and would rather invent a larger, more sinister plan to explain them.

Didn't he even decide to have the top taken off immediately before the trip? So the original motorcade was going to have the bulletproof top on the vehicle?

xman wrote:

ElegantUniverse wrote:Secondly, the magic bullet theory is just embarrassing.

Actually the shot itself is easily explained.

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2kEh3Kgwhk0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2kEh3Kgwhk0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

That doesn't explain the many other strange events, no SS agents, for example.

Then the next question becomes why, if it so easily explained, was the Magic Bullet accepted as factual?

Finger wrote:

ElegantUniverse wrote:I've made it fairly clear that a lot of this is induction and suchlike, however, the first paragraph factual in that the assassination was declared 'a probable conspiracy'. The Magic Bullet is, as I said, preposterous. These are glaring issues that I cannot believe were foisted upon the US public. I can only draw upon my own experience using a weapon when discussing the shooting - it wasn't the best vantage point for a single shooter and I would love to see anyone hit a moving target through dense foliage at that distance.

As I said - the Magic Bullet and the Senate decision that it was probably a conspiracy. These are damning.

"Probably a conspiracy" is very vague. It could mean anything. It could just mean that Oswald didn't act alone, that he had accomplices. It does not instantly mean "A conspiracy within the US government."

When conspiracy theorists say "magic bullet theory" they're straw-manning single bullet theory which is referring specifically to Oswald's second shot. A shot that went went through both Kennedy's neck and the torso of Senator Connelly (seated in front of him.) The claim made by conspiracy theorists is that if it was one bullet fired from the Book Depository, it would have to have changed direction mid-flight several times in order to produce the entrance and exit wounds found on both men. They then conclude that it couldn't have been done by one bullet (unless the bullet was magic) and must have been done by multiple bullets fired from the grassy knoll. But this entire claim relies on a false representation of the two men's seating arrangements. Firstly, they assume that Kennedy was seated upright when we know from video evidence that he was leaning forward slightly. They also assume that Connelly was facing straight forward when he is clearly turned to the right in. Next, they assume that Kennedy and Connelly's seats were both at the same elevation when the President's seat was actually a few inches higher. Finally, they assume that Connelly's seat was positioned directly in front of the President's when it was actually offset several inches to the center of the vehicle. Once both men and seats are placed in their proper positions, the entrance and exit wounds line up and point directly at Oswald's sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. This has been known for decades but only recent computer recreations have been able to show it with precision. [EDIT: xman's video is better]

I'm curious to know exactly what you're experience with the Carcano M91 is. And what you're experience with rifles in general is. Were you a Marine? Did you qualify as a marksman like Oswald did? One thing I've noticed about gun-related internet discussions is that people who cite "personal experience" as their justification against the capabilities of any given weapon/shooter generally tend to have very little experience at all. Especially those who make claims against Oswald's (and his rifle's) capabilities. Virtually all actual rifle experts (a couple of whom I know personally) unanimously reject every claim made by the JFK conspiracy theorists.

As for Oswald's position being a bad vantage point, I would disagree. Kennedy's motorcade was traveling away from the Book Depository in a straight line and at a steady speed. Those are pretty good shooting conditions, especially for a qualified marksman. It was also not "through thick foliage." The position of the tree in relation to the building and the position of the car shows that Oswald didn't fire until the car had emerged from behind the tree.

I too, used to agree with the JFK conspiracy theory. But like most conspiracy theories, it relies heavily on speculation and misrepresented information and is sustained almost solely through people's political or emotional biases.

That's the whole point I am making - I do not necessarily think that there is a clandestine cabal going on, simply that something somewhere was covered up. I am not saying that his governemnt staged a coup, merely that the story does not add up.

ElegantUniverse wrote:Then the next question becomes why, if it so easily explained, was the Magic Bullet accepted as factual?

Why do 9/11 truthers think the towers fell at freefall speed? Why do Creationists think there are no transitional fossils? Why do AIDS denialists think HIV has never been found? They're deluded. Also that shitty Oliver Stone movie.

ElegantUniverse wrote:That's the whole point I am making - I do not necessarily think that there is a clandestine cabal going on, simply that something somewhere was covered up. I am not saying that his governemnt staged a coup, merely that the story does not add up.

What doesn't add up? Because everything you've presented so far has has been shown to have been based on falsehoods.

ElegantUniverse wrote:I am not saying that his governemnt staged a coup, merely that the story does not add up.

Except, of course, that the story adds up just fine, and the more people claim conspiracy the less their stories add up.

In real life, these sort of small, simple, low-tech plans work much better than large conspiracies. A single guy with a rifle in a window has a MUCH better chance at killing the president than almost any other possible plan you can think up, because other plans involve factors that make you much more likely to get caught. The crimes that people get away with seem to be the ones where they happen semi-randomly with no obvious plan or motive. The Secret Service and FBI stop all sorts of plots every year, but you can't stop a loner nut with a gun who doesn't tell a bunch of people what he's going to do.

Finger wrote:

ElegantUniverse wrote:Then the next question becomes why, if it so easily explained, was the Magic Bullet accepted as factual?

Why do 9/11 truthers think the towers fell at freefall speed? Why do Creationists think there are no transitional fossils? Why do AIDS denialists think HIV has never been found? They're deluded. Also that shitty Oliver Stone movie.

ElegantUniverse wrote:That's the whole point I am making - I do not necessarily think that there is a clandestine cabal going on, simply that something somewhere was covered up. I am not saying that his governemnt staged a coup, merely that the story does not add up.

What doesn't add up? Because everything you've presented so far has has been shown to have been based on falsehoods.

It's a falsehood that the US government declared it a probable conspiracy?

The Magic Bullet theory is preposterous, and no adequate reason for it has ever been produced. No government would construct such an embarrassing pile of crap unless they had to. To believe that it was not a conspiracy is to believe that the Magic Bullet Theory is factual. I cannot see how any right-minded person can do that.

ImprobableJoe wrote:

ElegantUniverse wrote:I am not saying that his governemnt staged a coup, merely that the story does not add up.

Except, of course, that the story adds up just fine, and the more people claim conspiracy the less their stories add up.

In real life, these sort of small, simple, low-tech plans work much better than large conspiracies. A single guy with a rifle in a window has a MUCH better chance at killing the president than almost any other possible plan you can think up, because other plans involve factors that make you much more likely to get caught. The crimes that people get away with seem to be the ones where they happen semi-randomly with no obvious plan or motive. The Secret Service and FBI stop all sorts of plots every year, but you can't stop a loner nut with a gun who doesn't tell a bunch of people what he's going to do.

The Magic Bullet Theory does not add up, and, as I keep saying, and which nobody addresses, the US government declared it a probable conspiracy. Attempting to debunk without addressing the key points is just silly, and I would love to know how you came to this conclusion:

A single guy with a rifle in a window has a MUCH better chance at killing the president than almost any other possible plan you can think up, because other plans involve factors that make you much more likely to get caught.

That is pure conjecture, nothing more.

This:

'The crimes that people get away with seem to be the ones where they happen semi-randomly with no obvious plan or motive.'

Is also speculative. For instance, serial killers are often methodical, intelligent and they plan excellently. That is why they are so difficult to catch. They are highly motivated and are often extraordinarily well-planned, so this statement does not ring true.

As I said above, I cannot accept the preposterous Magic Bullet and therefore, by definition, if that is not fact, there is a conspiracy of some description. You show me how a bulet could EVER possibly behave the way the magic bullet did and I will accept that I am wrong. I am not holding my breath.

ElegantUniverse wrote:
As I said above, I cannot accept the preposterous Magic Bullet and therefore, by definition, if that is not fact, there is a conspiracy of some description. You show me how a bulet could EVER possibly behave the way the magic bullet did and I will accept that I am wrong. I am not holding my breath.

Wow, you're too... whatever, committed to your stupidity, insisting on ignoring evidence, whatever your malfunction is, that you missed where someone explained away the basis for your delusional belief in a conspiracy. There was no magic bullet, there was a bullet that went in a straight line and hit two people.

The fact that you were given the evidence, and ignored it, lets us all know that you are intellectually dishonest on top of being ignorant.

ElegantUniverse wrote:You show me how a bulet could EVER possibly behave the way the magic bullet did and I will accept that I am wrong. I am not holding my breath.

And yet again,

scalyblue wrote:
And yet again,

Once someone has married themselves to a stupid belief, they will cling so hard to it that their brains quit working, and they refuse to even consider evidence. Evidence to them sometimes even turns into proof of the conspiracy.