JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

Status
Not open for further replies.
tinribmancer said:
Are there CTers that think that "they" have already cloned JFK?
Click to expand...



I do recall a CTer that used to post at alt.conspiracies.jfk that alleged a LHO clone. An actual clone, not just the impostor "doubles" that feature prominently in several theories. He explained that "they" had genetic and medical knowledge decades more advanced than civilian technology, just like some CTer's claim that "they" had digital editing software back in the 1960's to falsify all the photographs and videos. But I don't believe I've ever heard of "them" cloning JFK before.
 
The closest to the cloning I've seen is the "Tippet looked like JFK" stuff, which usually involved them swapping the bodies...or something. It's been 20 years since I read that, so it's a little hazy.
 
Tolls said:
The closest to the cloning I've seen is the "Tippet looked like JFK" stuff, which usually involved them swapping the bodies...or something. It's been 20 years since I read that, so it's a little hazy.
Click to expand...

No clones, just body-swapping with DPD Officer J.D.Tippit.

You probably don't know about the theory that it wasn't JFK but J.D.Tippit that was actually riding in the limo and was shot in Dealey Plaza by a man in a trench coat armed with a submachine gun. You apparently do know of the theory that J.D.Tippit's body was substituted for JFK's at the JFK autopsy.

A man named George Thomson invented that first one in 1964 - https://whoshotjfk.wikispaces.com/The+Mother+of+All+Conspiracy+Theories

Robert Morningstar is the leading proponent of the second one (and the one you're probably thinking of):
http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=17710

Hank
 
Last edited:
There used to be a lot of Tippit autopsy photos claiming to be JFK iirc because they matched certain wounds. I think I posted to a link to the Fortean Times clarifying that mess in a padt incarnation of the thread to make a point to Robert Prey. The article was by Robin Ramsey who Prey seemed to be influenced by, even to the use of the word baloney.
 
HSienzant said:
And his being a loner makes it harder to link him to anyone. He had no phone, so good luck connecting him to some conspirator / 'handler' out of town in Dallas or Chicago when he was living with his wife at a succession of rented apartments in New Orleans. What did they use to communicate with him, carrier pigeons?

And he wasn't untraceable. His time was well accounted for. His life is one of the most meticulously documented in history. The FBI determined what jobs he held and when he showed up for work. And according to his wife, he was home almost every night after work when they were living together. Exceptions were for things like a typing class and the night he attempted to kill General Walker, when he showed up very late. When they were living apart, he was living at the rooming house on North Beckley, and according to interviews with some of the patrons, he was there every night as well, except for those times he visited his wife at Mrs. Paine's home.

While the rooming house had a phone for the patrons, he was registered there under the alias of O.H.Lee, and he received no calls. In fact, Mrs. Paine testified she tried to reach him there the weekend before the assassination, and she failed because she asked for Lee Oswald, and she was told there was no such person living there.

Mr. JENNER - And you were relating that you inquired as to how you could reach them if you had to reach them, and Mr. Lee Oswald wrote--
Mrs. PAINE - His work, the name of the company and the telephone number.
Mr. JENNER - I take it they did not have a telephone?
Mrs. PAINE - They did not; no.
Mr. JENNER - Did they ever have a telephone even when they were in New Orleans?
Mrs. PAINE - No; they did not.
Mr. JENNER - When they came back again to Dallas, they did not?
Mrs. PAINE - They did not.
...
Mrs. PAINE - Whether he called that Saturday or whether he had called Sunday, I am not certain. Indeed, I am not certain but what he had called the very day, had already called and talked with Marina the very day that I then, at her request, tried to reach him at the number he had given me, with his number in my telephone book.
Junie was fooling with the telephone dial, and Marina said, "Let's call papa" and asked me--
... [discussion of side issue omitted]
Mr. JENNER - You are absolutely clear about that. All right. Now, state, you began to state the circumstances of the telephone call. Would you in your own words and your own chronology proceed with that, please?
Mrs. PAINE - Marina had said, "Let's call papa," in Russian and asked me to dial the number for her, knowing that I had a number that he had given us. I then dialed the number--
Mr. JENNER - Excuse me, did you dial the first or the second number?
Mrs. PAINE - The second number.
Mr. JENNER - And that number is?
Mrs. PAINE - WH 3-8993.
Mr. JENNER - When you dialed the number did someone answer?
Mrs. PAINE - Someone answered and I said, "Is Lee Oswald there?" And the person replied, "There is no Lee Oswald here," or something to that effect.
Mr. JENNER - Would it refresh your recollection if he said, "There is nobody by that name here"?
Mrs. PAINE - Or it may have been "nobody by that name" or "I don't know Lee Oswald." It could have been any of these.
Mr. JENNER - We want your best recollection.
Mrs. PAINE - My best recollection is that he repeated the name.
Mr. JENNER - He repeated the name?
Mrs. PAINE - But that is not a certain recollection.
Mr. JENNER - I take it then from the use of the pronoun that the person who answered was a man?
Mrs. PAINE - Was a man.
Mr. JENNER - And if you will just sit back and relax a little. I would like to have you restate, if you now will, in your own words, what occurred? You dialed the telephone, someone answered, a male voice?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - What did he say and what did you say?
Mrs. PAINE - I said, "Is Lee Oswald there." He said, "There is no Lee Oswald living here." As best as I can recall. This is the substance of what he said. I said, "Is this a rooming house." He said "Yes." I said, "Is this WH 3-8993?" And he said "Yes." I thanked him and hung up.
Mr. JENNER - When you hung up then what did you next do or say?
Mrs. PAINE - I said to Marina, "They don't know of a Lee Oswald at that number."
Mr. JENNER - What did she say?
Mrs. PAINE - She didn't say anything.
Mr. JENNER - Just said nothing?
Mrs. PAINE - She looked surprised.
Mr. JENNER - Did she evidence any surprise?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; she did, she looked surprised.
Mr. DULLES - You are quite sure you used the first name "Lee," did you, you did not say just "Mr. Oswald," or something of that kind?
Mrs. PAINE - I would not say "Mr. Oswald." It is contrary to Quaker practice, and I don't normally do it that way.
Mr. JENNER - Contrary to Quaker practice?
Mrs. PAINE - They seldom use "Mister."

Hank
Click to expand...
This is informative, I like this as it highlights Ruth Paine's "memory". LHO is using OH Lee as his alias at the North Beckley address, there is no challenge to this. What is suspect is Ruth Paine's lack of inquiring. The formation of Lee Harvey Oswald's name is interesting as each of his full names can be used as a first name and/or last name. For Ruth Paine not to explore additional questions or the other person on the line not put Lee (the first name that Ruth used) and Lee (the last name of LHO alias) together (at least as a secondary question) is a stretch. I have been asked harder and more prolonged questions from The Taco Bell driver-thru. The whole scenario with the Paine's is froth with inconsistencies and coincidental relationships that are treated more as a side-show and not points of interest.
 
No Other said:
This is informative, I like this as it highlights Ruth Paine's "memory". LHO is using OH Lee as his alias at the North Beckley address, there is no challenge to this. What is suspect is Ruth Paine's lack of inquiring. The formation of Lee Harvey Oswald's name is interesting as each of his full names can be used as a first name and/or last name. For Ruth Paine not to explore additional questions or the other person on the line not put Lee (the first name that Ruth used) and Lee (the last name of LHO alias) together (at least as a secondary question) is a stretch. I have been asked harder and more prolonged questions from The Taco Bell driver-thru. The whole scenario with the Paine's is froth with inconsistencies and coincidental relationships that are treated more as a side-show and not points of interest.
Click to expand...
Huh? My three names could be used in any order as well.
 
No Other said:
This is informative, I like this as it highlights Ruth Paine's "memory". LHO is using OH Lee as his alias at the North Beckley address, there is no challenge to this. What is suspect is Ruth Paine's lack of inquiring. The formation of Lee Harvey Oswald's name is interesting as each of his full names can be used as a first name and/or last name. For Ruth Paine not to explore additional questions or the other person on the line not put Lee (the first name that Ruth used) and Lee (the last name of LHO alias) together (at least as a secondary question) is a stretch. I have been asked harder and more prolonged questions from The Taco Bell driver-thru. The whole scenario with the Paine's is froth with inconsistencies and coincidental relationships that are treated more as a side-show and not points of interest.
Click to expand...

Why? The whole point of her testimony here is that she called the number to the rooming house Oswald had given them, and that neither she nor Marina had any reason to think he would be going by a different name. So she calls, verifies the number is correct and that it is to a rooming house; what else do you think she should have asked? "Well, is there an Oswald Harvey Lee there? A Harvey Lee Oswald? A Lee Oswald Harvey?" How do you think the conversation should have gone beyond the way it did? Try to re-construct it without the benefit of hindsight, ok?

As for the guy on the other end of the line not going beyond "there's no Lee Oswald here"- why should he? "Oswald" is a fairly unusual name,* and, in saying there was no one there by that name, that's probably what he keyed on and answered what was asked with what he knew. Of course, I suppose there's the possibility that he was in on the conspiracy, and was cleverly covering it up by not going beyond the basics with a fellow-conspirator in a conversation that only the two of them could hear. :rolleyes:

*I have a pretty unusual name (in fact, I'd just about bet I'm the only one in the U.S. with it), but my middle name is fairly common- oddly enough, it's "Lee." If I took a room using "Lee" as my last name and my others only as initials, and someone called asking for "Farglebargle Lee Gruntsenheimer," whoever answered would be perfectly reasonable in saying "sorry, there's no Gruntsenheimers here." (Not my real name, so don't bother looking ;))
 
HSienzant said:
And his being a loner makes it harder to link him to anyone. He had no phone, so good luck connecting him to some conspirator / 'handler' out of town in Dallas or Chicago when he was living with his wife at a succession of rented apartments in New Orleans. What did they use to communicate with him, carrier pigeons?

And he wasn't untraceable. His time was well accounted for. His life is one of the most meticulously documented in history. The FBI determined what jobs he held and when he showed up for work. And according to his wife, he was home almost every night after work when they were living together. Exceptions were for things like a typing class and the night he attempted to kill General Walker, when he showed up very late. When they were living apart, he was living at the rooming house on North Beckley, and according to interviews with some of the patrons, he was there every night as well, except for those times he visited his wife at Mrs. Paine's home.

While the rooming house had a phone for the patrons, he was registered there under the alias of O.H.Lee, and he received no calls. In fact, Mrs. Paine testified she tried to reach him there the weekend before the assassination, and she failed because she asked for Lee Oswald, and she was told there was no such person living there.
Click to expand...

Oswald met in person.

[IMGw=640]https://i.imgur.com/ugFgaNq.gif[/IMGw]

[IMGw=640]https://i.imgur.com/jutSYwy.jpg[/IMGw]

[IMGw=640]http://image.newsinc.com/30578590.sfxl.jpg[/IMGw]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
turingtest said:
Why? The whole point of her testimony here is that she called the number to the rooming house Oswald had given them, and that neither she nor Marina had any reason to think he would be going by a different name. So she calls, verifies the number is correct and that it is to a rooming house; what else do you think she should have asked? "Well, is there an Oswald Harvey Lee there? A Harvey Lee Oswald? A Lee Oswald Harvey?" How do you think the conversation should have gone beyond the way it did? Try to re-construct it without the benefit of hindsight, ok?
Click to expand...
Marina Oswald did not speak conversational english; Ruth Paine called on her behalf. If Ruth goes no further, as in the manner of her testimony, then Marina is left with the thought that her husband did not live there... Ruth offered, it is not as if Marina asked her to do so.

As for the guy on the other end of the line not going beyond "there's no Lee Oswald here"- why should he? "Oswald" is a fairly unusual name,* and, in saying there was no one there by that name, that's probably what he keyed on and answered what was asked with what he knew. Of course, I suppose there's the possibility that he was in on the conspiracy, and was cleverly covering it up by not going beyond the basics with a fellow-conspirator in a conversation that only the two of them could hear. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
This is a straw man. Actually, we have no idea what happened as this is testimony and there is no record of any conversation ever taking place. Nobody, outside of you, is suggesting the person on the other side of the line is on some sort of conspiracy.
 
No Other said:
Marina Oswald did not speak conversational english; Ruth Paine called on her behalf. If Ruth goes no further, as in the manner of her testimony, then Marina is left with the thought that her husband did not live there... Ruth offered, it is not as if Marina asked her to do so.

This is a straw man. Actually, we have no idea what happened as this is testimony and there is no record of any conversation ever taking place. Nobody, outside of you, is suggesting the person on the other side of the line is on some sort of conspiracy.
Click to expand...

So why even bring it up? The whole thing goes nowhere and is no good for anything but the usual CTist insinuation that something seems suspicious, based on no evidence but CTist expectation.
 
turingtest said:
So why even bring it up? The whole thing goes nowhere and is no good for anything but the usual CTist insinuation that something seems suspicious, based on no evidence but CTist expectation.
Click to expand...
Suspicious should not be equated with being a CT. This is why it is difficult to bring up anything, in this forum, that is remotely counter to what the general public has been fed. I find the Paines suspect as they have a deep background yet the majority of the time the word "Quaker" is used to describe Ruth while her husband happens to have a job at Bell Helicopter.
 
No Other said:
Suspicious should not be equated with being a CT. This is why it is difficult to bring up anything, in this forum, that is remotely counter to what the general public has been fed. I find the Paines suspect as they have a deep background yet the majority of the time the word "Quaker" is used to describe Ruth while her husband happens to have a job at Bell Helicopter.
Click to expand...

This assertion comes up so often that it's become a article of faith amongst the CT community that individuals that reject common JFK assassination nonsense (impossible shots by LHO, et al) have somehow only agreed with the governments version of events and haven't any foundation for their pov's based on their own knowledge, training or experience.

I grew up on a shooting range. The minute I read accounts of events with details and heard various folks describe the shooting as somehow being beyond the range of mortals I knew I was reading absolute ******** - The WC report didn't bring anything to light wrt the facts that changed my opinion, and when I got myself to the scene of the crime my pov was set - the shooting performed by LHO was no one in a million shot by any means.

CTists might want to consider that certain folks in the world have first hand experience in various subject matters that refute common CT fantasy constructs and they need no go-ahead from usgov.org to state those opinions.
 
No Other said:
Suspicious should not be equated with being a CT. This is why it is difficult to bring up anything, in this forum, that is remotely counter to what the general public has been fed. I find the Paines suspect as they have a deep background yet the majority of the time the word "Quaker" is used to describe Ruth while her husband happens to have a job at Bell Helicopter.
Click to expand...

It isn't; suspicious for the sake of suspicion is the mark of one. This is why it's difficult for CTists to gain any ground here- you bring up suspicions that go nowhere and are disconnected from anything but the need for suspicion. Suspect the Paines all you want, but until you tie them into a sensical narrative of conspiracy, it's useless "whoa, dude, this is weird, huh?" pipe-talk.
 
BStrong said:
This assertion comes up so often that it's become a article of faith amongst the CT community that individuals that reject common JFK assassination nonsense (impossible shots by LHO, et al) have somehow only agreed with the governments version of events and haven't any foundation for their pov's based on their own knowledge, training or experience.
I grew up on a shooting range. The minute I read accounts of events with details and heard various folks describe the shooting as somehow being beyond the range of mortals I knew I was reading absolute ******** - The WC report didn't bring anything to light wrt the facts that changed my opinion, and when I got myself to the scene of the crime my pov was set - the shooting performed by LHO was no one in a million shot by any means.

CTists might want to consider that certain folks in the world have first hand experience in various subject matters that refute common CT fantasy constructs and they need no go-ahead from usgov.org to state those opinions.
Click to expand...

And it's an assertion usually made by folks without their own relevant knowledge, training, or experience, and based on what they've been fed by the CT books/articles.
 
turingtest said:
It isn't; suspicious for the sake of suspicion is the mark of one. This is why it's difficult for CTists to gain any ground here- you bring up suspicions that go nowhere and are disconnected from anything but the need for suspicion. Suspect the Paines all you want, but until you tie them into a sensical narrative of conspiracy, it's useless "whoa, dude, this is weird, huh?" pipe-talk.
Click to expand...
You are not in a position to lecture me. I never used the word conspiracy yet you invoke "narrative of conspiracy" during your admonition. Apparently, unless I am a CTer, there is not a path for discussion.
 
No Other said:
You are not in a position to lecture me. I never used the word conspiracy yet you invoke "narrative of conspiracy" during your admonition. Apparently, unless I am a CTer, there is not a path for discussion.
Click to expand...

Maybe if you couched your quibble in terms of pointing it out as a curious anamoly. Consider your audience: skeptics in a Conspiracy sub-forum, pining for any alternative to LHO dunnit by his lonesome, posed in a comprehensive format addressing consilience.
 
No Other said:
You are not in a position to lecture me. I never used the word conspiracy yet you invoke "narrative of conspiracy" during your admonition. Apparently, unless I am a CTer, there is not a path for discussion.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about discipline, NO- you're flailing around just like a CTist with suspicions of this and that, with no coherent point except suspicion, quacking just like a duck and denying you are one. You guys like to deny any need for an alternative theory by equating the issue with a trial, where only reasonable doubt is necessary, no requirement for anything else. But the time for trial has passed- this is history now, and the requirements of history are different. There is a body of consilient evidence that adds up to the conclusion that LHO, acting alone, shot JFK. Whether you like it or not, it's not enough to just cast shadows, you need a solid equivalent narrative that also accounts for all the evidence. History is "this is what happened"; you've reduced history to "I don't know what happened."

Don't like being lectured? Don't come to a skeptic's forum and flail.
 
No Other said:
You are not in a position to lecture me. I never used the word conspiracy yet you invoke "narrative of conspiracy" during your admonition. Apparently, unless I am a CTer, there is not a path for discussion.
Click to expand...



What connection do you believe that Michael Paine had to the assassination of JFK? Do you have any evidence other than "Hey, isn't it suspicious that Michael Paine worked for Bell Helicopter?"? So did thousands of other people in Texas at the time. So what?
 
cmikes said:
What connection do you believe that Michael Paine had to the assassination of JFK? Do you have any evidence other than "Hey, isn't it suspicious that Michael Paine worked for Bell Helicopter?"? So did thousands of other people in Texas at the time. So what?
Click to expand...

The CT narrative is that the Paine's were CIA.

Un-named sources (read as: unicorns) have stated R. Paine was collecting intelligence in Nicaragua while doing volunteer work and her family had eastern roots, etc. so she must be up to no good, and the guy that was taken into custody w/ piece in hand that he murdered a LEO with didn't do nothing wrong ad infinitum.
 
BStrong said:
This assertion comes up so often that it's become a article of faith amongst the CT community that individuals that reject common JFK assassination nonsense (impossible shots by LHO, et al) have somehow only agreed with the governments version of events and haven't any foundation for their pov's based on their own knowledge, training or experience.

I grew up on a shooting range. The minute I read accounts of events with details and heard various folks describe the shooting as somehow being beyond the range of mortals I knew I was reading absolute ******** - The WC report didn't bring anything to light wrt the facts that changed my opinion, and when I got myself to the scene of the crime my pov was set - the shooting performed by LHO was no one in a million shot by any means.

CTists might want to consider that certain folks in the world have first hand experience in various subject matters that refute common CT fantasy constructs and they need no go-ahead from usgov.org to state those opinions.
Click to expand...

Lol. Some of the best snipers in the world have said that they could not replicate those shots, and they were alledgedly made with a dollar store with the most defective scope ever. I'm not aware anybody replicating the shots. I know of one experiment in which an olympic sniper accomplished something similar... from a height of the third floor of the school book depository.
 
And I know of an experiment where Penn Jillette made the shots.

There is nothing about the shots that are improbable. But as they are also the best explanation for the totality of evidence, Oswald could have been lucky.

Though it os worth busting a certain myth.

Trying to replicate any EXACT series of hits is tricky, and nigh on impossible.

Asking, however, if a person can be hit three times in a frame of reference, from a location, to wound or kill, is more practicable.

Ask the worlds top snipers to replicate Oswalds timing or patterns, and they will always fail.

Ask them if they can JFK with three hits from a location, and you will get a useful answer.

Many of the experiments I have seen to prove "Oswald fired an impossible shot" just proved "this guy aims a little differently and pulls the trigger at a different time" or "three body shots is more intuitive than a head shot".
 
Tolls said:
And let's never forget that he missed one of them...
:)
Click to expand...

I contend he missed TWO of them.

I don't know what he was aiming at, but there is no reason to think that he was aiming at the back of the neck on one and at the head for the other.

I argue that he was aiming for the head on all three, and that's why he stopped when he hit it. If that is the case, then the second shot is a miss, because it hit well below the target.

Alternatively, you could argue that he was aiming for the torso, and stopped because he was dead. But then the third shot is a miss.

So Super Snipers contend that they could not hit an 8 inch target at 180 ft in one out of three attempts?
 
Tomtomkent said:
And I know of an experiment where Penn Jillette made the shots.

There is nothing about the shots that are improbable. But as they are also the best explanation for the totality of evidence, Oswald could have been lucky.

Though it os worth busting a certain myth.

Trying to replicate any EXACT series of hits is tricky, and nigh on impossible.

Asking, however, if a person can be hit three times in a frame of reference, from a location, to wound or kill, is more practicable.

Ask the worlds top snipers to replicate Oswalds timing or patterns, and they will always fail.

Ask them if they can JFK with three hits from a location, and you will get a useful answer.

Many of the experiments I have seen to prove "Oswald fired an impossible shot" just proved "this guy aims a little differently and pulls the trigger at a different time" or "three body shots is more intuitive than a head shot".
Click to expand...

I saw a recreation a while back where a guy exactly replicated the positioning of Connolly, JFK and Oswald at the time of the second shot (the single bullet), using model bodies made of the appropriate body-like materials. Using a rifle similar to Oswalds, he aimed at the spot where the second shot hit JFK in the back of the neck. In this exercise, he completely reproduced ALL of the wounds of the magic bullet - the exact entrance spot in JFK, the correct exit spot, the entrance into Connolly, the exit from Connolly and the hit into the thigh.

The ONLY thing that was not reproduced was that the bullet didn't lodge into Connolly's thigh, it only made a mark. All it had to do was come through on a different orientation and it would have lodged.

This is what happens when you actually do it right.
 
MicahJava said:
Lol. Some of the best snipers in the world have said that they could not replicate those shots, and they were alledgedly made with a dollar store with the most defective scope ever. I'm not aware anybody replicating the shots. I know of one experiment in which an olympic sniper accomplished something similar... from a height of the third floor of the school book depository.
Click to expand...

And I could accomplish something relatively easily that it would take thousands of trials to replicate.

I can flip a coin 20 times and whatever sequence I get would take roughly a million trials (2 to the 20th power or precisely one in 1,048,576 trials) to replicate precisely.

You're asking the wrong question.

Nobody needs to replicate the shooting exactly. All they need to do is put one shot in the head or through the heart. Any shooter who accomplished that accomplished what Oswald did.

Oswald didn't set out to perform the shooting a specific way, with one miss, one bullet going through two men, and another hitting the President in the head. That was the happenstance results of what he set out to do.

Oswald set out to kill the President. How many of those trials you're familiar with made at least one kill shot? More than 50%? That's really all those trials should be attempting to accomplish.

And most adequate shooters could accomplish that feat.

I used a 1917 Mannlicher Carcano (Oswald's was only 18 years old) in 2015 to shoot at targets from a bench rest (essentially what Oswald had from that window) and scored four hits on the target in six shots - three in the body and one in the neck. My weapon was more than five times older than Oswald's and still accurate enough for the task. Oh, and one more point. As a city kid, I had never shot a weapon before in my life. That was the first - and to date, only - time I ever fired a weapon at a target. Yeah, my target wasn't moving, but each of my six shots was at 100 yards, each longer than Oswald's longest shot.

And as to Oswald's weapon, it was tested and found to be as accurate as any modern military rifle at the time. The scope could not be sighted properly when found, but Oswald dropped it on the floor between some boxes and that could have caused the scope issue after the shooting. In addition, the iron sights were perfectly adequate for the shooting; Oswald trained at 200 and 500 yards in the Marines. And this shooting was - at its longest point - just 87 yards - about 1/6th the longer distance Oswald trained at only a few years before.

Your arguments are failures.

Hank

EDIT: I see TomTomKent made the same point I made about the replication aspect of the feat. Killing JFK is relatively easy from that location with that weapon. Replicating Oswald's feat is a different question - and the wrong one - altogether.
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
I saw a recreation a while back where a guy exactly replicated the positioning of Connolly, JFK and Oswald at the time of the second shot (the single bullet), using model bodies made of the appropriate body-like materials. Using a rifle similar to Oswalds, he aimed at the spot where the second shot hit JFK in the back of the neck. In this exercise, he completely reproduced ALL of the wounds of the magic bullet - the exact entrance spot in JFK, the correct exit spot, the entrance into Connolly, the exit from Connolly and the hit into the thigh.

The ONLY thing that was not reproduced was that the bullet didn't lodge into Connolly's thigh, it only made a mark. All it had to do was come through on a different orientation and it would have lodged.

This is what happens when you actually do it right.
Click to expand...

That's this episode from the DISCOVERY Channel, called Beyond the Magic Bullet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-5xfTKqf1A

If you go to the 1:16 mark, you'll see all you need to see.

And of course, the bullet didn't lodge in Connally, most likely it did almost exactly what the replicated shooting did... hit the thigh, make a small wound, and bounce off (and got trapped in his pants leg as it rebounded). The replication didn't use pants on the thigh, or a 'bunched' jacket and shirt for that matter.

EDIT: At 1:16:30 you can see the bullet missed the target mark on JFK by passing about an inch to the left of the actual wound. That, and the fact that it struck and damaged two ribs on the "Connally" target body (instead of only one Connally rib in the actual shooting), accounts for the additional damage to the bullet in the attempted replication. But that bullet remained in one piece and had an undamaged nose as well as CE399, although it is slightly more bent.

Conspiracy theorists like to pick apart the differences between this shooting and the actual, but ignore all the similarities.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Tomtomkent said:
And I know of an experiment where Penn Jillette made the shots.

There is nothing about the shots that are improbable. But as they are also the best explanation for the totality of evidence, Oswald could have been lucky.

Though it os worth busting a certain myth.

Trying to replicate any EXACT series of hits is tricky, and nigh on impossible.

Asking, however, if a person can be hit three times in a frame of reference, from a location, to wound or kill, is more practicable.

Ask the worlds top snipers to replicate Oswalds timing or patterns, and they will always fail.

Ask them if they can JFK with three hits from a location, and you will get a useful answer.

Many of the experiments I have seen to prove "Oswald fired an impossible shot" just proved "this guy aims a little differently and pulls the trigger at a different time" or "three body shots is more intuitive than a head shot".
Click to expand...

Penn Jillette rapidly cycling a Carcano rifle under his arm without aiming at anything is not an accurate experiment.
 
HSienzant said:
That's this episode from the DISCOVERY Channel, called Beyond the Magic Bullet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-5xfTKqf1A

If you go to the 1:16 mark, you'll see all you need to see.

And of course, the bullet didn't lodge in Connally, most likely it did almost exactly what the replicated shooting did... hit the thigh, make a small wound, and bounce off (and got trapped in his pants leg as it rebounded). The replication didn't use pants on the thigh, or a 'bunched' jacket and shirt for that matter.

EDIT: At 1:16:30 you can see the bullet missed the target mark on JFK by passing about an inch to the left of the actual wound. That, and the fact that it struck and damaged two ribs on the "Connally" target body (instead of only one Connally rib in the actual shooting), accounts for the additional damage to the bullet in the attempted replication. But that bullet remained in one piece and had an undamaged nose as well as CE399, although it is slightly more bent.

Conspiracy theorists like to pick apart the differences between this shooting and the actual, but ignore all the similarities.

Hank
Click to expand...

The deformation of the bullet is one thing, but it doesn't bother you at all that the trajectory in that video enters very close to where the T1 back wound was, only to exit out of the chest and continue on a much lower trajectory?

You also showed Dale Myer's cartoon. He never released his raw data so for all we know it is a cartoon. Anybody looking at that clearly see that he slightly raised the back wound and slightly lowered the throat wound (to the chest). He also apparently distorted Kennedy's anatomy in his back and neck area. There is actually no guarantee that his animation is consistent from each perspective. A fuller examination of the Myers animation is found here: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12c:animania

Experiments like the discovery channel and computer models like from Dale Myers would be a great place to start any new investigation, however the ones shown in your link does not live up to the standards of people who rightfully pay attention to details.
 
pgwenthold said:
I contend he missed TWO of them.

I don't know what he was aiming at, but there is no reason to think that he was aiming at the back of the neck on one and at the head for the other.

I argue that he was aiming for the head on all three, and that's why he stopped when he hit it. If that is the case, then the second shot is a miss, because it hit well below the target.

Alternatively, you could argue that he was aiming for the torso, and stopped because he was dead. But then the third shot is a miss.

So Super Snipers contend that they could not hit an 8 inch target at 180 ft in one out of three attempts?
Click to expand...

It would probably be wise for the popular official story to move their one missed shot to after the 313 head shot. It has a decent chance of explaining why the last two shots were close together.
 
HSienzant said:
And I could accomplish something relatively easily that it would take thousands of trials to replicate.

I can flip a coin 20 times and whatever sequence I get would take roughly a million trials (2 to the 20th power or precisely one in 1,048,576 trials) to replicate precisely.

You're asking the wrong question.

Nobody needs to replicate the shooting exactly. All they need to do is put one shot in the head or through the heart. Any shooter who accomplished that accomplished what Oswald did. .
Click to expand...

"Why did Oswald take three shots?"
"Because that is how many he needed to kill the President."

If he would have blown JFK's head away on the first shot, he would have stopped there. If he wouldn't have hit the third, he still had a 4th bullet to try again.
 
pgwenthold said:
"Why did Oswald take three shots?"
"Because that is how many he needed to kill the President."

If he would have blown JFK's head away on the first shot, he would have stopped there. If he wouldn't have hit the third, he still had a 4th bullet to try again.
Click to expand...

Are you insisting that the (at least) one missed shot could not have been the last shot? There couldn't have been a shot between the 190-222 shot and the 313 shot (if you really stretch the realm of plausibility, Robert Harris's shot at 285 is the closest thing you could agree with). There is also very little evidence for any shot before 190. When was the missed shot?
 
MicahJava said:
Lol. Some of the best snipers in the world have said that they could not replicate those shots, and they were alledgedly made with a dollar store with the most defective scope ever. I'm not aware anybody replicating the shots. I know of one experiment in which an olympic sniper accomplished something similar... from a height of the third floor of the school book depository.
Click to expand...

No.

Lol. Some of the best snipers in the world have said that they could not replicate those shots
Click to expand...

Name them.

The issue with recreating the assassination is that those events are mostly done on firing ranges that have been modified to match the elevation of the shooter, and the declination of Elm Street. Range shooting is ALWAYS different than real world shooting. There's just your weapon and a paper target mounted to plywood. There's no emotional component.

This is from 1967:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoTmczjJcHk

Elite forces conduct exercises where their operators are physically and mentally stressed. My mom could - and did - put all of her rounds from her M-1 in center mass at 100 yards when she went through basic (she was on the WACS pistol team), but when under stress she folds up like a wet paper bag.

I can't image looking through that scope and seeing the back of Kennedy's head, the adrenaline must have pegged.

Say what you will about Oswald, he made it through USMC boot camp (back when it was hard), and defected to the Soviet Union. That took a special kind of nerve.

and they were alledgedly made with a dollar store with the most defective scope ever.
Click to expand...

Again, not true. It wasn't a great scope but it was enough, and the way it's set up on the rifle you can switch to iron sites instantly. The rifle is still in use in Africa, the myth of the Carcano being a crap rifle was generated by JFK Ctists and not by people who know firearms.


I'm not aware anybody replicating the shots.
Click to expand...

Google is your friend.

Magic Bullet, complete with deformity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZRUNYZY71g

Head shot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RX2phbWmgA

Bonus: Head shot from Grassy Knoll:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RCX3RdVHqo

Here's what you have to understand about guns: They never lie.

Starting at the point of impact, you determine the trajectory, and work backwards. The 6.5×52mm Carcano Model 91/38 is the first and last word in the JFK Assassination because it was the only weapon capable of doing the DOCUMENTED damage recorded that day.

Had it been a .306/.762 you could argue endlessly about other gunmen. Had it been a .306/.762 Oswald lands all three rounds, maybe more. In Texas in 1963, the list of men owning a .306/.762 would have stretched for miles, but the guys with a 6.5x52mm was pretty short.

This was Oswald's rifle. He bought it, posed for TWO photographs with it. Took it to the range a couple of times where people saw him fire it viciously. He might as well have carved his initials and SSI# on the buttstock.
 
Okay, Axxman300 brought up way too many points way too quickly. I'll make one rhetorical question: Is it intentional comedy that so many propaganda hitpieces make such lame "recreations" that don't recreate anything? I swear this has to be a tradition at this point. Take National Geographic's 2013 program JFK: The Lost Bullet for example. They used a laser beam to demonstrate a straight single-bullet trajectory from the snipers nest, but deceptively edited the scene to hide that the demonstration actually took place further down the road.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom