JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

No Other said:

Now that you brought up the ability to SEE if a gun had been fired... did the FBI and/or Dallas Police SEE if the rifle had been fired?

Click to expand...

You already admitted it was.

Do you remember writing this?

No Other said:

You are only offering evidence that the bullets recovered came from the rifle.

Click to expand...

The six pieces of evidence (three shells, two large fragments, and one nearly whole bullet) came from that rifle. The only time the limo (where the two fragments were recovered) was in the vicinity of the rifle was during the assassination. Thus, the rifle was used during the assassination, and is shown to be 'recently fired'. Q.E.D.

Hank

HSienzant said:

See, the earth has this thing called mass, and mass has an attractive force called gravity. Objects with mass will be pulled toward the earth's center of mass, meaning they will drop if not suspended by a force greater than the force of gravity. Let me know if you need more details.

Click to expand...

If you care to get scientific, then explain how Newton's First Law went into effect which allowed gravity to put it's full destructive force upon the weapon?

So don't be too quick to disregard that evidence that those six pieces of evidence were fired from the rifle. It's ALSO the evidence that establishes the rifle was used that day -- i.e., recently fired.

Click to expand...

Explain what you mean. The bullets only prove that they were fired from the rifle, there is nothing in the bullets that provides a time frame.

And you ignored this point: Are you suggesting it was planted with a defective scope? If not, what exactly are you suggesting?

Click to expand...

This is classic Hank, when you are painted into a corner you start attributing thoughts that were never expressed and you then wish for me to respond. I will treat your question as rhetoric.

No Other said:

Again, I am not doubting or questioning if the bullets came from the rifle, I am discussing the time frame.

Click to expand...

Then discuss the time frame. The fragments were recovered by the Secret Service. The bullet was found by a custodian, and was given to the Secret Service, who gave it to the FBI. The three shells were found by Sheriff's deputies, and recovered by the Dallas Police. All that evidence was in the collected on the day of the assassination. That's the time frame in question.

All those have a legitimate evidence trail, all are entered into evidence. All point to the rifle being used in the assassination.

Spell out your version of events. Cite the evidence for your version of events. Name the test you say should have been utilized, but wasn't.

Hank

No Other said:

If you care to get scientific, then explain how Newton's First Law went into effect which allowed gravity to put it's full destructive force upon the weapon?

Click to expand...

Newton's first law has exactly what to do with the evidence of the rifle being found with a defective scope?

Newton's first law of motion - An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

The rifle was found at rest. With a defective scope. You brought up the issue of the defective scope. You tell us how it's pertinent to the assassination, without assuming what you need to prove.

No Other said:

Explain what you mean.

Click to expand...

Already did. You snipped it.

No Other said:

The bullets only prove that they were fired from the rifle, there is nothing in the bullets that provides a time frame.

Click to expand...

Au contraire. Here's the explanation again:

HSienzant said:

The evidence those six pieces of evidence came from that rifle is the evidence the rifle was recently fired.

First off, It's not bullets, plural. It's one nearly whole bullet, two large bullet fragments, and three spent shells.

One bullet was found in Parkland and two large bullet fragments were found *in the limo* the evening of the assassination. Clearly, those two bullet fragments and that one bullet got there only one way, via the assassination. It's the only time the limo was in the vicinity of the rifle, which was recovered from the Depository building the shooter was seen in by numerous witnesses. The limo went by the Depository at 12:30 on 11/22/63. Three shots were heard by a majority of the witnesses, and two victims in the limo were struck by gunfire. The bullet then fell out of John Connally's pants leg in the hospital and was recovered from his stretcher, the two fragments were remnants of the shot that hit JFK in the head. All three pieces of evidence were ballistically traceable to the weapon recovered in the Depository. To the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

In addition, three shells were recovered at the sniper's nest window in the Depository (the southeast corner window on the sixth floor). All three of those shells were traceable to the same weapon as the bullet and the two fragments. To the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

So don't be too quick to disregard that evidence that those six pieces of evidence were fired from the rifle. It's ALSO the evidence that establishes the rifle was used that day -- i.e., recently fired.

Click to expand...

Just because you snip something doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

So the time frame is 12:30 on 11/22/63. That's the intersection of the rifle, the three shells, the two large fragments, and the one nearly whole bullet. And the two victims of gunfire in the limo. Unless you care to introduce other evidence. Note I said *evidence*, not conjecture or speculation or innuendo.

No Other said:

This is classic Hank, when you are painted into a corner you start attributing thoughts that were never expressed and you then wish for me to respond. I will treat your question as rhetoric.

Click to expand...

I'm not painted into a corner. I've backed up my claims by referencing the evidence I'm using to reach that conclusion. It's an entirely reasonable conclusion, supported by the evidence.

You brought up the defective scope. I've asked how it's pertinent to Oswald's capability to use the weapon to commit the assassination. You haven't told us.

I've asked what you're suggesting about the damage to the scope - as you're questioning if it was damaged between the time of the assassination and afterward when it was examined by the FBI - then you're suggesting it was damaged before the assassination. Aren't you? You haven't told us.

As you're questioning also whether Oswald committed the assassination, I asked if you're suggesting that the rifle was planted with a defective scope to frame Oswald. You haven't told us.

You haven't told us what exactly you're suggesting. We're all dying to know.

So, revisiting the damaged scope, why'd you bring it up, and what exactly are you suggesting?

We're still waiting for your reasonable conclusions, supported by the evidence.

Hank

No Other said:

This is an easy and often performed test (at least by the Phoenix Police).

Click to expand...

Taking you at your word, that's a test the Phoenix police are utilizing currently.

Was it a test they were utilizing in 1963?

Was anyone utilizing that test in 1963?

Was it a common and often utilized test in 1963?

Did any 1963 or prior criminology texts mention this test?

There are, for example, DNA tests available today that if the rifle was recently fired, we might be able to retrieve skin cells from the weapon and test those cells for DNA and determine if it was Oswald's DNA on the weapon.

But such DNA tests did not exist in 1963, and asking why these DNA tests weren't performed on the rifle in 1963 would be silly and pointless - as is your asking about this copper pitting test, unless and until you establish it was a common test in 1963.

Ball in your court.

Cite your evidence for circa 1963 testing of this nature.

See, the way it works, is, if you make a claim, it's your responsibility to back up your claim. No one has to disprove your claim, which is apparently what you're waiting for us to do. It doesn't work that way.

Hank

No Other said:

Read carefully what I wrote... snip... "Heck, we are talking about a rifle that was never even tested for recent firings when in the hands of the Dallas Police or FBI." The key component of the previous sentence was recent firings. Show me where the Dallas Police and/or the FBI checked the weapon for recent firings. You are only offering evidence that the bullets recovered came from the rifle.
... and who determines what is "reasonable"?

Click to expand...

Hey, Sherlock, THERE IS NO TEST TO CHECK IF A WEAPON HAS BEEN RECENTLY FIRED.

Never was, and they can't even do it today with all of our high-tech goodies. The FBI lab doesn't even waste its time on GSR today.

So while you're all worked up about a non-existent test that cops and FBI didn't apply, because there wasn't one, you're ignoring the body of the evidence which is the bullets and the rifle.

Thanks for playing.

Good reading about GSR evidence collection and how good it is and is not:

http://www.forensicsciencesimplified.org/firearms/how.html

Not that any CTer will bother with facts.

No Other said:

If you care to get scientific, then explain how Newton's First Law went into effect which allowed gravity to put it's full destructive force upon the weapon?

Click to expand...

There's an old saying: Never bring Newton to a gunfight.

The Carcano's greatest attribute is that it is rugged, just like any battle rifle made before 1964. Solid wood and metal construction with few moving parts. This is why you can still find it in use in Africa today, you can't break one easily. You can go to the National Archives, load Oswald's rifle today, and kill people with it. He could have tossed it out of the 6th floor window and they still could have fired it (maybe after gluing the stock).

The bullets only prove that they were fired from the rifle, there is nothing in the bullets that provides a time frame.

Click to expand...

Other than they were pulled from the body and the car? Yeah, no time frame.

No Other... I gave you the standard reference book for forensic examinations at the time. It claims no test could determine how recently a gun had been fired. It directly quotes that the tests offer no time frame. Are you able to support any of that with citations? And I would find it incredibly odd if the tests used in firearms were uniquely accurate for the time compared to any other test available in industry.

And yes. I "just made a statement", because, well.... Test firsings in a factory fire the gun. With a cartridge. Which leaves residue. So...yeah... As far as the forensics at the time were concerned, proving a gun had been fired did nt prove it had been fired at any given time.

But again, these tests were redundant. Because there was evidence of cartridges being spent and bullets being fired from that rifle, to the exclusion of all others.

Care to offer a better explanation of the evidence?

Or is an argument that there was a supposed gap in evidence, that might somehow mean something different happened, all you have?

Because REALLY, even if a test was not carried out, given the only shells and bullet fragments recovered were from that rifle, what dreaded revelation are you hoping it will prove?

Just once, instead of trying to pluck holes in the WC, it would be nice if a conspiracy theorist just gave us their complete theory. Who shot JFK, how, and the cover up.

Axxman300 said:

Hey, Sherlock, THERE IS NO TEST TO CHECK IF A WEAPON HAS BEEN RECENTLY FIRED.

Never was, and they can't even do it today with all of our high-tech goodies. The FBI lab doesn't even waste its time on GSR today.

So while you're all worked up about a non-existent test that cops and FBI didn't apply, because there wasn't one, you're ignoring the body of the evidence which is the bullets and the rifle.

Thanks for playing.

Click to expand...

You need to speak from a position of knowledge and currently you do not possess this base. Metal fouling is accepted by any person who has handled a rifle as this is a "go no-go" gauge. It will eliminate a suspected weapon if there is evidence of it NOT being used. There is absolutely no evidence that this weapon was shot from the 6th floor conversely there is no evidence that it was not. I have never said that the bullets recovered were not shot from the rifle but you continue to express the non sequitur as if this proves that LHO shot that rifle from the 6th floor. If peeling back the onion is beyond your capacity, say so, but if it isn't then piece together the sequence of events. If you believe in the "magic bullet" then you will be able to put your mind around the ability to test for metal in the barrel of a rifle.

Question: If this is not a test then why did the McCloy of the WC ask FBI Agent Frazier if they tested for this?



A total lack of knowledge much less understanding are not credentials for being an expert but cute little tidbits like "thanks for playing" are nuggets that are the beginnings for a mountain of wisdom.

Tomtomkent said:

Just once, instead of trying to pluck holes in the WC, it would be nice if a conspiracy theorist just gave us their complete theory. Who shot JFK, how, and the cover up.

Click to expand...

Yes, it would be nice. But the culture of that conspiracy genre has gone beyond even saying they can't do it to asserting that they don't need to. But as always with armchair detectives, it's so much easier to prove your genius by poking holes in other people's investigations that by, you know, investigating on your own.

HSienzant said:

See, the way it works, is, if you make a claim, it's your responsibility to back up your claim. No one has to disprove your claim, which is apparently what you're waiting for us to do. It doesn't work that way.

Hank

Click to expand...

Expect your rules do not apply for you. You have yet to explain how you know the rifle was dropped. All you have provided is a guess but you passed it off as fact. I loved it when you said "gravity" as if gravity put the rifle in motion and the result was a scope that went out of alignment. Then after others said the fixed sights were sufficient you joined that bandwagon but you had no idea until it was brought to your attention. Give me your facts about the rifle dropping.

By the way, you have acknowledged that you do not know very much about weapons yet there is haranguing on the formality of the test. Testing for metal in the barrel is conducted by virtually every owner of rifles and handguns, to attempt that it is not used is futile especially from a person who admittedly is a novice when it comes to rifles.

No Other said:

You need to speak from a position of knowledge and currently you do not possess this base. Metal fouling is accepted by any person who has handled a rifle as this is a "go no-go" gauge. It will eliminate a suspected weapon if there is evidence of it NOT being used. There is absolutely no evidence that this weapon was shot from the 6th floor conversely there is no evidence that it was not. I have never said that the bullets recovered were not shot from the rifle but you continue to express the non sequitur as if this proves that LHO shot that rifle from the 6th floor. If peeling back the onion is beyond your capacity, say so, but if it isn't then piece together the sequence of events. If you believe in the "magic bullet" then you will be able to put your mind around the ability to test for metal in the barrel of a rifle.

Question: If this is not a test then why did the McCloy of the WC ask FBI Agent Frazier if they tested for this?



A total lack of knowledge much less understanding are not credentials for being an expert but cute little tidbits like "thanks for playing" are nuggets that are the beginnings for a mountain of wisdom.

Click to expand...

Better study up on a subject before you post.

There is one and only one "go-no-go" gauge wrt fireams, and here they are:

http://thecmp.org/training-tech/armorers-corner/headspace/


The “GO” gauge - is most commonly used when installing a new barrel and reaming the chamber to size. The bolt should fully close on the “GO” gauge, if it fully closes you can be sure you have enough room in the chamber to prevent the cartridge from being crushed during chambering. The “GO” gauge can also be thought of as a minimum safe headspace gauge and the rifle's bolt must be able to fully close with it in the chamber.

The “NO GO” gauge - is used to make sure a firearm does not have excessive headspace. The bolt should NOT fully close on the “NO GO” gauge, if the bolt cannot be closed on the “NO GO” gauge then you know your rifle does not have headspace that is excessive. The “NO GO” gauge can be thought of as a maximum headspace gauge and should not be able to fit in the rifle's chamber with the bolt fully closed. If the bolt DOES close on the “NO GO” gauge, it does not necessarily mean that the rifle is unsafe; it does however show that a further check with the “FIELD” gauge would be necessary to determine if it is safe to shoot.

The go-no-go gauge is used to check the headspace of a rifle to ensure it's safe to fire and nothing more. If you have evidence to the contrary, as in a technical description by a manufacturer, I'm very interested to see it.

No Other said:

Expect your rules do not apply for you. You have yet to explain how you know the rifle was dropped. All you have provided is a guess but you passed it off as fact. I loved it when you said "gravity" as if gravity put the rifle in motion and the result was a scope that went out of alignment. Then after others said the fixed sights were sufficient you joined that bandwagon but you had no idea until it was brought to your attention. Give me your facts about the rifle dropping.

By the way, you have acknowledged that you do not know very much about weapons yet there is haranguing on the formality of the test. Testing for metal in the barrel is conducted by virtually every owner of rifles and handguns, to attempt that it is not used is futile especially from a person who admittedly is a novice when it comes to rifles.

Click to expand...

It's entirely possible that I have more time involved in live firing than you do on this planet.

The bolded above is pure ********. You clean firearms after use. You're not "testing" for anything, and once a firearm has been fired more than 3 - 5 rounds there will be metal deposits in the barrel forever.

There is and has never been a forensic test that can determine when a specific firearm has been fired.

No Other said:

You need to speak from a position of knowledge and currently you do not possess this base.

Click to expand...

The standard for forensic testing at the time was Frank Lundquist, Methods of Forensic Science, Volume I, (1962) Page 628 is the pertinent page. With the position of knowledge you possess, please could you indicate where the test you describe can be found.

Here:

When a firearm has been discharged, if its barrel is not carefully cleaned afterward, there will remain traces of sulfate and potassium salts in the case of a charge of black powder, and traces of nitrates and sulfates when the charge was smokeless. In addition, there will be traces of the primer

Click to expand...

Sounds promising right?

However, it is practically impossible to say how long the residue left by firing of powders (or primers) has been in a barrel

Click to expand...

Uhoh!

Therefore, if the firearm has not been carefully cleaned after firing, all that can be said is that it has been fired.

Click to expand...

Well, there you go. From the handbook of the day. You are speaking nonsense and demanding a test that would be used. Did they look to see if the gun had EVER been fired, at any point since the test firing in the factory?

Who cares!

They know the gun must have been fired, because they had bullets and shells!

No Other said:

Expect your rules do not apply for you. You have yet to explain how you know the rifle was dropped.

Click to expand...

Because he stated a reasonable conclusion and the means by which he reached it. How do you think the rifle came in contact with the floor?

No Other said:

All you have provided is a guess but you passed it off as fact.

No the one who seems to be calling it a "fact" is you.

No Other said:

I loved it when you said "gravity" as if gravity put the rifle in motion and the result was a scope that went out of alignment.

Click to expand...

However, gravity is a reasonable enough basis to conclude the rifle was dropped from the evidence. You asked him how he knew it fell there, and he could have said "common sense" or "the most likely explanation for how it ended up behind the box". All are reasonable routes to his conclusion.
The F word was bandied around, best as I can see tracking back through the conversation, by you.

As far as I can see it should be abundantly clear by now, but for some reason you want to act like you are both stating things as fact. He isn't, you appear to be trying to. So...

No Other said:

Then after others said the fixed sights were sufficient you joined that bandwagon but you had no idea until it was brought to your attention. Give me your facts about the rifle dropping.

Click to expand...

...please try to understand the difference between facts and conclusions.

No Other said:

By the way, you have acknowledged that you do not know very much about weapons yet there is haranguing on the formality of the test. Testing for metal in the barrel is conducted by virtually every owner of rifles and handguns, to attempt that it is not used is futile especially from a person who admittedly is a novice when it comes to rifles.

Click to expand...

Great. Point to it in the text book used by forensic labs at the time, to show it would be EXPECTED from the FBI or Dallas police. Please. Prove us wrong.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Even the most through cleaning will not remove all traces of chemical and metal fouling from a firearm's barrel.

Most high quality firearms are tested by the builder or manufacturer and when the end user runs a dry patch through the bore prior to the first use, you'll always get residue left over from the test firing - and the builder or manufacturer will have cleaned the piece before shipping.

I've handled out-of-the-crate issue weapons that have been test fired w/o the best scrub job, and that first dry patch will come out dark brown or black, even if they were using non-corrosive ammo for the test firing.

BStrong said:

Even the most through cleaning will not remove all traces of chemical and metal fouling from a firearm's barrel.

Most high quality firearms are tested by the builder or manufacturer and when the end user runs a dry patch through the bore prior to the first use, you'll always get residue left over from the test firing - and the builder or manufacturer will have cleaned the piece before shipping.

I've handled out-of-the-crate issue weapons that have been test fired w/o the best scrub job, and that first dry patch will come out dark brown or black, even if they were using non-corrosive ammo for the test firing.

Click to expand...

But I can find no evidence of a test used by the authorities at the time, that would suggest any way of determining WHEN a gun was fired. Or if it was recent. To my reading the text books available to the labs suggested that the residue could only suggest the gun was fired at some point.

But then, the spent bullets prove that, so... why test it?

Tomtomkent said:

But I can find no evidence of a test used by the authorities at the time, that would suggest any way of determining WHEN a gun was fired. Or if it was recent. To my reading the text books available to the labs suggested that the residue could only suggest the gun was fired at some point.

But then, the spent bullets prove that, so... why test it?

Click to expand...

You're 100% correct - chemical traces and projectile material in the bore will give evidence that a given weapon was fired, but there is no test that can determine when that firing took place. If there are other pieces of associated evidence in hand recovered concurrently or at some later time (brass casings, spent projectiles, powder traces on victims/objects, unfired cartridges from the same production lot) it may be determined that a particular weapon was used at a particular point, but without that additional evidence no determination can be made that the weapon in question was fired at a particular time and place.

BStrong said:

You're 100% correct - chemical traces and projectile material in the bore will give evidence that a given weapon was fired, but there is no test that can determine when that firing took place. If there are other pieces of associated evidence in hand recovered concurrently or at some later time (brass casings, spent projectiles, powder traces on victims/objects, unfired cartridges from the same production lot) it may be determined that a particular weapon was used at a particular point, but without that additional evidence no determination can be made that the weapon in question was fired at a particular time and place.

Click to expand...

Given all that has been quoted is a claim somebody once said there was a test, and it not featuring in the literature at the time, I see no reason to offer the benefit of the doubt of there being a test.

It seems to be one of those things that CTists enthuse SHOULD have been done, with no actual real world basis.

Kind of like the assumptions made about latent prints, that seem to ignore why the prints from the rifle can be tied to the rifle by markings FROM the rifle. Or "well, there were no prints after the first ones were lifted," etc.

NSFW - autopsy photograph

No Other, if you think the 313 shot came from the front, why does most of the debris appear to be thrown forward? Also, why does his head go slightly forward at 313 (I think even adjusting for the blur in that frame) and slightly tilt at 314 the way it does? Just interested. I'm kind of interested in the explanation that the backwards head movement is some kind of natural recoil that the neck muscles would do when strained so quickly, or the chin just bouncing off the chest. Not saying there wasn't any activity in the grassy knoll area, though.

MicahJava said:

NSFW - autopsy photograph

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/ml3rWwF.jpg[/qimg]

Click to expand...

Yes. The shot as described by the WC did cause a large ejection wound, that stretched a long way down the side of the head.

Are you finally agreeing that the WC was correct? Or are you, at some point, going to post any evidence that can ONLY be explained by an additional gunshot from another location?

Better yet: Why not just tell us what your theory is for the events of the day, in detail, start to finish?

Tomtomkent said:

Yes. The shot as described by the WC did cause a large ejection wound, that stretched a long way down the side of the head.

Are you finally agreeing that the WC was correct? Or are you, at some point, going to post any evidence that can ONLY be explained by an additional gunshot from another location?

Better yet: Why not just tell us what your theory is for the events of the day, in detail, start to finish?

Click to expand...

Boswell is saying that the red spot next to the ruler is nothing more than a minor defect on the scalp, and that the real entry wound was much lower. That picture shows the scalp being pulled back a bit, so that spot was actually way above the level of the ears. As long as everybody agrees the cowlick entry wound is bunk, and that the small wound was really located lower in back of the skull, my quest for right now is complete.

Tomtomkent said:

Given all that has been quoted is a claim somebody once said there was a test, and it not featuring in the literature at the time, I see no reason to offer the benefit of the doubt of there being a test.

It seems to be one of those things that CTists enthuse SHOULD have been done, with no actual real world basis.

Kind of like the assumptions made about latent prints, that seem to ignore why the prints from the rifle can be tied to the rifle by markings FROM the rifle. Or "well, there were no prints after the first ones were lifted," etc.

Click to expand...

I've rarely seen the flag of ignorance waved more enthusiastically than the go-no-go gauge idiocy above, and I can't wait to pass that nugget of nuttiness around.

MicahJava said:

No Other, if you think the 313 shot came from the front, why does most of the debris appear to be thrown forward? Also, why does his head go slightly forward at 313 (I think even adjusting for the blur in that frame) and slightly tilt at 314 the way it does? Just interested. I'm kind of interested in the explanation that the backwards head movement is some kind of natural recoil that the neck muscles would do when strained so quickly, or the chin just bouncing off the chest. Not saying there wasn't any activity in the grassy knoll area, though.

Click to expand...

Or the back brace JFK wore.
Or the force of the bouncing back from the limit of movement.

Why do CTists presume they can explain any or every apparent movement? There are limits to the analysis we can perform, and too many variables to claim absolute certainty of every point. There are key moments we can compare to other evidence, but pretending we can divine every gesture and motion is trying to read too much from limited information.

MicahJava said:

As long as everybody agrees the cowlick entry wound is bunk, and that the small wound was located lower in back of the skull, my quest for right now is complete.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but this post is completely unclear what you are trying to say. And tracking back through your arguments is not making it any clearer what a "cowlick" wound is meant to be, and what that has to do with the exit portal of the wound...

Tomtomkent said:

Sorry, but this post is completely unclear what you are trying to say. And tracking back through your arguments is not making it any clearer what a "cowlick" wound is meant to be, and what that has to do with the exit portal of the wound...

Click to expand...

This is the location of the official cowlick entry wound:



They want you to believe that every professional who placed the small wound lower, at or below the level of the ears, made a mistake of at least four inches.

A more accurate location:

So... you are using "cowlick wound" instead of any more accurate term, because you want to argue that a wound that seems visible in that photograph, that coincides with the diagrams, you just posted, is not actually there?

No Other said:

Expect [sic - except] your rules do not apply for you. You have yet to explain how you know the rifle was dropped.

Click to expand...

It was damaged when found. Either it was damaged after the assassination - which you appear to be arguing against - or it was damaged before the assassination. I suggested a perfectly reasonable explanation for how it suffered the damage after the assassination. You have yet to explain what exactly you're complaining about, what your theory is (damaged before or after), and how it's pertinent to any point you're trying to make.

Not a good showing for you thus far. We're still awaiting an explanation of why you brought up the damaged telescopic sight, and what you hope to establish.

No Other said:

All you have provided is a guess but you passed it off as fact.

Click to expand...

That which I stated is, in fact, the most reasonable conclusion. The other possibility is that it was damaged before the assassination. I pointed out the conspiracy conclusion that would lead from that (it was planted to frame Oswald although it already had an out-of-alignment telescopic sight), but you chose to label it rhetoric, but didn't otherwise respond to the point.

We're still waiting for you to flesh out what you think happened here, and how it furthered a conspiracy before or after the fact.

No Other said:

I loved it when you said "gravity" as if gravity put the rifle in motion and the result was a scope that went out of alignment.

Click to expand...

That's the force that explains it most reasonably. I suppose the shooter / conspirator could have brought along a mallet and gave it a whack just before he used it or just before he planted it, but I see no reason to make the scenario more complicated than it needs to be. My toaster fell on the floor a few weeks ago when I forgot to unplug it and pulled the table it was resting on away from the wall. It's now got a big dent on one side but is fortunately still functional. Dropping something explains a lot of damage, and I don't see why you're looking for something besides the proffered explanation for the damage to the scope. It certainly explains the damage to the telescopic sight pretty well, and a heck of a lot better than any explanation you've offered (we're still waiting for your first explanation for the damage).

No Other said:

Then after others said the fixed sights were sufficient you joined that bandwagon but you had no idea until it was brought to your attention.

Click to expand...

You've scrambled the conversation beyond recognition.
(a) "Gravity" came after the fixed sights were discussed, not before. You have the conversation backward.
(b) I already pointed out you're wrong in your supposition about what I knew and when I knew it; I knew about the iron sights 50 years ago. Repeating your favorite theory despite being told it's untrue (and having no evidence for it) doesn't make you more credible. It makes you less credible.

No Other said:

Give me your facts about the rifle dropping.

Click to expand...

Asked and answered. See post 1432 here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11494099&postcount=1432

No Other said:

By the way, you have acknowledged that you do not know very much about weapons yet there is haranguing on the formality of the test.

Click to expand...

You're mis-stating what I said. I said I never fired a weapon before July 5th, 2015, when I fired a 1917 Mannlicher-Carcano and made four of six shots in the target at 100 yards. I've read extensively on that weapon and related weapons.

The what you define as "haranguing" was me asking you to document your claims about the test as expressed here:

HSienzant said:

It's a minor visual test? What's it called? Who can perform it? What qualifications are needed to perform this test? Can you cite any criminology books that mention this test? Or any court cases? Or are you just believing what you read in conspiracy books?

Click to expand...

You still haven't cited anything. Nothing. Zero. Zip. Zilch.

No Other said:

Testing for metal in the barrel is conducted by virtually every owner of rifles and handguns, to attempt that it is not used is futile especially from a person who admittedly is a novice when it comes to rifles.

Click to expand...

Sorry, calling me a novice does NOT establish your claim is true. Claiming it's done by 'virtually every owner of rifles and handguns' doesn't establish it either. Claiming it's 'futile' to question this doesn't establish it either.

You know what does establish it? Citations to verifiable sources. When can we expect those?

Still waiting for something on this test that can be independently verified. An anonymous poster (i.e., YOU) making claims on this board does not suffice as proof of anything.

Got anything besides your opinion? The closest you came was claiming you were told this by the Phoenix police, but you cited nothing that could be verified.

Conspiracy theorists make a lot of claims in these threads. Most of them are never sourced. Try something different. Try making claims you can actually establish as true.

Hank

Tomtomkent said:

So... you are using "cowlick wound" instead of any more accurate term, because you want to argue that a wound that seems visible in that photograph, that coincides with the diagrams, you just posted, is not actually there?

Click to expand...

The red spot on that photo isn't the real wound and the autopsy doctors knew it. The HSCA diagram is based on the location of the red spot. All evidence points to the small wound being by the external occipital protuberance.

MicahJava said:

NSFW - autopsy photograph

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/ml3rWwF.jpg[/qimg]

Click to expand...

Is it Dr. Petty, Dr. Pity, or Dr. Perry asking the questions?

Or all three?

And this testimony was 14 years after the assassination, correct?
You think recollections from that many years after the fact are worthy of credence?

Hank

MicahJava said:

The red spot on that photo isn't the real wound and the autopsy doctors knew it. The HSCA diagram is based on the location of the red spot. All evidence points to the small wound being by the external occipital protuberance.

Click to expand...

Can you circle it on the photograph?

You see, my issue is "all evidence" doesn't point to it being anywhere else.
We know this by virtue of MichaJava himself posting diagrams that seem to place it exactly where it appears to be in the photographs. I also find it highly suspect to be quoting evidence about the exit of the wound, and using a nonsensical term like "cowlick wound" to show how little evidence there is, rather than quoting the evidence for the entry of the wound.

MicahJava said:

Boswell is saying that the red spot next to the ruler is nothing more than a minor defect on the scalp, and that the real entry wound was much lower. That picture shows the scalp being pulled back a bit, so that spot was actually way above the level of the ears. As long as everybody agrees the cowlick entry wound is bunk, and that the small wound was really located lower in back of the skull, my quest for right now is complete.

Click to expand...

How many years after the fact did Boswell testify to this?

Oh, that's right. Fourteen years.

Who agrees with you? I don't. Neither do the HSCA pathologists who examined the extant autopsy materials. What is your expertise on this subject and why should we assume your interpretation of the evidence is correct?

Hank

No Other said:

You need to speak from a position of knowledge and currently you do not possess this base.

Click to expand...

Actually I'm pretty solid on Kindergarten-Grade ballistics and shooting. When I did ride-alongs with my local police I once asked about the test to see if a gun had been recently fired and 4 cops snort-laughed, and told me "good luck with that".

Here we are in 2016 with all kinds of gee-whiz tech and we still can't tell if a weapon was fired an hour ago or last year.

Metal fouling is accepted by any person who has handled a rifle as this is a "go no-go" gauge. It will eliminate a suspected weapon if there is evidence of it NOT being used.

Click to expand...

Yeah...no...

There is absolutely no evidence that this weapon was shot from the 6th floor conversely there is no evidence that it was not.

Click to expand...

All the evidence points to it being shot from the 6th floor, and being the ONLY weapon involved.

I have never said that the bullets recovered were not shot from the rifle but you continue to express the non sequitur as if this proves that LHO shot that rifle from the 6th floor.

Click to expand...

His gun, his bullets, his place of work from which he was the only one who fled, his prints on the gun, and GSR on both hands.

If peeling back the onion is beyond your capacity, say so, but if it isn't then piece together the sequence of events. If you believe in the "magic bullet" then you will be able to put your mind around the ability to test for metal in the barrel of a rifle.

Click to expand...

You know what? I believe in ghosts, but I don't believe in an accurate test to see if a weapon has been fired within a fixed time frame. The irony here is that both do not exist, and while my belief is inconsistent with my knowledge you won't catch me posting things I can't prove on this board.

Question: If this is not a test then why did the McCloy of the WC ask FBI Agent Frazier if they tested for this?

Click to expand...

Because he probably thought the FBI had magic powers.

A total lack of knowledge much less understanding are not credentials for being an expert but cute little tidbits like "thanks for playing" are nuggets that are the beginnings for a mountain of wisdom.

Click to expand...

Dude, I was a JFK-CT moron just like you. For most of 30 years I made the same stupid arguments you and MC are making right now. I believed that all of those authors who'd written all of those books knew what they were talking about. I thought they had done their homework. Turns out that not a single one of them had ever considered Oswald as the lone shooter, and instead had worked to prove whatever slackjawed theory they were pedalling .

The fact that there is no single consistent counter-theory to the WC should be a giant red-flag to any sane, intellectually honest person.

More to the point, JFK was not a great president, and there was no guarantee he would be re-elected in 1964. So why kill him? The only one with motive on 11-22-63 was Oswald, and his motive was to get into Cuba, and the history books.

Plus, I love when a CTer complains about lack of credentials since CTers base their existence on ridiculing people with credentials.

Thanks for playing.

HSienzant said:

Is it Dr. Petty, Dr. Pity, or Dr. Perry asking the questions?

Or all three?

And this testimony was 14 years after the assassination, correct?
You think recollections from that many years after the fact are worthy of credence?

Hank

Click to expand...

Lol, it's just Dr. Petty. The optomised character recognition messed up where I copy and pasted it from.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=601&relPageId=4&search=lacerated_scalp

Since Humes and Boswell handled the body for several hours and have both remained consistent on that issue since the day of the assassination, I do put credence in their statements.

Got anybody who handled the body and placed the small wound was above the level of the ears?

Tomtomkent said:

You see, my issue is "all evidence" doesn't point to it being anywhere else.
We know this by virtue of MichaJava himself posting diagrams that seem to place it exactly where it appears to be in the photographs. I also find it highly suspect to be quoting evidence about the exit of the wound, and using a nonsensical term like "cowlick wound" to show how little evidence there is, rather than quoting the evidence for the entry of the wound.

Click to expand...

MicahJava's evidence appears to be taken from self-proclaimed experts knowledgeable in the fine art of screenshot analysis.

Tomtomkent said:

Or the back brace JFK wore.
Or the force of the bouncing back from the limit of movement.

Why do CTists presume they can explain any or every apparent movement? There are limits to the analysis we can perform, and too many variables to claim absolute certainty of every point. There are key moments we can compare to other evidence, but pretending we can divine every gesture and motion is trying to read too much from limited information.

Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem; there's a multitude of explanations for JFK's rearward movement, and conspiracy theorists universally adopt the one they like (a shot from the right front moved JFK back) and typically simply disregard or denigrate the others.

They offer no solid reasons to dispute the other reasons, they simply claim it must be a bullet (because, of course, they want it to be a bullet).

Hank