JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales
- Thread starter Robert Harris
- Start date
- Status
That's how it was found.
That quote and the metal probe that is documented in writing along with the FBI report are damming evidence there was fiddling going on during the autopsy to prove a shot from the rear for the throat wound. Also, the two shot versus three shot testimony by Lipske is further evidence.
The casket switch as noted by Horne, however, sounds pretty contrived to me. I'm not at all convinced of that. It's like a lot of other things, very conflicting.
Linky
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
The reason I questioned the timing was that the thing that started me on the road to lone nut theory believer was when, after reading a few conspiracy books, I picked up a copy of the actual Warren Report. I was very surprised to see that figure of 8.3 seconds, because the books I read usually said less than 6. There is no book entitled "Eight Seconds in Dallas."
Similar things happened when I read about the "magic bullet".
The thing was that it didn't immediately make me believe the single bullet theory. It wasn't a case of "the Warren Commission said a single bullet caused multiple wounds, but that is impossible, due to X...." Rather, it was what the books said about the Warren Commission itself. In other words, the books said, "The Warren Commission said 'X'.", but when I read the Warren Report, the commission didn't actually say that. Specifically, in this case, I had read that the Warren Commission had said all the shots were fired in the space of 5.6 seconds, or lower. However, the commission didn't say that.
It is possible to dispute the correctness of the Warren Commission's conclusion, or even of it's data. However, one cannot reasonably dispute the existence of the report, and I found that many authors could not, or chose not to, accurately cite the contents of the report.
Fortunately, that's not the case here. You have cited a correct value.
I participate in speed shooting contests myself. The format is almost always the same. 30 seconds to fire as many shots as you can. I'm not very good at it myself. I never win the contests. Lots of people fire faster/more accurately than I can. I can almost always get six shots off. At least half the time I can get seven. On a really good round, I can get eight shots off, so I always bring eight arrows to the range. Yes, arrows. The weapon I use is a longbow. On those good days, I can get 8 shots off. If you assume the first is ready (we are allowed to knock, but not aim, before the command to fire) that means a rate of 1 every 4.3 seconds. That's slightly slower than Oswald would have required.
I don't know much about Mannlicher Carcanos, or Enfields, but I'll bet you can fire them a lot faster than you can fire a longbow.
The shot just isn't remarkable. A lot of people who have watched various documentaries have questioned the shooting, but guys who try to shoot rifles very fast don't seem to think it was all that difficult.
Try googling "bolt action speed shooting". There are plenty of videos. I saw one that had 15 shots in 12 seconds. No, it wasn't with a Mannlicher. It was a Winchester 72. I don't know if that's faster or slower, but it could be a whole heck of a lot slower before it got to 3 or 4 seconds between shots. No one would bother putting up a youtube video of hitting two out of three shots in a period of 8, or even 6, seconds.
Then we move onto another point of contention you brought up in the post, now a few pages ago, that I originally responded to. The "pristine bullet". No way could it do that much damage and be so little damaged itself.
I had read about "what the Warren Report said". It's in quotes, because when I read what it really said, it didn't match what the books said it said.
There was a lot of talk about pristine bullets. I learned, I believe in the report itself, but perhaps in some commentaries, that the phrase "pristine bullet" has a specific meaning in ballistics literature, and it doesn't mean "a bullet with very little damage". It means a bullet, fired from a barrel of a gun, before colliding with any object. A ricochet is not a pristine bullet, regardless of its condition.
Meanwhile, I also learned that the bullet that the Warren Commission concluded caused those multiple wounds, really wasn't all that "pristine", even using the non-technical meaning of the word. It had significant damage, but most of the damage was at the base of the bullet, not the tip.
How do you damage the base of a bullet? Especially without damaging the tip? Contemplating how that might happen would, all by itself, strongly lead one to something a lot like the single bullet theory.
Or...not? What says the conspiracy theories? I usually see them handwave it away, as if the question was not significant. Have you seen a good explanation? Let's review the claims of the Warren Report, and come up with an alternative explanation. We have a bullet, flattened at the base, with minor damage at the tip. We have Governor Connally's wrist, broken, but not shattered. We have a thigh wound where a bullet broke the skin, but fell out. How do those things happen?
I, personally, think there's an explanation that requires one bullet. Note I am not saying "only" one bullet. I'm not saying that one bullet is possible. I'm saying it's hard to put all of those pieces together and come up with two bullets, unless possibly one was a very small caliber bullet, from a handgun or a .22 rifle, but there is strong evidence that was not the case. What does the conspiracy theory say?
Last edited:
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
One more thing, regarding motive.
Presidents have enemies. Lots of people would like to see Presidents out of the way. We'll assume that a lot of them would be perfectly willing to see them dead, if that's the only way to get them out of the way.
I won't be discussing motive any farther, except possibly as it relates to some specific detail. Mostly, I will be focusing on the mainstream theory that Lee Oswald was the only person to fire shots in Dealey Plaza that day.
Presidents have enemies. Lots of people would like to see Presidents out of the way. We'll assume that a lot of them would be perfectly willing to see them dead, if that's the only way to get them out of the way.
I won't be discussing motive any farther, except possibly as it relates to some specific detail. Mostly, I will be focusing on the mainstream theory that Lee Oswald was the only person to fire shots in Dealey Plaza that day.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Being of Sicilian heritage, I've heard every Italian joke there is, but one that I heard as a kid even before the assassination was this:
"Who put the six bullets in Mussolini's head?
Six thousand Italian marksman."
Take that for whatever it's worth, but wrt marksmanship:
The above is the love of my life (The woman, not the rifle.) Shooting an SPR type AR platform rifle I assembled. She had limited experience with the platform, and had never even seen an ACOG type rifle sight in her life. She has hunting experience w/ a bolt action rifle in .300 WinMag on game in Alaska, and has extensive sporting clays shooting under her belt.
The target, 100 yards. Her groups are at 1 O'clock high. 5 rounds under 1 minute of angle, the standard that precision shooting in competition or tactically is judged - this with an optic that wasn't designed with precision in mind using high quality (but not match quality) ammunition. This is a shooter with little formal training, far less than any Marine of LHO's day, using a rifle and optic she wasn't trained on or familiar with before this day.
My groups are clustered in the X and 10 rings, 5 shot strings one after another at and under 1/2 minute of angle.
The point is this: Marksmanship is a mystery to many folks w/o formal instruction. To individuals with formal training, especially folks that work at it, marksmanship becomes part of your muscle memory.
If a trained shooter goes into the zone when they shoot, what is amazing to the layman is par for the course for the trained shooter, which LHO was.
I'd like to reference something here I touched on earlier, but with a RL example:
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2007/07/sarver-shoots-1403-group-at-1000-yards/
"Tom Sarver has entered the ranks of the Immortals. Shooting at the Thunder Valley (Ohio) Range on July 7th, Tom nailed a truly spectacular 1.403″ 5-shot group at 1000 yards. This represents a new IBS Light Gun group-size record that edges Rich DeSimone’s 1.564″, previously thought “untouchable.” What is even more amazing is that the group was centered, producing a 50-score with 5 Xs. That will be a new IBS Score record as well."
I shoot at extended ranges (over 600 yard/meters) less than I used to, and I've shot a bunch at 1000, but on my best day I'd be absolutely thrilled to shoot .7 minute of angle anywhere on the target at 1000.
The fact that I couldn't match Sarver's record with a year of live fire practice has no bearing on his ability to shoot that well
That's why your inability to match LHO's performance has no bearing on his ability to make those shots.
Axxman300
Philosopher
The fibers of JFK's jacket, shirt, and neck tie all indicate the bullet struck from behind and exited out the front.
The two Parkland doctors in that video I posted discussed the confusion of the wound.
I can respect all of you who have posted your experiences with bolt action rifles, speed competition, et al... I really do but what you all are familiar with is that one rifle is not the same as the another. There has not been one Rifleman who has taken the rifle that is suspected in the killing of JFK and shot it with the accuracy that is given to the person who shot Kennedy. Many have tried but none have been successful until that feat is accomplished, all that is being said is very interesting but it will not advance the case of a Lone Gunman.
Axxman300
Philosopher
In case some of you don't know, the National Archives has a nice photo gallery of the evidence. This is for the Carcano:
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305134
They're a solid resource.
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305134
They're a solid resource.
It's in the Warren Commission. It's in photographs of the weapon as it was recovered in the depository.
https://youtu.be/YY9Mr0TbhaY
In case some of you don't know, the National Archives has a nice photo gallery of the evidence. This is for the Carcano:
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305134
They're a solid resource.
Thanks
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
You're incorrect:
Howard Donahue:
Donahue first became interested in the story of the assassination of John F. Kennedy after being invited to participate in a re-creation of the shooting as one of eleven invited marksmen and sharpshooters.[2] He demonstrated that it would have been possible for Lee Harvey Oswald to have fired three shots in the time specified by the Warren Commission, and was the only one of the eleven to better the 5.6-second window. However the experience highlighted to Donahue other concerns regarding the Warren report, and in particular the fact that the testimony of ballistics experts seemed to have been completely omitted from the Commission's evidence gathering.[4
And as I note above, Because someone is unable to duplicate what someone else has done does not constitute evidence that the initial activity did not take place.
HD's completion backwards theory based on his own ability to actually duplicate LHO's performance is even worse in my POV than the "nobody can do it" side of the street.
I can't duplicate the shooting feats of Sarver.
Or Mcgivern:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_McGivern
Or Topperwein:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Topperwein
Or Miculek:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Miculek
or Munden:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Munden
Or Satterwhite:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Satterwhite
That in no way establishes that they didn't do what they're famous for.
Based on everything I've read about it, the rifle is a POS.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Not one?
The Carcano was the weapon of choice at the turn of the century for distance shooting competitions in Europe, and it is still used in Africa today.
Plus Youtube is full of guys shooting well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZLbaC3Gp-8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80pRECh4RCg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcjKYBccoqs
This one has targets at 650 yards:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy_T7D2-Y3o
These are from the guys at the NRA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ub3HT-lPJ0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIto9j0mxaE
Just shooting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-to90d1Uf8
So no, not one, many shooters.
Axxman300
Philosopher
But it's not. That's the problem, I read the same things back when I bought into the CT. The problem is that the Carcano was a functional rifle. The Italians wouldn't have wasted time producing it if the thing was crap, and it was not.
The Carcano was used by big game hunters in the 1920s to kill elephants because the 6.5x 52mm round could penetrate the skull with no problem, and this meant they didn't have to lug around the heavier elephant guns of the time.
More to the point, the Carcano was a rifle Oswald could afford. Even today they're available for under $1,000, which is good for an antique.
Again, look at this from the point of view of putting together a conspiracy...
Why a Carcano instead of a garden variety .306 hunting rifle? Why buy the one rifle that would have a unique ballistic signature? A .306 in Texas would be impossible to track down in 1963, they'd have to search almost every house and apartment in the entire state because they're just that common.
Then, like you said, the Carcano wasn't the greatest rifle out there, so why risk your operation with a $13 rifle? You're not robbing a liquor store, you are shooting the President of the United States, and you're only going to get one chance, so why take a chance on an unknown Italian rifle?
And yet there it was, killing JFK, and striking two men with a single bullet - just as advertised. If it was a conspiracy with two shooters whomever planned it was a moron.
So you concede that the time window of the shots is possible, but you have read that the rifle stinks. What about the videos just posted? How do you plan to proceed here? Any specific point that would make or break the case?
Since there are several posters that are reviving the Lifton/Horne "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" theory of the assassination, I have a very simple question. Has anyone with any medical experience ever endorsed the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" theory? The reason I ask is that even conspiracy theorists with medical training don't seem to believe that any wounds made in JFK's body post-mortem would look at all similar to any wounds that actually happened at or just before his time of death. The only people I've ever heard of supporting the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" theory are people without any medical experience at all, so if anyone has any links I would appreciate it.
There's also the fact that the Lifton/Horne theory depends almost exclusively on the witness statements of people present at the autopsy and not on the medical evidence itself since according to the theory it's all fake. I think the biggest weakness of the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" theory is that in any conflict between witness testimony, no matter how long after the fact, and the physical evidence it's automatically assumed that the witness testimony is completely true and any physical evidence that contradicts it must therefore be faked. This, of course, reverses the normal procedure for historical studies where verified physical evidence is considered more reliable than testimony and statements given sometimes decades after the fact.
And as a final point, if we're to consider all witness testimony as one hundred percent reliable, there's this from James Sibert's ARRB testimony.
Both the Lifton and the Horne variations of the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" theory absolutely depend on the fact that JFK's body was not in the casket shipped from Dallas. In both variations the body had been stolen by the evil forces of THEY to be modified to match a single shooter from behind, even though you would think it would be easier for THEY just to have a single shooter from behind, but we can ignore that bit of illogic for the moment. If the theory means that we always take witness statements at their word, what does Sibert's testimony mean for the theory?
There's also the fact that the Lifton/Horne theory depends almost exclusively on the witness statements of people present at the autopsy and not on the medical evidence itself since according to the theory it's all fake. I think the biggest weakness of the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" theory is that in any conflict between witness testimony, no matter how long after the fact, and the physical evidence it's automatically assumed that the witness testimony is completely true and any physical evidence that contradicts it must therefore be faked. This, of course, reverses the normal procedure for historical studies where verified physical evidence is considered more reliable than testimony and statements given sometimes decades after the fact.
And as a final point, if we're to consider all witness testimony as one hundred percent reliable, there's this from James Sibert's ARRB testimony.
Both the Lifton and the Horne variations of the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" theory absolutely depend on the fact that JFK's body was not in the casket shipped from Dallas. In both variations the body had been stolen by the evil forces of THEY to be modified to match a single shooter from behind, even though you would think it would be easier for THEY just to have a single shooter from behind, but we can ignore that bit of illogic for the moment. If the theory means that we always take witness statements at their word, what does Sibert's testimony mean for the theory?
If Oswald was the "Patsy" that he said he was a conspiracy theory would fit quite nicely. Who really cared what rifle he had. If the conspiracy was that someone contrived to show Oswald as the lone shooter or if there was no conspiracy then your theory makes perfect sense. That doesn't prove anything at all, it's irrelevant to reaching any kind of conclusion at all.
Remember where they were. That town was owned by LBJ and his cronies. If it was moronic that fits too, LBJ was a supreme idiot. There are simply too many loose ends for my satisfaction.
Don't put me in the hard core CT faction, I'm mostly just very extremely skeptical and to some extent always have been.
BTW: I think you're referring to a .30-06, not a .306
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
Why bother debating how good the rifle was? In the only experiment of it's kind, the HSCA did an experiment where they roped off Dealey Plaza and fired shots from the TSBD and the Grassy Knoll while two observers reported where they perceived the shots coming from. The data says that a shot from the TSBD sounds like a shot from the TSBD and a shot from the Knoll sounds like a shot from the Knoll.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0074b.htm
Since we have half of all Dealey Plaza witnesses screaming from the highest mountains they heard shots from the Knoll area, we can't just say it was confusion or something like that. It had to be an issue of acoustics.
It looks like there was either some activity from the Knoll area, or shooters from behind were using noise-suppressors in conjunction with supersonic ammunition. Noise-suppressors can create the illusion that a gunshot originated from the opposite direction that it truly did.
Diagram from a publication by the Military Armament Corporation about noise-suppressors:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0074b.htm
Since we have half of all Dealey Plaza witnesses screaming from the highest mountains they heard shots from the Knoll area, we can't just say it was confusion or something like that. It had to be an issue of acoustics.
It looks like there was either some activity from the Knoll area, or shooters from behind were using noise-suppressors in conjunction with supersonic ammunition. Noise-suppressors can create the illusion that a gunshot originated from the opposite direction that it truly did.
Diagram from a publication by the Military Armament Corporation about noise-suppressors:
Last edited:
The problem with that is that the vast majority of earwitnesses in Dealy Plaza only heard shots from one direction. If you're going to go with the minority of earwitnesses that heard only shots from the grassy knoll, are you now claiming that there were zero shots from the rear? You were arguing just a few pages ago that there was a rear entry wound in JFK's head, you just placed it lower than the authenticated photos and x-rays placed it. Are you now dismissing your previous claim?
Precisely. I don't think a single witness out of the hundred plus that were in the Plaza claimed to hear shots from 2 directions. They were either all from the Knoll or all from the Depository.
Since we know for a fact that all wounds in the rear of Kennedy and Connally were entrance wounds, and we know for a fact that multiple witnesses testified to seeing a gunman firing from the 6th floor window, the conclusion must be that anyone claiming all shots came from the knoll is simply wrong.
Also, if we're giving credence to earwitnesses, over 90 percent of them heard 3 shots or fewer.
Interesting read and a good point.
Another discrepancy here. Remember, Finck who arrived at about 8:30 said the brain had been already removed when he arrived. Finck was a forensic pathologist, so he ought to know.
If this is all correct we have to assume both Humes and Finck made a mistake in their observations about previous surgery. Are we to assume Humes mistook the skull damage as surgery? However, there are photos of the head with the brain removed. So, we have to assume those photos were taken at another time, not during the autopsy. On the other hand, the undertaker took possession of the body immediately after the autopsy. No wonder there's confusion. There's all kinds of room to invent a conspiracy or conspiracies here.
As far as Dr. McClelland goes, which version of this statements are you going by? Dr. McClelland was, by all accounts, a good person and a good doctor, but he was a lousy witness. He gave at least three versions of what he saw regarding the head wound over the years.
First, there's his testimony to the Warren Commission.
That's a little bit further back than the authenticated photos and x-rays have the wound, but it's pretty close and his locating the wound a bit further towards the back of JFK's head can probably be explained by JFK lying on his back and so the blood and brain matter from his wound would be draining towards the back of his head.
Then there was the famous picture that he supported that everyone's seen a million times of JFK's head wound being completely in the back of his head with nothing at all wrong with the side of his head.
Second picture down at http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm
This not only is at odds with the wound location he gave to the Warren Commission, but it also conflicts with his testimony that he never looked at the back of the President's head.
If that drawing is accurate, how could anyone see it without lifting the President's head?
Then, in 1988, NOVA did a special on the assassination and got the Parkland doctors to look at the authenticated photos and x-rays of the autopsy, and Dr. McClelland said "I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they're shown very vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly . . . ". Which conflicts not only with his approved conspiracy drawing, but also slightly differs from his Warren Commission testimony.
So, as with a lot of witness testimony separated by decades, we're left with what version of a witness's statements do we believe?
Well, sure, you can invent a conspiracy anywhere. Maybe aliens did it with a death ray and then mind controlled everyone into believing that bullets did all the damage.
As far as the "surgery" comment that Humes made, we have to remember that Humes wasn't very familiar with gunshot wounds so he was probably surprised at just how much damage a high powered rifle shot could do to a person's head at close range. He stated that Oswald's bullet had done so much damage that he didn't even have to do any sawing of the skull to remove the brain. And as far as I know, Finck never made any comments about prior surgery. This is from a memo that Finck wrote after the autopsy.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/finck1.htm
There are several problems with the "Oswald as patsy" theory. The first of which is how did the evil forces of THEY even know who Oswald was? How did THEY know that Oswald had ordered a rifle? How did THEY know to get Oswald a job at the TSBD even before JFK's trip to Texas had been announced, let alone before the parade route had been decided?
The biggest question of "Oswald as patsy", though, is if you're trying to set up a "lone nut" patsy for an assassination, why would you have three or four people firing at the target? Instead of having a literal cast of thousands all set up to get rid of all the real evidence and replace it all with fake evidence in such a way that none of it can be detected decades later, why not just have one guy commit the assassination in the first place?
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
I think that witnesses would probably lend more credence to where they thought they heard the last shot come from. I think there are only a very small amount of witnesses who indicated the possibility of two different sources for the loud reports.
You should see that the witnesses would totally be compatible with shooters from the rear using noise-suppressors in conjunction with supersonic ammunition. That would explain a lot. People standing right outside of the TSBD thought the shots came from the Knoll.
There is no chain of custody for any of the autopsy films, but giving you that you're still playing pretend. "The American Doctors Association" says Subway is a healthy chain of restaurants. The ARRB showed the X-rays to three fresh forensic experts and neither of them identified a clearly visible entry wound. A new panel of medical experts would be a good idea to get to the bottom of the issues with the X-rays (the autopsy professionals already gave their clear interpretation of the official photographs, they say the red spot is either blood or a defect related to the large head wound). Any random rich person could pay to consult forensic experts on the X-rays available to the public, so it doesn't necessarily have to be an official investigation unless you want to have the original X-ray films enhanced using modern technology.
Last edited:
Good questions. I believe the parade route was provided to the general public only on the morning of 22 Nov., but I'm pretty sure all of the principles knew the route well before hand. In fact, I'd guess LBJ and Connally were the principles who helped decide on the route. How anyone would have known LHO prior is anyone's guess. There is a tremendous amount of speculation that LHO had intelligence connections. Maybe that's simply speculation, but it all doesn't emanate from the conspiracy crowd.
The Body Snatcher theory is so preposterous it's actually quite funny anyone would believe it. It has more twist and turns than a corn maze. It's equivalent to some of the same type of crap that was invented by 9/11 conspirators like aircraft swaps and the Pentagon flyover.
I was not familiar with Lipton's Book and Horne is so detailed it easy to be sucked in. He quotes the time of arrival at Bethesda of the "shipping casket" substantiated with interviews so that it's quite convincing. He doesn't cover the period at Love Field during which time the body would have to be snatched, so it's easy to be mislead by that portion in just accepting it as fact. After reading a good account of that period it's obvious that the Body Snatch theory is pure hokum.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Probably from someone who would assert that a Thompson Submachine Gun is uncontrollable in full auto fire and the .357 magnum bullet will go through an engine block.
It doesn't measure up to the Swedish Mauser in 6.5 x 55 mm (the Carcano is in 6.5. x 52R) in build quality and for sure isn't a no4 MK2 Enfield.
Think of it as the difference between the HK G3 and the SIG 510. One is rough, one's the Rolex watch of military rifles. They both get the job done.
You must read some of the same Gun Forums as I do.
That may be true. As we know some gun owners think theirs is the best and unless it also has a $ 1000 scope it is a POS. I have no first hand experience with the rifle, so I only know what I've read about it...
Last edited:
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
To repeat a question (slightly different phrasing).
CE399, the "magic bullet", is a round made for a Mannlicher-Carcanno rifle. It has very little damage to its tip. It has significant flattening at the base.
What could cause that sort of damage?
(Related question: Governor Connally suffered a wound to his thigh from a bullet that penetrated his skin, but fell out. What sort of bullet could cause that sort of wound?)
CE399, the "magic bullet", is a round made for a Mannlicher-Carcanno rifle. It has very little damage to its tip. It has significant flattening at the base.
What could cause that sort of damage?
(Related question: Governor Connally suffered a wound to his thigh from a bullet that penetrated his skin, but fell out. What sort of bullet could cause that sort of wound?)
I do have a 6.5 Carcanno. Admitting that mine no doubt differs in many minor respects from the weapon in question, I can say that my particular rifle is quite smooth, reliable and accurate. The trigger is not competition grade, but is quite good for a military issue rifle. Cycling is not as slick as an SMLE, but is smoother and faster than a Mauser or Springfield. The challenge of three rounds in 8.3 (or even 6.4) seconds with one hit on point of aim at under a hundred yards is not impossible.
I'd speculate that it tumbled and entered Connally backwards or perhaps sideways. I think the bullet in his thigh was just shallow (you said it fell out), more or less a superficial wound. I have not seen a detailed description of his wounds. Now, whether this was the bullet that went thru Kennedy's throat or a different bullet is still up in the air for me.
I read a test/simulation in an attempt to recreate the exit of a bullet from JFK's neck and then hit Connally using pork skins to simulate the neck area. The creator of that experiment was able to reproduce JFK's neck wound due to tight shirt collar restricting the skin to produce an exit woudd that was more similar in appearance to an entry wound. That test/simulation is more convincing than anything else I've seen. The medical results are simply too confusing and contradictory to be of much use at all.
I have two additional questions about bullets. What about the bullet that hit the top of the windscreen frame? There is a photo of that. Also, what about the glancing bullet that hit the guy in the face down by the underpass. There were more than three shots, it seems to me.
The parade route was first published to the public on Nov. 19th in the Dallas Times-Herald. It was also published that same day in the Morning News.
As far as who decided on the parade route, it was close Kennedy adviser Kenneth O'Donnell that made the decision to hold Kennedy's speech at the Trade Mart and Secret Service agents Winston Lawson (the White House advance agent) and Forrest Sorrels (agent in charge of the Dallas office) who decided on the actual route. There's no evidence that LBJ or Connally had anything to do with actual route, although they may have been involved in asking JFK to make a Texas campaign trip.
A lot of the details are found here.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/route.htm
Of course, if THEY were subverting some of Kennedy's closest associates and agents of the Secret Service, the question becomes why assassinate him in such a way that requires hundreds, if not thousands of other members of THEY to pull off?
Even if THEY wanted to make sure Kennedy died in Texas for some unknown reason, why have three, four, or a dozen people firing at Kennedy and then depend on a massive cover-up to hide all the evidence of different bullets all coming from different directions? Including having to steal the President's body in order to have it modified by a sooper-sekrit team of surgeons to hide all evidence of any shots from the front and having people in the DPD, more people in the Secret Service than already required, and a bunch of people in the FBI to cover-up all the evidence in order to carry out the evil plot of THEY?
Why not just put one guy in the TSBD and shoot him?
Thanks for that analysis. I don't recall anyone saying it was impossible. I said it was improbable. That was until Meadmaker prompted me to look at the Warren Commission times. I had remembered the time was about 6.2 seconds. I should have reviewed that prior to making the comments I made. I agree now, that in 8.3 seconds is posssible, but I'm skeptical of the 6.x time for shots at a moving target. It's impossible for me to determine the timing based on the Zapruder film.
I'm skeptical of accepting the Warren Commission as the ultimate authority just as much as I am at accepting the CT versions.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
I'm an old fart that either owns, has owned or at the very least has trigger time on every firearm or caliber I referenced in the post. There are few things funnier in the shooting world than introducing a shooter to the TSMG that has no trigger time on the piece who believes the myths about TSMG controllability in full auto. First magazine always brings wonderment.
Lots of folks have very strongly held opinions about various firearms/calibers that are based in myth, not reality. It raises it's ugly head often in discussions involving the assassination.
Well, if THEY want to make sure he was killed, why not more than one shooter. If there was more than one shooter, it worked pretty well. Also, if there were more teams at other locations along the route, that worked too.
Col Fletcher Prouty, who worked in Special Ops at the Pentagon in my opinion is a credible person. He thinks that Gen. E. Lansdale was in Dealey Plaza on 22 Nov. Lansdale was an expert at clandestine operations and reputedly one of the best. I haven't decided if I accept all of that yet.
As I said previously, the Body Snatcher theory is preposterous. No, I don't believe that at all.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Typical WWI-WWII service rifle caliber full metal jacket projectiles that penetrate tissue on humans or animals that don't impact major bone structures often display the flattening evident in CE399. I've seen pics of a 30/06 projectile that had noticeable bending along with the flattening as on CE 399 after impacting and transiting a human. It also did not have any "mushrooming" on the tip, just like CE399. The CE399 round also excreted lead from the core through the base of the projectile. That is common as well.
The final impact of CE399 was at a point where the energy had fallen off to the point where it caused slight injury rather than the typical level of penetration that would occur if the round have not already transited JFK & Connally.
Bullet wounds are sometimes shocking in both ways. The typical carnage is readily understood but on the other end of the scale I know two individuals that survived headshots from the combloc 7.62 x 39 round. One ended up disfigured with a speech impediment from a round that struck him from behind and slightly above - not too dissimilar to JFK - that fractured his skull, broke his jaw and took off a good bit of his tongue. The other was hit just about between the eyes as he ran down a steep incline, right towards the fight. When the round impacted it cut a furrow in his skull w/o penetrating and went on it's way. The guy stayed in the fight. We break his balls off and on about always looking surprised. His scar kind of looks like an exclamation mark.
Last edited:
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
As a practical manner, even in legitimate use of precision fire, having more than one shooter per target only increases the chances of failure, not success. Adding complexity and command and control redundancy only gets you more moving parts to fail.
Criminal use and intent has a whole different set of problems on top of what I note above. Every individual in a conspiracy, whether it's a JFK fantasy scenario or a real world scam or theft only makes it more likely to be discovered andnit means more mouths to talk.
- Status