ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags HSCA , JFK assassination , Kennedy conspiracies

Closed Thread
Old 18th May 2017, 06:20 PM   #3801
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,044
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
But is it 40.2" or is it 36" ?

And who measured it and when for what reason?
It's 40.2" as measured after the assassination.

Mr. EISENBERG - Have you measured the dimensions of this rifle assembled, and disassembled?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, I have.
Mr. EISENBERG - Could you give us that information?
Mr. FRAZIER - The overall length is 40.2 inches. It weighs 8 pounds even.


Jack White computed the length of the rifle in the backyard photos and got different lengths. It was shown he didn't know JackWhite about computing lengths in photos.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 18th May 2017 at 06:41 PM.
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th May 2017, 06:27 PM   #3802
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,044
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
What makes you think LHO wanted a 40.2" over a 36" rifle?
What makes you think he noticed the difference?


Originally Posted by No Other View Post
You are assuming LHO liked the longer rifle
You're assuming he measured it and noticed the difference. If he didn't notice, what was to dislike?

I dealt with the ramifications of him not noticing earlier in this thread. You ignored it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3272



Originally Posted by No Other View Post
you are assuming LHO was able to get the rifle from the post office when the package was addressed to Hidell.
Asked and answered. Repeatedly.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 18th May 2017 at 06:45 PM.
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th May 2017, 06:28 PM   #3803
OKBob
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 127
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
he's ignoring the fact that the ad for the rifle changed from 36" to 40" at about the time Oswald ordered the weapon, that Klein's used the same catalog number for both weapons, and that the weapon that Oswald had possession of about a week after the shipment was the 40" rifle bearing the serial number C2766.
This is pertinent and well noted, Hank.
OKBob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th May 2017, 06:31 PM   #3804
OKBob
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 127
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
What makes you think he noticed the difference?
Right. Or that LHO cared about the original 36-inch spec in the first place (he was buying 20-dollar war surplus). Or noticed the difference any more than Wesley Frazier could accurately note the actual length of the bag at a casual glance.
OKBob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th May 2017, 06:46 PM   #3805
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,044
Deleted
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 18th May 2017 at 06:48 PM.
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th May 2017, 06:59 PM   #3806
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,044
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
Klein shipped the rifle with the serial number C2766; this is where the entire issue of the serial number started, Klein has records that show the 36" rifle had the previously mentioned serial number.
No, they don't have records showing that. That is your argument from the fact that Oswald ordered from an older order form that showed a 36" rifle, along with the PRESUMPTION that he was shipped what he ordered.

But as I've shown, the catalog number of C20-T750 was not unique to the 36" rifle. It also appeared in ads for the 40" rifle.

http://s1110.photobucket.com/user/jo...incha.jpg.html

So your argument fails because the basis for your presumption is shown to be faulty.

The order form references that Oswald was shipped a rifle with the catalog number of C20-T750. That could be the 40" rifle. It's solely your presumption that they shipped the 36" rifle. Your entire argument is based on this presumption. And your entire argument fails because the presumption is unproven.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 18th May 2017 at 08:39 PM.
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th May 2017, 07:09 PM   #3807
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,984
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
You're buying into his argument, but his argument is based on the fact that Oswald ordered a 36" rifle, ergo, he must have been shipped that.

That "ergo" is the problem, because he's ignoring the fact that the ad for the rifle changed from 36" to 40" at about the time Oswald ordered the weapon, that Klein's used the same catalog number for both weapons, and that the weapon that Oswald had possession of about a week after the shipment was the 40" rifle bearing the serial number C2766.

Buying into any portion of his argument is a mistake.

Hank
I find his argument hilarious, that's all.

It's as silly as silencers being used. Such an obvious red herring, and everyone knows it.

The need to have a second gunman and or having Oswald being framed has been a solid dead-end since day one. If CTers need a conspiracy they can look into who Oswald knew, and cobble together a story from there, but they won't because this would require real work, and that's a shame because you never know what new nugget of information will pop into the light.

I know there is probably nothing to find, but that's where any real CT would be discovered, and while it's not as sexy as multiple gunmen in Dealey Plaza with Mob/CIA backgrounds, but would change history just enough to make it worth an honest historian's time. The fact that not many have chosen to go this route tells me all I need to know.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th May 2017, 08:43 PM   #3808
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,044
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Where did Oswald get the 40" MC he was holding in the backyard photo?
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
That is not for me to determine...

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Who was sent the 40" MC with serial number C2766?
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
I do not know.

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Are you claiming that a 36" MC existed with serial #C2766?
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
That is what Klein's records show... this is not my claim.

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Where is the 36" MC with serial #C2766?
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
I don't know

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Are there any extant photos of a 36" MC with serial #C2766?
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
That is a question for Klein's to answer as I do not have access to their archive.

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
What happened to the 36" MC serial #C2766?
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
I do not know

If you can't explain the simple ramifications of your argument, why do you expect others to accept your argument? Further, why do YOU accept your argument? If it follows from the facts, it should make sense and have logical consequences. Your argument doesn't make sense and doesn't have logical consequences.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 06:13 AM   #3809
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,044
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Do you have evidence of other MC rifles with duplicate serial #'s?

Originally Posted by No Other View Post
Why would I care; I am not the one making the claim that the serial number on the 36" should be on the 40.2" rifle.
You've got it bass-ackwards.

You're the one claiming that the serial number C2766 known to be on the 40.2" rifle found in the depository and in the National Archives today was also on a 36" rifle.

You need to provide the evidence of this 36" rifle with the serial number C2766. Thus far you have merely presumed it solely from the catalog number in an older advertisement. You also assumed the catalog number was unique to the 36" product, but I have shown you advertisements with the same catalog number but for the 40" rifle.

You have admitted (based on your erroneous presumption) you don't know where the 40" C2766 rifle came from, that Klein's records show a 36" rifle with that serial number (they don't), that you have no evidence of this 36" rifle with that serial number, and you don't know where the 36" rifle wound up and why it isn't in evidence.

All this because your presumption is erroneous.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 19th May 2017 at 06:29 AM.
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 09:07 AM   #3810
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
It's 40.2" as measured after the assassination.

Mr. EISENBERG - Have you measured the dimensions of this rifle assembled, and disassembled?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, I have.
Mr. EISENBERG - Could you give us that information?
Mr. FRAZIER - The overall length is 40.2 inches. It weighs 8 pounds even.


Jack White computed the length of the rifle in the backyard photos and got different lengths. It was shown he didn't know JackWhite about computing lengths in photos.

Hank
That Jack White computed a different length is not beyond believability, but any measurement he made from an image IS seriously in doubt. He has proven in many threads that his image analysis is poor to non-existent.
bknight is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 09:20 AM   #3811
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
There is no error in measurement. It's entirely a presumption by No Other that because Oswald ordered from an order form that referenced a 36" rifle, then Oswald was shipped a 36" rifle, even though we know by March Klein's was advertising (and therefore shipping) 40" rifles. Oswald was shipped the 40" MC bearing the serial number C2766 on March 20th.

Hank
That was my point the unique serial number is key to this argument plus the assumption n my part that Klein did not ship a 36" weapon whether or not a shipping invoice may or may not have indicated the length of the rifle. No Other doesn't know what the length of the rifle was he is assuming that the rifle length shipping information to be paramount, while completely ignoring the serial number. You have stated it clearly, No Other deal with the reality of the rifle in LHO hands at found at the TSBD. No Other again the rifle length is quibbling point and non pertinent. Even Perry Mason couldn't make that work.
bknight is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 10:07 AM   #3812
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 7,251
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Serial numbers are unique. Otherwise there is no reason to use them.

The serial number C2766 is the only one of its kind ever manufactured and stamped on a Mannlicher Carcano made in Terni, Italy.

The paperwork shows this particular rifle was shipped to Oswald.
The backyard photographs show Oswald took possession of this particular rifle.
The palmprint and fingerprints also show he possessed it.
The rifle was discovered at his place of work, after being stored in the Paine garage.
Only one person had known access to both places, Lee Harvey Oswald.
Not so coincidentally, he was seen transporting a long package to the Depository on the morning of the assassination, and his rifle was found to be missing from the Paine garage on the afternoon of the assassination.


For most people, that's sufficient evidence.

Not for conspiracy theorists.

Hank
Of course.

I'm not someone who knows (or cares about) every stinking detail of the Kennedy assassination. However, once it was established that the serial number of the murder weapon matches the serial number of the weapon shipped by Klien's, it's apparent that all the quibbling about the barrel length is a complete load of nonsense.
I'm going to invoke Occam's razor: Which is the more believable scenario?

1. There were two weapons of the same make and model, but different barrel lengths, with the same serial number, one of which was shipped to Oswald, and the other of which was used (by somebody else?) in Oswald's place of employment to shoot JFK.

2. Klein's substituted the 40" barrel rifle of the same make and model that they had for the 36" barrel rifle that Oswald had ordered, and failed to note (either through lack of care or because they were hoping that the customer didn't care or wouldn't notice).

I don't think anybody who has any experience with mail order merchants would find scenario number two the least bit hard to believe, whereas scenario number one requires not only that the manufacturer had some sort of bizarre serial number policy or by some strange error made the mistake of assigning the same serial number to two different weapons, and that by a coincidence of extremely low probability, one of these two weapons (out of how many thousand?) was shipped to Oswald and the other was used to assassinate Kennedy, in Oswald's workplace.

I know which scenario I believe and I'm pretty sure it's the same scenario that any reasonable person would believe.

Last edited by CORed; 19th May 2017 at 10:23 AM.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 10:33 AM   #3813
OKBob
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 127
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
2. Klein's substituted the 40" barrel rifle of the same make and model that they had for the 36" barrel rifle that Oswald had ordered, and failed to note (either through lack of care or because they were hoping that the customer didn't care or wouldn't notice).
This is where all reasonable inferences lead, of course. Moreover, the Klein's shipping order gave a money-back guarantee for dissatisfaction. Maybe some 36-inch barrel diehards returned their 40-inch rifles. Oswald didn't.

Last edited by OKBob; 19th May 2017 at 11:29 AM.
OKBob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 11:34 AM   #3814
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,984
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
Of course.

I'm not someone who knows (or cares about) every stinking detail of the Kennedy assassination. However, once it was established that the serial number of the murder weapon matches the serial number of the weapon shipped by Klien's, it's apparent that all the quibbling about the barrel length is a complete load of nonsense.
I'm going to invoke Occam's razor: Which is the more believable scenario?

1. There were two weapons of the same make and model, but different barrel lengths, with the same serial number, one of which was shipped to Oswald, and the other of which was used (by somebody else?) in Oswald's place of employment to shoot JFK.

2. Klein's substituted the 40" barrel rifle of the same make and model that they had for the 36" barrel rifle that Oswald had ordered, and failed to note (either through lack of care or because they were hoping that the customer didn't care or wouldn't notice).

I don't think anybody who has any experience with mail order merchants would find scenario number two the least bit hard to believe, whereas scenario number one requires not only that the manufacturer had some sort of bizarre serial number policy or by some strange error made the mistake of assigning the same serial number to two different weapons, and that by a coincidence of extremely low probability, one of these two weapons (out of how many thousand?) was shipped to Oswald and the other was used to assassinate Kennedy, in Oswald's workplace.

I know which scenario I believe and I'm pretty sure it's the same scenario that any reasonable person would believe.
Exactly, throw in the fact that this was 1963, and this was a cheap rifle, and I'm pretty sure nobody at Klein's cared because they probably thought their customer was either broke, or just wanted something for their kid. The fact is that most rifles at that time were used for hunting deer or beer cans.

The one thing that was true in 1963 that is still true today is that a motivated individual can buy almost any weapon on the black market if they have the cash. That means no record of sale, nobody knows you have it, and you can make it disappear without it ever being linked you. In 1963 Texas Oswald could have likely bought a hunting rifle through the classifieds with no record of sale, not to mention pawn shops, and even just hanging out at a bar to make friends to find someone looking to get rid of an old gun.

My guess is he bought the Carcano because it CAME with a scope, and it was $13. That's not a bad deal.

Face it, if Oswald could have afforded a nice rifle with a Zeiss scope he probably wouldn't have felt the need to kill someone.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 12:15 PM   #3815
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,044
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
I'm not someone who knows (or cares about) every stinking detail of the Kennedy assassination.
That's why I'm here!


Originally Posted by CORed View Post
However, once it was established that the serial number of the murder weapon matches the serial number of the weapon shipped by Klien's, it's apparent that all the quibbling about the barrel length is a complete load of nonsense.
I'm going to invoke Occam's razor: Which is the more believable scenario?

1. There were two weapons of the same make and model, but different barrel lengths, with the same serial number, one of which was shipped to Oswald, and the other of which was used (by somebody else?) in Oswald's place of employment to shoot JFK.

2. Klein's substituted the 40" barrel rifle of the same make and model that they had for the 36" barrel rifle that Oswald had ordered, and failed to note (either through lack of care or because they were hoping that the customer didn't care or wouldn't notice).
There was a substitution but only because Klein's had run out of the 36" rifles and didn't have any more on hand to ship. This is shown to be true in the fact that the advertisement appearing in the April Issue of American Rifleman (available on newsstands in MARCH) no longer showed the illustration of a 36" rifle, but now showed the 40" rifle. Both advertisements used the same catalog number of C20-T750, nullifying No Other's bogus point that the C20-T750 catalog number was unique to the 36" rifle, and that's how we can be sure that Klein's shipped a 36" rifle with the C2766 serial number.


Originally Posted by CORed View Post
I don't think anybody who has any experience with mail order merchants would find scenario number two the least bit hard to believe, whereas scenario number one requires not only that the manufacturer had some sort of bizarre serial number policy or by some strange error made the mistake of assigning the same serial number to two different weapons, and that by a coincidence of extremely low probability, one of these two weapons (out of how many thousand?) was shipped to Oswald and the other was used to assassinate Kennedy, in Oswald's workplace.

I know which scenario I believe and I'm pretty sure it's the same scenario that any reasonable person would believe.
Yes, and on the note of shipment mistakes, I like to tell the story about what happened to me about 30 years ago. I went to visit my Mom for the Christmas holidays and wore a garish sweatshirt she had purchased for me from a Sears catalog and had shipped directly to my home.

When she saw me, she asked, "Where'd you get that god-awful ugly sweatshirt?"

I told her it was a gift. She asked who gave it to me.

I had to tell her, "You did, Mom. You bought it for me for Christmas. This came in the mail from Sears from you."

She complained, "Oh, my God. It didn't look like that in the catalog!"

We had a good laugh over it. Clearly, Sears ran out of the better looking item my Mom actually ordered and shipped whatever they had laying around as a substitute. Like I said, No Other likes to pretend this is an entirely foreign procedure in American commerce, and that because my Mom ordered a good-looking sweatshirt, that's the one I got.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 19th May 2017 at 02:00 PM.
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 12:43 PM   #3816
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,044
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Exactly, throw in the fact that this was 1963, and this was a cheap rifle, and I'm pretty sure nobody at Klein's cared because they probably thought their customer was either broke, or just wanted something for their kid. The fact is that most rifles at that time were used for hunting deer or beer cans.

The one thing that was true in 1963 that is still true today is that a motivated individual can buy almost any weapon on the black market if they have the cash. That means no record of sale, nobody knows you have it, and you can make it disappear without it ever being linked you. In 1963 Texas Oswald could have likely bought a hunting rifle through the classifieds with no record of sale, not to mention pawn shops, and even just hanging out at a bar to make friends to find someone looking to get rid of an old gun.
I suspect you just gave "No Other" his next talking point. After spending weeks arguing the Klein's paperwork links Oswald to a rifle with the serial number of C2766 (but only 36" long), he's now going to switch things up and claim that Oswald had no reason to purchase the murder weapon through the mail from Klein's and should have purchased an untraceable weapon by just walking into any gun store in Dallas. And why would Oswald want to buy a weapon that could be traced to him, anyway?



Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
My guess is he bought the Carcano because it CAME with a scope, and it was $13. That's not a bad deal.
Close enough. Technically, it was $12.88 without the scope. The scope brought the price to $19.95. It became $21.45 with postage.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xkdKVRtQe3...ruary-1963.jpg



Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Face it, if Oswald could have afforded a nice rifle with a Zeiss scope he probably wouldn't have felt the need to kill someone.
Excellent point. Not too many rich men decide to become assassins.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 19th May 2017 at 01:15 PM.
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 06:12 PM   #3817
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,984
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
I suspect you just gave "No Other" his next talking point. After spending weeks arguing the Klein's paperwork links Oswald to a rifle with the serial number of C2766 (but only 36" long), he's now going to switch things up and claim that Oswald had no reason to purchase the murder weapon through the mail from Klein's and should have purchased an untraceable weapon by just walking into any gun store in Dallas. And why would Oswald want to buy a weapon that could be traced to him, anyway?
We know he was planning to kill someone, likely Walker, maybe someone else. My guess is that he planned to stash the rifle somewhere safe, and come back for it later as he did after he took that shot at Walker. From there it's a matter of breaking it down, and burying it in multiple places.

The Carcano, on top of being cheap, was also a foreign weapon, and the Italian factor would have added the sexy or cool edge Oswald couldn't resist. Throw in the cheap scope and his purchase makes a lot of sense; made under a code-name, exotic sounding name, and deadly.

I think JFK was just a slow-motion target of opportunity.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 09:51 PM   #3818
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,955
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Oh boy. Do you lack knowledge of this case. Earl Rose was a member of the HSCA forensic pathology panel. As such, he reviewed all the extant autopsy materials and reached his own conclusions about what they showed. Vince quoted Rose because Rose is an expert who reviewed the autopsy materials.

http://www.history-matters.com/archi...Vol7_0008a.htm

Hank
Hank, if you want a better dismissal of Earl Rose's opinions of the case other than "just another cowlicker", check out this line from the HSCA forensic pathology panel report:

(310) One panel member, Dr. Rose, wishes to emphasize the view of the majority of the panel (all except Dr. Wecht) that the absence of injury on the inferior surface of the brain offers incontrovertible evidence that the wound in the President's head is not in the location described in the autopsy report.

https://www.history-matters.com/arch...Vol7_0063a.htm

So Earl Rose, and the entire HSCA medical panel except for Cyril Wecht, didn't even consider the plainly obvious possibility that a bullet entered low in the head and only "grazed" the cerebellum, hitting the floor of the skull and not having any relation to the large head wound. Did the idea of a conspiracy in Dealey Plaza just go over their heads, or are there legitimate reasons to believe that such a scenario would not work?

Last edited by MicahJava; 19th May 2017 at 09:58 PM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 10:13 PM   #3819
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,081
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Hank, if you want a better dismissal of Earl Rose's opinions of the case other than "just another cowlicker", check out this line from the HSCA forensic pathology panel report:

(310) One panel member, Dr. Rose, wishes to emphasize the view of the majority of the panel (all except Dr. Wecht) that the absence of injury on the inferior surface of the brain offers incontrovertible evidence that the wound in the President's head is not in the location described in the autopsy report.

https://www.history-matters.com/arch...Vol7_0063a.htm

So Earl Rose, and the entire HSCA medical panel except for Cyril Wecht, didn't even consider the plainly obvious possibility that a bullet entered low in the head and only "grazed" the cerebellum, hitting the floor of the skull and not having any relation to the large head wound. Did the idea of a conspiracy in Dealey Plaza just go over their heads, or are there legitimate reasons to believe that such a scenario would not work?
Do you not consider that might be because the evidence suggests that the only entry wound to be considered was in the "cowlick"? Where the records show it to be?

I for one would be more worried if they wasted time considering a theory about a bullet entering lower, where there was no entry wound....
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 02:31 AM   #3820
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,044
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Hank, if you want a better dismissal of Earl Rose's opinions of the case other than "just another cowlicker", check out this line from the HSCA forensic pathology panel report:

(310) One panel member, Dr. Rose, wishes to emphasize the view of the majority of the panel (all except Dr. Wecht) that the absence of injury on the inferior surface of the brain offers incontrovertible evidence that the wound in the President's head is not in the location described in the autopsy report.

https://www.history-matters.com/arch...Vol7_0063a.htm

So Earl Rose, and the entire HSCA medical panel except for Cyril Wecht, didn't even consider the plainly obvious possibility that a bullet entered low in the head and only "grazed" the cerebellum, hitting the floor of the skull and not having any relation to the large head wound. Did the idea of a conspiracy in Dealey Plaza just go over their heads, or are there legitimate reasons to believe that such a scenario would not work?
And even Doctor Wecht agrees that near the top of the head was where the entrance wound was. Look at the next page:
== quote ==
Dr. Wecht agrees that there is an entrance wound in the "cowlick" area, and that the white substance [near the hairline at the bottom of the photo - Hank] is brain tissue, but he cannot exclude the possibility that it might overlie a very small skin and bone performation of either entrance or exit.
== unquote ==


So while you try to exclude Dr. Wecht from the Panel's conclusions, he agrees with the rest of the panel as to where the evidence indicates the head wound is. He only said there could be a small wound that the photographic evidence doesn't reveal.

And so the entire forensic panel disagrees with your assessment of the location of the rear entrance wound, with only the smallest of reservations from one member who concedes the possibility of a smaller wound that the evidence doesn't reveal.

Maybe that's why the Panel reached the conclusion they did -- they were basing their conclusion on the evidence. How you go from that to a "dismissal of Earl Rose's opinions of the case" is beyond me.

You're dismissing Earl Rose's opinions - and that of every other member of the forensic panel - simply because their expert conclusions conflicts with your lay opinion.

And it's still a change of your argument from the earlier mention of Earl Rose. Previously, you were arguing that Bugliosi should not have quoted Rose because his claim to fame was that he was Dallas County coroner and he never saw the body on the day of the assassination. At that time, you appeared wholly unaware that he served as a member of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Another thing that shouldn't have made the final cut of Reclaiming History is Vince quoting Dr. Earl Rose as "The only place he said he disagreed with the autopsy surgeons is that they reported the entrance wound to the back of the head 'too low. It was in the cowlick area.'". Dr. Earl Rose was the Dallas County Medical Examiner who argued with the Secret Service agents over where the autopsy would be performed. In other words, his place in history is being the guy who didn't get to examine the body.
Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 20th May 2017 at 04:08 AM.
HSienzant is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 07:07 AM   #3821
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,955
Yeah, the nine members of the forensic pathology panel agreed that the depressed cowlick fracture on the X-Ray was an entry wound, but this finding is intertwined with the belief that the red spot on the BOH photographs must be an entry wound. As I have pointed out several times, this belief is based on taking the BOH photographs out of context. You must believe that the autopsy doctors (and John Stringer, who took those photographs) are completely clueless about the body they spent hours with.

The HSCA report also explains the concept of beveling, with a diagram of what typical or "ideal" beveling should look like. Is it my untrained eye, or does the depressed cowlick fracture on the X-ray not look particularly "beveled" in either direction? And on the fragment trail, people like David Mantik have pointed out that the emperor is wearing no clothes- the fragment trail does not correspond with the cowlick fracture besides one fragment placed a whole centimeter beside and under it.

I posted plenty of experts who weren't too crazy about the X-ray showing an entry in he cowlick. This just looks like a case of connecting the dots where they don't belong. Wecht also sticks to the belief that the autopsy doctors were very incompetent- he still enjoys telling the story about how they missed the bullet hole in the throat.

And above you have proof the HSCA panel didn't consider the possibility of a missile entering the original EOP location and going under the cerebellum without severely damaging it.

Last edited by MicahJava; 20th May 2017 at 07:10 AM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 07:29 AM   #3822
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,081
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Yeah, the nine members of the forensic pathology panel agreed that the depressed cowlick fracture on the X-Ray was an entry wound, but this finding is intertwined with the belief that the red spot on the BOH photographs must be an entry wound. As I have pointed out several times, this belief is based on taking the BOH photographs out of context. You must believe that the autopsy doctors (and John Stringer, who took those photographs) are completely clueless about the body they spent hours with.
No. We just find your interpretation to be...flawed.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 09:58 AM   #3823
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 27,981
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Yeah, the nine members of the forensic pathology panel agreed that the depressed cowlick fracture on the X-Ray was an entry wound, but this finding is intertwined with the belief that the red spot on the BOH photographs must be an entry wound. As I have pointed out several times, this belief is based on taking the BOH photographs out of context. You must believe that the autopsy doctors (and John Stringer, who took those photographs) are completely clueless about the body they spent hours with.

The HSCA report also explains the concept of beveling, with a diagram of what typical or "ideal" beveling should look like. Is it my untrained eye, or does the depressed cowlick fracture on the X-ray not look particularly "beveled" in either direction? And on the fragment trail, people like David Mantik have pointed out that the emperor is wearing no clothes- the fragment trail does not correspond with the cowlick fracture besides one fragment placed a whole centimeter beside and under it.

I posted plenty of experts who weren't too crazy about the X-ray showing an entry in he cowlick. This just looks like a case of connecting the dots where they don't belong. Wecht also sticks to the belief that the autopsy doctors were very incompetent- he still enjoys telling the story about how they missed the bullet hole in the throat.

And above you have proof the HSCA panel didn't consider the possibility of a missile entering the original EOP location and going under the cerebellum without severely damaging it.
The more you post, the more it becomes obvious that your opinions are far removed from reality. Do you have anything else to offer besides your incorrect lay opinions on matters outside of your sphere of knowledge?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 11:00 AM   #3824
No Other
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 222
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
It's 40.2" as measured after the assassination.

Mr. EISENBERG - Have you measured the dimensions of this rifle assembled, and disassembled?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, I have.
Mr. EISENBERG - Could you give us that information?
Mr. FRAZIER - The overall length is 40.2 inches. It weighs 8 pounds even.


Jack White computed the length of the rifle in the backyard photos and got different lengths. It was shown he didn't know JackWhite about computing lengths in photos.

Hank
You guys are actually a lot fun, so let's go down this path.

When did Klein's receive the shipment that had the 40.2" rifles that you say LHO received in March?
No Other is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 11:05 AM   #3825
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
You guys are actually a lot fun, so let's go down this path.

When did Klein's receive the shipment that had the 40.2" rifles that you say LHO received in March?
You don't get it. The length of the rifle doesn't matter. What does matter is the unique serial number.
bknight is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 11:06 AM   #3826
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,955
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
The more you post, the more it becomes obvious that your opinions are far removed from reality. Do you have anything else to offer besides your incorrect lay opinions on matters outside of your sphere of knowledge?
The experts who were there recording the facts in real time?
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 11:07 AM   #3827
No Other
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 222
You admit you don't know very much, you may want to back off on your insults.
No Other is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 11:12 AM   #3828
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 27,981
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
You guys are actually a lot fun, so let's go down this path.

When did Klein's receive the shipment that had the 40.2" rifles that you say LHO received in March?
What evidence do we have for a 36" MC with serial #C2766?

What evidence do we have for a 40" MC with serial #C2766?

What did Robert Frazier testify to the WC about duplicate serial numbers on like weapons?

Seriously, I'm trying to help you out here.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 11:13 AM   #3829
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 27,981
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The experts who were there recording the facts in real time?
What were the autopsy conclusions? Not yours. Theirs.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 11:47 AM   #3830
No Other
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 222
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
What evidence do we have for a 36" MC with serial #C2766?

What evidence do we have for a 40" MC with serial #C2766?

What did Robert Frazier testify to the WC about duplicate serial numbers on like weapons?

Seriously, I'm trying to help you out here.
I have responses for the above, I first want my question answered.
No Other is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 11:51 AM   #3831
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 27,981
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
I have responses for the above, I first want my question answered.
Then you should have answered them the last few times they were asked and you ran away from them.

Answer the questions.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 11:55 AM   #3832
OKBob
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 127
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
When did Klein's receive the shipment that had the 40.2" rifles that you say LHO received in March?
You seem essentially to be insisting that someone on this forum explain a factual anomaly (if it really is that) by producing some sort of documentation or paperwork from Klein's or Crescent Firearms that would resolve the anomaly in favor of the WC's conclusion. You're shifting the burden of proof again. Please don't. If you feel that the 40-inch MC rifle somehow upsets the large cluster of evidence pointing to LHO and to him alone as the purchaser, owner, and user of the rifle found in the TSBD, then you have the burden of coming forward with that evidence. Asking us to explain the 40-inch rifle isn't enough.

Nevertheless, Hank has offered a very reasonable explanation of the anomaly: Klein's ran out of 36-inch MCs and shipped LHO a 40-inch MC just as Klein's was changing its ads to reflect that stock. You seem to reject that explanation, but you don't show why it isn't adequate. You become huffy when someone calls you a CTist, but I have to say that this insistence on ironclad documentary or testimonial evidence for every factual detail is very CT. CT rarely holds itself to such an unrealistically high burden of proof.

Last edited by OKBob; 20th May 2017 at 12:11 PM.
OKBob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 12:04 PM   #3833
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 27,981
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
I have responses for the above, I first want my question answered.
Also interesting that you say "responses" rather than "answers". Typical CT.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 12:56 PM   #3834
No Other
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 222
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Then you should have answered them the last few times they were asked and you ran away from them.

Answer the questions.
Don't confuse my dislike for bombarding of questions at a rate of 5 to 1 with running away; I do not park myself on this site so the continuity is not as robust as others. I actually do like to discuss this topic but here it lowers itself to ridicule.
No Other is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 12:57 PM   #3835
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 27,981
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
Don't confuse my dislike for bombarding of questions at a rate of 5 to 1 with running away; I do not park myself on this site so the continuity is not as robust as others. I actually do like to discuss this topic but here it lowers itself to ridicule.
You've already lost this one.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 12:59 PM   #3836
No Other
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 222
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Also interesting that you say "responses" rather than "answers". Typical CT.
Then I will amend the word "responses" to "answers". I am not wordsmithing. I guess you like the others in fast load of quips... my mistake, I thought you had discussion points instead of labeling.
No Other is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 01:01 PM   #3837
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 27,981
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
Then I will amend the word "responses" to "answers". I am not wordsmithing. I guess you like the others in fast load of quips... my mistake, I thought you had discussion points instead of labeling.
The questions will remain until you can face answering them honestly.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 01:07 PM   #3838
No Other
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 222
I will just put it out there:

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.h...earch=feldsott

The President of Crescent Firearms provided a sworn affidavit for the Warren Commission, in short, he says that Crescent Firearms provided to Klein's a rifle with the serial number C2766... on June 18, 1962. This makes the claim of the 40.2" ever having the C2766 go into question. Since this event took place prior to LHO/Hidell placing the order with Klein's and prior to Klein's buying the 40.2" MC, the C2766 belongs to the 36" rifle. The barrel does make a difference if you wish to insist the serial number is unique.
No Other is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 01:13 PM   #3839
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 27,981
No, it isn't me insisting on the serial number being unique. Who do you think does say that?

What evidence do we have for the existence of a 40" MC with serial number C2766?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 01:24 PM   #3840
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
I will just put it out there:

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.h...earch=feldsott

The President of Crescent Firearms provided a sworn affidavit for the Warren Commission, in short, he says that Crescent Firearms provided to Klein's a rifle with the serial number C2766... on June 18, 1962. This makes the claim of the 40.2" ever having the C2766 go into question. Since this event took place prior to LHO/Hidell placing the order with Klein's and prior to Klein's buying the 40.2" MC, the C2766 belongs to the 36" rifle. The barrel does make a difference if you wish to insist the serial number is unique.
Excuse me, but the President of Crescent Firearms does not swear to any length of barrel just the serial number. You may try to dress this pig up and put on lipstick, but it is just a pig. You still don't get it.
bknight is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:32 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.