40 anniversary of JFK's assassination tomorrow

No darling. Fiction is what the Warren Commission wrote because the film I just viewed (the Nix film) clearly shows the bullet exiting out of the back of Kennedy's head. And yes, it is the official film.

While I love your smarmy approach to logic, I doubt it will sway anyone with an ounce of intelligence. I find it so funny that you find that an assassination of the President of the United States in full public view should not elicit an emotional response. It is more telling on your failed state of humanity than on those that had a heart-felt response. Why does this not surprise me?

As for the bullet with "slight" damage, this was called "magic" long before Oliver Stone came onto the scene. Yes, let us blame him for every evil. Isn't that what you Spartan/Republicans do? Just blame everything onto a scapegoat in a feeble attempt to distract from the truth? Darling, it is a cheap magic trick used by even the most untalented magician and the most lame logician so it most apt that you try this slight-of-hand. And as for the slight damage, darling, the bullet would have been demolished given the laundry-list of feats it was supposed to have accomplished. It was even said to have unclogged the drains of 100 hundred homes before it reached Connally.

So in choosing fact, please find out what the facts out before replying. Otherwise you will be living in your little Spartan cave wondering what Plato was talking about.

And if you're going to give definitions, please give the real reason people are hysterical.

hys·ter·i·cal __ (_P_)__Pronunciation Key__(h-str-kl)
adj.

3. Informal. Extremely funny: told a hysterical story.


Yes, if it weren't so pathetic we could indeed all have a good laugh.




NEMESIS

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Captain Canada = Lapdog

Lone gunman, huh? Interesting...

I'm guessing you believe Sirhan acted alone as well?

I own and often shoot a rifle similar to the supposed murder weapon. Do you? Do you have any idea what happens when a high-powered rifle strikes flesh? Obivously not. Dude, i'll make it real simple for you. When the back of your head blows off, that is an EXIT WOUND.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am truly in the presence of genius here...

Like I've been trying to say...

Have you read the Warren Commission's 26 volumes of evidence or the House Select Committee on Assassination's findings? Me neither. Unless we want to devote our lives to studying the evidence we have to take a look at the arguments, listen to the various theories and make a judgement.

Trouble is you conspiracy nuts would like to beleive various things and you warp the strength of the evidence to fit your beliefs. I'd love it if JFK's assassination represented some kind of coup - that we could uncover some big secret. Unfortunately, the evidence, such as we can 'know' it, does not fit the theory. Every time I look at it I come back to Oswald - a man who is generally left out of the equation when it comes to the conspiracy buffs. I reccomend Norman Mailer's biography of Lee Harvey Oswald (at over 700 pages it might be a stretch for some of you guys). Mailer gets inside Oswald's head rather more effectively than the other accounts (incidentally, Mailer leaves the possibility open of a second shooter - and hence a conspiracy).

Who said I was Republican? Or even an American (hint: my name is a clue...)

A magic bullet indeed! Perhaps we should call it the Copperfield bullet? Trouble is, I don't really see a fact there...

Also a tip on arguing. Unfortunately the above passage is what's known in the trade as 'fallacious'. And that's not oral sex by the way. It means you are assuming in your premise that which you seek to prove through argument.

If you find a fact let me know. I also advise against using metaphors from books you have not read. Although I may do you a dis-service - avoid using metaphors from books you have not understood. (Sorry if I doubted you).

This is what I fail to understand. I suggest that perhaps (as is my view) JFK really was killed by Oswald and Oswald alone. You and the rabble of other conspiracists infesting the site cannot argue the case in a logival, rational manner. Instead you merely speckle the website with inane whining and apparent shock someone may beleive (with very good reason I might add) an opposite case.

For someone drawing in Platonic references I find this irrationality puzzling. He would condemn you as a rhetorician without the wit or skills of the true philospoher.

I agree.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Captain:

There is a flaw with your reasoning. Oswald had to fire off 3 shots, if you believe the Warren Commission report, in 5.6 seconds; if memory serves correctly, that is how little time those shots rang out. This was a bolt action rifle too, don't forget. So, in under two seconds, Oswald had to pull the bolt back, spent shell is released, push the bolt back in, new shell is now in barrell ready to be fired, then aim and shoot; then do it all again! Can you do that in that amount of time and hit your target, which is moving by the way? I don't think so. In fact, not even the CIA's, or FBI's, forget which ones did the tests, expert riflemen couldn't do it! That is fact!

There is a whole lot there that doesn't meet the eye.

 

hmmmm

Oswald was target of assassination himself. Somebody sure didnt want to him talk. Nothing wrong in this next picture; Somewhat famous mafia guy with a handgun in building full of policeman just walks towards Oswald, bang bang...In the movie was told that one policeman let him in, normal police routin I guess, c´mon in, whoever you are...And lets not forget Robert Kennedy and Marthin Luther King...just coincidence, lonely lunatics with their rifles, yea yea yea.....

 

---------------------


I am underwhelmed.

Since you seem to blithely ignore facts for logorrhea, and probably diarrhea as well, why should I give more when you've failed to answer the ones already stated?

Also if you're going to speak for Plato, you might want to learn how to spell.

 

Bravo to you, sir!

Notice how Captain Canada bypasses all these facts for fantasy. Methinks he's probably another fan of Tristam Shandy.

 

I don't agree. It seems that you think, that for one to know somthing, one has to discover it and/or study it themselves. This is just not true. As a scientist, I rely on the literature to draw conclusions in my own studies. One can do this in assassination science also. Two recent publications on the evidence; Murder in Dealy Plaza, 2000 and Assassination Science 1998. BTW, although I did not read the 26 volume Warren Commission study, I did read the single volume Warren Commission Report, which is not very illuminating because it does not reveal evidence that it intentionally left out that would exculpate Oswald and point to a conspiracy.

Hmm, 'conspiracy nuts?'

I'll list them;

Bertrand Russell, nobel laureate, philosopher and mathematician,
David Mantik, M.D. with a Ph.D. in physics,
Cyril Wecht, M.D., J.D. forensic pathologist
Gary Aguilar, M.D.
Douglas Weldon, J.D. law
Robert Livingston, M.D.
Judge James Garrison

the list goes on. These people are all critical thinkers, highly respected in their own professions.

Ad hominen attacks are logical fallacies in regards to the strength or truth of an argument, but to include these lauded men in such an attack could be considered foolish. I think, if we are to take into account the sources of an argument for conspiracy, one would have to take the published conspiracy theories authored by the above list rather than your paltry, uneducated opinion.

In actuality, there is NO, and I mean this literally, evidence that Oswald killed anyone.

The 'head shot' that killed Kennedy was from a high powered rifle. The rifle that Oswald purportedly used to shoot Kennedy was not high powered, hence it could not have been the rifle that fired that shot.

How's that for a fact?!!

 

This is Getting Fun!

Memeory is such an unreliable thing. Analysis of the Zapruder film and recordings available show the timing from the first to last shot was 8 seconds. Ample time to take three aimed shots (the second was somewhat rushed). Oswald consistently scored head shots at 200 yards during his marine training (48 and 49 out of 50 on successive days). The book depository was 88 yards from the JFK motorcade.

So then why doesn't someone shoot Ruby? And then, your argument will go, someone should kill him as well - ad infinitum. Was Oswald a patsy or a shooter? If he was the patsy, why kill him? If he was the shooter then you guys have an awful lot of explaining to do to come up with an explanation for a conspiracy. Ruby had just wired some money to a dancer of his who couldn't pay her rent before walking up to the police station to see Oswald being loaded into the police van. As it turned out Ruby was a good 5 minutes late (to the scheduled departure of Oswald), but because the Oswald loading was delayed at the last minute, he just arrived at the moment that Oswald was walking the press cordon. His dog was waiting in his car! Does this sound like a planned hit?

Touche! Once again Nemesis amazes us all with his inability to grapple with wit or reason!

Still, I thought perhaps I was being unfair on our mentally challenged friend, so I decided to trawl back through the thread and seek out the pearls of wisdom I have obviously overlooked. So back I went, and I looked, and I looked....and I looked some more. Until, at last -

!

I mean,

!!!

I had recognised your clear lack of mental agility, and the scars of the reason by-pass operation are all too clear. But I had not quite recognised (and for this I must take full blame) that I was in fact dealing with a 100%, where's my white coat, more tranquilisers please nurse, lunatic!

NEMESIS, you scare me - please don't harm yourself or others around you. Medical attention is on its way. You'll be fine once the drugs start to take effect...

Oh yeah - still waiting for a fact. Just one. A little one? Please. Just to humour me...

You have totally missed the point. I hope that, as a scientist, you are not working on anything important for mankind. Would be shame to foul up a cure for cancer or something.

But I regret that I am descending to the level of you all. For that I apologise, but I just can't resist when someone sports a 'kick-me' t-shirt!

So you all want facts?

1. Autopsy shows two entry wounds on JFK - both consistent with two shots fired from behind and above. There is no evidence from the autopsy of any other shooters.

So there's 'a fact' that you guys can start on.

 

At the height of his power as Senate leader, Johnson sought the Democratic nomination for president in 1960. When he lost to John F. Kennedy, he surprised even some of his closest associates by accepting second place on the ticket.

Johnson was riding in another car in the motorcade when Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. He took the oath of office in the presidential jet on the Dallas airfield.

Isn't it convenient how JFK bites a magic bullet in Johnsons homestate, the center of his influence and power?

And no, captain canada, you are not in truely in the presence of a genius, you are in the presence of common sense, something you seem to lack....

 

Paulsamuel

Can you provide me with a source backing up your assertion that the rifle that Oswald is accused of using was not high powered?

Exactly what is your definition of high-powered rifles?

Give me some ballistics info that sets the parameters please. I need to know if my .270 qualifies.

 

quotes from CAPTAIN CANADA
"So then why doesn't someone shoot Ruby? "And then, your argument will go, someone should kill him as well- ad infinitum."

-He is a mafia guy, OMERTA, the code of silence. He was deep in it.
Ok, lets say they have to kill Ruby for the reason you said, and then the man who killed him, and then the man who killed him, and then...

"Was Oswald a patsy or a shooter? If he was the patsy, why kill him?"
-Could be both, my quess is patsy, either way, he sure wasnt the only shooter. He did know too much. And killing him was nice way to wrap up the case as we can see...

"If he was the shooter then you guys have an awful lot of explaining to do to come up with an explanation for a conspiracy."

-Funny thing is that we dont have anything to explain since Stone
has putted it all to the screen. Its you who have explain all the holes in official reports. Watch the movie. Dont bash it if you cant answer the questions that are asked in it. There is a plenty of good ones.

"Ruby had just wired some money to a dancer of his who couldn't pay her rent before walking up to the police station to see Oswald being loaded into the police van. As it turned out Ruby was a good 5 minutes late (to the scheduled departure of Oswald), but because the Oswald loading was delayed at the last minute, he just arrived at the moment that Oswald was walking the press cordon. His dog was waiting in his
car! Does this sound like a planned hit?"

-hmmmmm, you offer nothing here. They were in a hurry I quess. Now ask yourself why they did delay it ? Because Ruby was late ?
And sure that dont look planned, thats the hole idea in conspiracys...yeah, the dog proves everything...

-I was thinking a while that you were trolling here before, but now I´m not sure anymore...

 

No. Its a bolfaced truth. Tessie really does have a keyboard with perpetual diarrhea.



Concerning conspiracy theories: If you consider the tangled mess that's been made of Roswell one shouldn't be surprised that JFK's death has not died yet. Don't know about you but its difficult to imagine a covert scheme being played out in from of thousands by the CIA.

The feds work like poision- strike in silence. Watergate and the recent leak unmasking a CIA agent in retaliation for her husband lashing at the president's attempts to sell America the war in Iraq (accusations of Saddamn buying African uranium in Bush's state of the Union Address) are prime examples of administrative retribution.

If it was the government trying to get rid of the President, they would have destroyed him in silence. Finely tuned. Not bashing his brains out in front of millions. This has
****confused, plebian vengance****

....... writtien all over it: Oswald.

 

quotes from GENDANKEN
"Don't know about you but its difficult to imagine a covert scheme
being played out in from of thousands by the CIA."

-Care to explain this ? Thousands ? Since when "footsoldiers" must know what goes on the top ? You offer nothing here...

"If it was the government trying to get rid of the President,
they would have destroyed him in silence. Finely tuned.
Not bashing his brains out in front of millions."

-But we dont know all the players do we ??? Thats why we are making all those relevant questions...I dont think it was the government. Dont try simplify things. Government is only a tool. And why not splash the brains. It sure worked nicely...eeeeek, the President has been shot!!! Look look, there is the madman, look, somebody killed him too, good, he was a madman...case closed...

 

Re: Paulsamuel

From Murder in dealy Plaza, 2000. Fetzer, J.H. (ed.).

According to the Warren Report, Oswald fired the bullets that killed the president using a high-powered rifle, which they identified as the 6.5 mm Manlicher-Carcano (which is a carbine, not a rifle at all). "Its muzzle velocity of approximately 2000 fps means that it qualifies as a medium-to-low velocity weapon. The death certificates, the Warren Report, articles in JAMA, and other sources state that the President was killed by wounds inflicted by high-velocity missiles."

"This discovery is especially important, because the extensive damage sustained by JFK's skull could not possibly have been inflicted by a weapon of this kind."

 

that's nonsensical

A carbine is not a rifle? LMAO. You don't know much about firearms do you?

Hey, I don't think Oswald acted alone either, but trust me buddy, if I shot you with an M-1 carbine, you would not be calling it a low powered rifle.

How much experience do you have firing centerfire rifles?

 

Re: This is Getting Fun!

Don't attack me for being a scientist and critical thinker. Your lack of education (and insecurities derived thereupon) is your fault not mine.

No fact there. There are at least 4 entry wounds. 1) neck just below Adam's apple, 2) right front temporal area, 3) back (around level of 4th thoracic vertebrae 4" right of spine), 4) just below EOP (external occipital protuberance).

 

Re: that's nonsensical

I know virtually nothing about firearms and I'd be willing to hear your contrasting and comparative views on carbines and rifles and what the minimal muzzle velocity is for a rifle to be considered 'high-powered' and whether the Manlicher-Carcano could be responsible for JFK's wounds. Because other firearms experts have determined that it could not be the murder weapon. Please remember to provide references that I can use to compare your views with those of the other firearms experts.

For my part, here are other references (besides Fetzer, 2000) questioning whether the Manlicher-Carcano could have been the murder weapon.

Fetzer, J.H. (ed.), 1998. Assassination Science
Weisberg, H., 1965. Whitewash
Model, P. and R. Groden, 1976. The Case For Conspiracy
Groden, R. and H. Livingstone, 1989. High Treason

Thanks in advance.

 

You're question is hard to answer

I've been around guns my whole life and I don't know of any accepted standard that would delineate "high-powered rifles" from other rifles except the difference in rimfire and centerfire. Most avid shooters that I know would describe a high-powered rifle as any centerfire cartridge. Within that family of guns there is a tremendous range of muzzle velocities and energy delivery in terms of ft/lbs of force.

I just ran some quick ballistics numbers on a few modern cartridges to try and demonstrate what I mean. Comparing a Swedish 6.5MM (the closest I could find to the rifle in question), a Remington .270, and 300 Ulti-Mag you get the following data.

Muzzle Velocity
6.5MM 2,550 fps
.270 2,925 fps
.300 Mag 2,960 fps

Not a great deal of separation in those cartridges at muzzle. If you go out to 100 yards the differences remain about the same. This should be relevant because I believe the distance of the shots is accepted to be roughly 90 yards. Where the major differences occur is in the energy delivered. The 6.5 has about 40% less energy at 100 yards than the magnum cartridge.

For what it's worth, in the hunting world, most agree that a .243 is the absolute minimum cartridge to hunt white-tail deer with. I use a .270 for deer, and it's the perfect blend of flat-shooting but with more than sufficient knock-down power to take a deer. Now if you go out west to hunt Elk, most would tell you to take a .300 or a 7mm Mag. A .270 will no doubt kill an Elk, but it's got to be perfectly placed and range is a huge factor. The .300 mag gives the ability to ensure plenty of force at 200, 300, 400 yards which is not uncommon out there.

But let me suggest to you that inside of 100 yards any of these cartridges would absolutely blow your head off. You can't imagine the devastation that a partition tip .270 cartridge causes at 300 yards. My guess is that the bullet that finished him was fired from his front-right and was a hollow point cartridge, probably smaller than you would think. A .223 (which is what the M-16 fires) with a hollow point could do that kind of damage without being too loud. Trust me on this one. If you hear an M-16 fired, and then you hear a .300 mag, you will never confuse the two sounds. One sounds like a crack, the other sounds like a howitzer.

 

Re: You're question is hard to answer

Hard to answer but crucial, because the death certificate, the Warren Commission Report, the HSCA report all state "high powered." And, if the Manlicher-Carcano could not have inflicted the wounds, then Oswald is exonerated. It's important that some firearms experts are questioning whether it could have.