The other problem is that the multiple sniper scenario just doesn’t make sense.
What exactly is the benefit to using multiple snipers? It’s just dumb. One expert with a rifle only needs one shot, and your target is dead.
It all falls apart when you start thinking like a conspirator who wants to kill Kennedy, instead of a guy looking at the events in Dealy Plaza and thinking about ways a conspiracy could fake those events. Kennedy traveled all over the country, back in a time when security was much looser. A complex set of patsies, faked evidence, stolen brains, suborned cops and so on is just unneccesary. It’s not like your only chance in the world is to kill Kennedy in that motorcade. You can do it any time you like. He gave tons of speeches, out in the open air. Just shoot him. If you’ve got one cabal sniper willing to shoot at the president, it’s no trouble at all. And there is absolutely no reason on God’s Green Earth to tamper with the autopsy reports! Your cover story is that a sniper shot the president, and guess what, the autopsy report will show that a sniper shot the president. If you don’t want your sniper to talk, it’s a simple matter to order your pet cops to pick him up, and guess what, he was shot resisting arrest, so sorry. You don’t need an innocent patsy, the shooter is your patsy. You don’t need to manufacture or fake anything.
This is like the people speculating that the 9/11 Pennsylvania crash site was faked. But it just makes no fucking sense to fake the 9/11 Pennsylvania crash site! The best way to create a fake crash site in Pennsylvania is to hijack a plane and drive it into a cornfield in Pennsylvania! No faking involved!
Which is why I contend that if there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, that conspiracy included Oswald as the shooter, and no other shooters, and no faked evidence. You talk that nut Oswald into taking a shot at Kennedy, then you talk that nut Ruby into silencing Oswald. And that’s it, the Conspiracy vanishes into thin air afterwards. At least that conspiracy makes sense and doesn’t violate logic. The only problem is, we have no evidence that anyone talked Oswald into shooting Kennedy, and we have no evidence that anyone talked Ruby into shooting Oswald. But it isn’t nonsense to image such things might have happened.
They don’t even seem to think of that - all I’ve ever seen from the conspiracy theory crowd is attempting to find something, anything at all, that doesn’t jibe with the official story.
Actually, most of the time they rely on people who claim, much later, to have some contact or tangential involvement.
What I haven’t seen is any conspiracy theorist try to weave together a plausible scenario.
Looks like science has disproven an important cornerstone of the Warren Commission’s theory of Oswald as the single assassin, i.e., the lone gunman theory. Once the magic bullet theory is discarded, the rest of WC findings tend to collapse and a conspiracy seems to be more plausible. Don’t expect to see Posner and Bugliosi squirming out of this one anytime soon.
Couldn’t Oswald have just loaded bullets from different boxes of ammo? I mean, if you want the simplest explanation, picture Oswald buying boxes of ammo before Nov. 22 to practice with, having a few random leftovers, with varying antimony amounts, and picking out four of them to load the day of the assassination.
What in any of the above tends to prove the existence of a second shooter? The most I can glean is that instead of a 99.999% certainly Oswald acted alone, we’re left with a 99.998%. In either case, more than enough to convince a jury with remaining evidence, including Oswald’s palm print on a rifle known to belong to him and found at the scene, his behaviour before and after the shooting, opportunity and motive, etc.
It’s that study that was ballyhooed the same week Bugliosi’s book came out (now there’s some fodder for folks who like conspiracies!).
For what it’s worth, one of the guys involved in the study conceded during a Fox News interview that the study in itself could say nothing pro or con about the bullets in evidence in the Kennedy case.
On further reflection, this is akin to analyzing a 19th-century murder in which the killer was witnessed in the act using a weapon known to belong to him, leaving footprints perfectly matching his boots, leaving behind some personal items, etc. but trying to write off all this evidence because at some point he was given a phrenology exam.
Well, that and the killer being shot by John Scarlet-Corundum before being put on trial.
The end-result of these metallurgical considerations is that, from the antimony concentrations measured by VPG [Dr. Vincent P. Guinn]in the specimens from the JFK assassination, there is no justification for concluding that two, and only two, bullets were represented by the evidence. Nor is there justification for concluding that three, four or five bullets were more or less likely than two bullets.
Just so there’s no confusion, Randich and Gahn doesn’t say that it couldn’t have been 2 bullets. Only that it could be between 1 and 5 bullets. That’s all they say. Doesn’t really support the CT, does it?
On second look, this may not be the article I was thinking of. This page has a link to a PDF of the item I was thinking about (it’s the fourth item in the list, the title beginning "Chemical and forensic analysis. . .).
I’ve noticed that ngant17 is using a serial hit-and-run debating technique - he never follows up anything, but undaunted, he just brings up something else totally unrelated when each previous point he made gets shredded.
This bullet study simply says that the fragments may not have been from only two bullets, but they still were from bullets made in the same batch. And that weakens the case against Oswald how exactly?
The line he used “Don’t expect to see Posner and Bugliosi squirming out of this one anytime soon.” makes me think that we are dealing with a conspiracy theorist in sheeps clothing as well. One wonders.
No kidding. Oswald was handing out his bullets to co-conspirators who were all using their own MC carbines? WTF?
That doesn’t weaken the single bullet theory at all. Basically, they’re just saying that the methods used to classify the fragments as coming from two distinct bullets may have been flawed.
If you want to weaken the single bullet theory, you’ll have to introduce some evidence that actually indicates that it was more than one bullet that caused the injuries to Kennedy’s neck and Governor Connally. In the absence of any evidence whatsoever for additional bullets, the single bullet theory is still the best explanation. Occam’s Razor and all that.
EDIT:
Just to reiterate, even if all the science in that post is true, it means that the trace-element analysis can not identify fragments as coming from the same bullet. It does nothing to suggest that they came from different bullets.
Well, even if this particular slat gets knocked out from under the theory, we fortunately have about 500 others to support the weight of the box-spring.
I’ve long stopped wondering. I figure the value of this thread is that ngant gets to throw his theories out here and we get to present the facts that show they’re wrong. It obviously isn’t going to convince him but there are other people reading this thread who are getting a chance to hear these ideas being debunked.
There could have been two bullets according you your source. Well, all the other evidence points to there being two bullets. How does this change anything?
Did find one interesting tidbit there: along with that ten-part series on Bugliosi’s book that Tom Hanks and company are working on, there will be a documentary in which Vinnie will be let loose. That’ll be interesting viewing.
