Just off the top of my head…the WC underestimated the amount of time that Oswald had to fire three shots. Again, off the top of my head, the WC went with six seconds vs Posner’s eight. Also, I was not aware of Connelly’s “lapel flap” until I read Posner.
I asked somebody to search my history???
Come one Harry. You asked:
I answered that some would check how or what you answer in the past, and wonder why a smart guy like you apprear to be would still be questioning this over so much time.
But you knew this.
No need to ask. That’s just a benefit provided by your CIA overlords.
The touchstone for ID’ing a conspiracy theorist is their finely-tuned selectivity. Note that harry has ignored all of my suggestions for broadening his understanding, but is in a complete lather because one of the participants here is…* dunt dunt DUNNNN…* checking up on him.
Shh, guys. He’s close to figuring it out. Act normal.
In good faith, I didn’t quite make the connection, so, I owe you an apology.
Some whanker, a few years ago, went back into my history and used that to take the thread all over the place, and it has, since, made me a bit curmudgeonly.
I would appreciate it if you overlook my swinishness in this matter!
What would the duct tape be for?
No problem! Here to help 
- Don’t start with the finely-tuned selectivity biz. When you have all of the anti-CT crowd clucking, you will find that the ‘selectivity’ button pretty much evens out.
- As noted in my last post, some A-holes use past posts to change the subject. Calling hh a ‘whatever’, or implying same, can keep the issue clouded quite well.
- Ignored your suggestions?? I just woke up, am in my underwear, haven’t got to my coffee yet, and can barely see the screen, and you want me to…do anything that *anybody *suggests? I think not!
in the movie Schindler’s List, I believe Spielberg had it that people executed by pistol flung their heads in the direction of the shot.
ETA: that is, towards, not away, from the shooter.
Pretty much everything is controversial in the formal sense, “dispute, argument, or debate, esp one concerning a matter about which there is strong disagreement and esp one carried on in public or in the press.” The problem is that people have come to view things that are controversial as having two equal sides. After all, if there people in public who are saying something loudly in a totally convinced tone then there must be something to it, right?
Wrong. There is nothing to the other side in conspiracy theories. One of the many things that are fascinating about them is how chock full of nothing they are. They rip themselves from basic common sense with the first step and then proceed to float free of facts, science, logic, history, psychology, and plausibility. The pattern is uncannily similar with the “controversies” behind the Moon landing, 9/11, Obama’s birth, and now the Newtown shootings. There is absolutely no doubt about any of these events: we did land on the Moon six times, four planes did crash on 9/11, Obama was born in Hawaii, there was one shooter at Newtown. Controversy is only possible if you make claims that veer from ridiculously wrong to thoroughly insane. And the Kennedy shooting falls exactly into this pattern. Oswald did it, alone. All the rational questions have been answered rationally.
Whenever a conspiracy theorist insists that up is down, white is black, and the lizard people are behind it all, it is not in the least controversial. It’s really a bit frightening. The Illuminati are not ruling the world: they don’t exist at all. But CTs do exist and that’s bad for all rational people.
That’s why we’re concerned when someone spends decades on a CT. Some CTs kill people, like the anti-vaxxers. Some might be harmless delusions today, but who knows what horrors any long-term delusional thinking might produce.
IT is not out there. There is only one side. That is not controversial.
A reaction towards the shooter would only be the case if there was a large exit wound. I had the impression that pistols fired un-jacketed bullets and would probably not go clear through a skull.
As has been noted, Oswald took the bus to Mexico City so it’s not like it was an expensive trip. Then he walks into the Russian embassy, and being a defector he could get in front of a KGB agent. Given that Oswald was squirrely, none of this implies that he had help.
He was a double agent wannabe. One of the things I recall from Posner’s research is that when LHO was a kid, he fantasized about this. There was an old radio show (IIRC) about a double agent and it was Oswald’s favorite.
The CIA doesn’t release information about their people or methods.
There is plenty of FMJ pistol ammunition available.
Not steel jacketed anyway. From here:
I don’t have a source, but I heard these bullets and the type of gun once called ‘humanitarian’ because of their ability to kill with a single clean shot instead of disintegrating within the body of the victim leaving them to die slowly from their wounds and later infections.
If anyone can verify or deny the statement above, please do so.
I haven’t read the 22 (or is it 26?) volumes, and don’t intend to, but my impression is that the WC never made the critical demonstration of how the “magic bullet” could be so lightly scratched. To a non-firearms person such as myself the magic bullet seemed wildly implausible, and lent instant credibility to CT’s. Until I read Posner I never read any coherent experiment-backed argument that the bullet as slowed down by passage through Kennedy could break Connally’s bones without deforming.
The purpose of force in combat is to disable, but not kill, as many enemy troops as possible, because while a corpse can be left until later, a wounded comrade must be rescued and treated, which ties up a substantial number of potential combatants and support personnel.
Which is why the Geneva Convention restricts many common forms of “injurious” or “disabling” weapons in favor of those that kill cleanly.
<fx spock voice> How odd you humans are. </fx>
I think the problem is that the more detailed explanation is in the full report and only a misleading summary, with one photo, is in the summary that most people read and referred to. The photo of the magic bullet commonly seen shows it to be almost undamaged, while photos from other angles show substantial flattening and damage.
They also did not get adequate testimony from ballistics and military medical personnel who encountered such things on a routine basis in WWII and Korea. It made it all seem patched-together and phony when yes, the commission probably could have done a better job with the point.
Yes, the usual photo is a high contrast black and white image taken at an angle that hides the missing chunk, and that it is twisted and bent like a banana.
It’s one of the reasons why I discount anything Cyril Wecht says, and many other famous for their TV appearances forensic pathologists as well.
D’oh! That’s what I get for not reading for comprehension.