I suppose its possible I am at that. However, having followed bigpappadiaz through several threads now I have to say…I’m still uncertain. S/he really does have some rather esoteric ideas about a wide ranging number of topics.
Of course, it may be a reverse whoosh on YOU (you might say a conspiricy to whoosh you…). 
Read through some of big’s posts and then think it through…
-XT
This is one of the few times that I (partially) agree with the conspiracists. I do not buy the single bullet theory because I feel the ballistic evidence is insufficient. Therefore, while I don’t believe the Warren Commission was covering anything up, or that everyone in the car was in on it (including Gov. Connolly, who was critically injured), I do believe that they were wrong and that Oswald may not have been the only one shooting.
I have covered the bullet fragments elsewhere on this forum:
But it hasn’t been debunked. I admit that the theories are getting harder and harder to take seriously over the years, but there are plenty of questions that have not been properly addressed in regards to this case. Perhaps all of the real answers can in some way point to LHO as the lone assassin and that all of this can be explained. What I do hold to be certain is that the answers that we have been given are inaccurate.
Single bullet theory? The Jet Effect? As someone who has extensive exposure to rifles I am not amused.
Any lawyer worth his salt could have gotten LHO an innocent verdict due almost entirely to the flaws in the investigation and the amount of reasonable doubt left in the case. I’m not saying that automatically makes him not guilty, but a decent lawyer could have seen to it that a jury voted that way.
Only if you rely on the notoriously degraded copy of the Zapruder film touted by William Cooper.
Better versions of the film show that what was supposed to be driver William Greer turning and (extremely awkwardly) holding a shiny pistol in front of his face is actually the reflections off his colleague in the next seat William Kellerman’s hair (the “barrel”) and forehead (the “hand”).
Ach, Roy Kellerman.
I’m sorry, but all of this HAS been debunked…repeatedly. On this board for one thing. Every one of the objections you made in the post you quoted have been answered…here and elsewhere. Every…one…of…them. I’m not about to get dragged into another CT thread though where the CT guys play fast and loose. I was totally put off by the bullshit in the 9/11 CT thread. If you would like to show some physical evidence to back up any of your claims (such as the rifle wasn’t powerful enough over the distances (85 yards IIRC) it was fired, or the fragementation of the bullet) by REPUTABLE sources then I’ll see what I can dig up to debunk it. You first though this time…and understand that conjecture from non-experts or eyewitness accounts do NOT constitute physical evidence.
Or you could watch the Peter Jennings thing on the JFK CT…most (if not all) of your objections were covered there and its in a more palatable form than dull cites (though they do tend to gloss some things over).
You being a member you could always just do a search on the board…there have been myriad JFK CT threads here. All of them that I’ve seen have ended pretty much the same way the recent 9/11 CT train wreck ended…with plenty of facts on the debunkers side and a lot of hand waving an nitpicking on the CT’s side.
-XT
Peter Jennings is no authority on the assassination of JFK, and I never said anything about the rifle not being powerful enough over distances to do the damage. The rifle is not powerful enough to produce the level of trauma that is indicated by the autopsy reports. The distance has nothing to do with it.
I have read the previous threads on this subject. My objections and statements in the above post have not been properly addressed in any of them. Not. A. Single. One. Of. Them. Previously when I come up against detractors in regards to this discussion, I find that none of them can address my statements directly, but dismiss them off hand by mentioning something like, “This has already been debunked!” I then ask for a cite, and I don’t get one, or I get something along the lines of, “Read Case Closed, by Posner!” I have read it, in case you were wondering.
The official White House photographer isn’t reputable enough to comment on the photographs that he took? He can’t say for sure whether he took them or not? The developer of the film? None of the eye witnesses?
I’m not like previous CT’s in that I don’t jump to conclusions. I take nothing for granted. I have come to my conclusions after many, many years of careful observation and study. I have done my homework.
Take a look at my quote above where I outline a short series of facts about the case and debunk one of them, just one, and I’ll go away.
Señor Diaz should take a cue from you. He thinks four years is long enough to come to a conclusion!
Four years plus however much time the original conspiracy theorist I read spent thinking. I’m sure there was a lot of thinking that went on between now and then.
Nope, he isn’t…good thing he didn’t do most of the talking, huh?
As for the autopsy report, do you have a cite about this disparity? Obviously if its in the forensics report that a bullet fired from the rifle could not have made the wound then you should be able to get that cite (by a reputable source) easily enough…its all been declassified after all.
Are you seriously saying that in none of the threads have any of your concerns about the ‘single bullet theory’ or the ‘magic bullet’ or the ‘jet effect’ (though I have to admit I’m unsure which one this is now…its been a while) been addressed? I’m sorry but…did you READ the threads? I know for a fact that the first two have been addressed…because I remember doing it myself at least once.
But, I’ll tell you what. As I asked, present physical evidence from reputable sources laying out exactly what the claim (for example forensics data from a reputable source stating in no uncertain terms that it is not possible for the bullet fired from LHO’s gun recovered at the crime scene could have made the injury to JFK’s skull) is and backing it up with solid evidence and I promise to look at it closely and give you a reply. I’m NOT going to get sucked into another series of blury pictures, amorphous videos and questionable eyewitness accounts with nothing to back any of it up…I just got burned in an 8 page train wreck so understand I’m a bit leery here. If you want to present a case of what you thing are genuine anomolies to the case and back it up with real data…well then I’ll do my part.
Frankly no. It was a chaotic scene with a hell of a lot happening at once. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. Back up your claims with real physical evidence if you can. Other wise we are back to the subjective ‘he said/she said’ dance that will get no where.
Ok, fair enough. As I said, if you can back up your claims with real physical evidence or analysis from reputable sources then I’ll certainly be interested in seeing it.
I’ll be honest…I’m really looking for a bit more than that myself. Forensics and computer modeling have come a long way. I’ve SEEN the entire episode modeled via computer with all the forensics data plugged in…and frankly it all works without a hitch. So…I’d need to see a similar level of effort, of data and of physical evidence used to confirm a counter theory. Is that not fair?
-XT
Oswald used a heavy metal jacketed bullet. A substantial hole was blown out of JFK’s head suggesting a fragmenting bullet. There are 40 metal fragments in Kennedy’s head and a key piece of evidence that would identify the type of bullet jacket went missing (his brain). I suppose it’s easy to misplace an assassinated president’s brain. Probably happens all the time.
My fuzzy brain is now functioning again. I recall what the jet effect is now.
So…‘jet effect’. I’m not sure whether it was ever resolved if this was what caused the famous ‘back and to the left’ motion or whether the consensus was that it was a combination of the involuntary acceleration of the car coupled with “a neuromuscular response activated by the destruction of the centers”…i.e. Kennedy was shot in the head and lost all nervous/muscular control (this tends to happen when half your brain is blown out).
The consensus though from every panel I’ve seen is that he was definitely shot in the BACK of the head, reguardless of the exact mechanism that caused him to appear to jerk ‘back and to the left’. Whats your specific problem with this? That ‘the jet effect’ may not have been the major contributing cause of Kennedy jerking ‘back and to the left’? Fair enough…I’m not entirely convinced of that either. Or is it that because the exact mechanism (or mechanisms as IMHO it was a combination of a lot of things happening at once) is unknown that this somehow means that Kennedy was not shot in the back of the head? Because all the forensic data clearly indicates he was…even if the exact mechanism that caused his final motion is not quite clear.
-XT
This doesn’t really answer the question you raised about the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head unfortunately (its actually in MacPherson’s book, but unfortunately I can’t find the reference online…and its getting a bit past my bed time :)). I’ll see if I can dig something up tomorrow, time permitting…there really isn’t much controversy over any of this stuff from the experts so it shouldn’t be too hard to find plenty of cites.
However, it does have a brief paragraph about the autopsy that I thought I’d post…just as food for thought.
“I suppose it’s easy to misplace an assassinated president’s brain. Probably happens all the time.”
Appearently there is a grain of truth here even though you meant it sarcastically. 
-XT
As I’ve stated already, the death certificates, The Warren Report, articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association, and other sources state that the president was killed by wounds inflicted by high-velocity missiles from a high-powered rifle later identified as the 6.5mm Carcano. It was later identified as such because the first identification on the scene was that of a Mauser. It was only later that it became a Carcano. I don’t need a cite from the forensics report that says that the Carcano was a low to medium velocity weapon (carbine) and could not have produced such high level of damage, as that is common knowledge that isn’t disputed anywhere.
Chaotic or not, Robert Knudsen, White House photographer, reported having in his possession–at one and the same time–photographs that displayed a major blow-out of the President’s head and others that did not. How chaotic must a situation be where that happens? Then Saundra Spencer, who processed the photographs, still possesses developed film that does not have the same physical markings as other photographs she processed using the same film. How chaotic must a scene be in a dark room after the fact in order for processed images to contradict one another?
Regarding the wound to the president’s head being described as an exit wound:
Dr. Kemp Clark–“I examined the wound in the back of the President’s head.”
Dr. Kemp Clark
CE-392–“two external wounds… the other in the occipital area of the skull…a large wound of the occipitalparietal area.”–Dr. Kemp Clark (this is under oath)
WC testimony–“I examined the wound in the back of the President’s head.” He noted the “presence of much larger wound in the right occipital region.” (again, under oath)
Dr. Robert McClelland–“As I took the position at the head of the table, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound.”
Nearly every Dallas doctor, while under oath, was asked by the Warren Commission where the head wound was located. Each doctor placed the exit wound in the back of the President’s head. Not one of them said he did not know, could not remember, or did not have an opportunity to observe. As a matter of fact they were about to open the chest to do a heart massage when Dr. Jenkins stopped the procedure dead in its tracks by saying, “Before you open that chest, you’d better step up and take a look at this head wound.” The chest was not opened.
I have similar examples from doctors Paul Peters, Ronald Jones, Gene Akin, and Robert McClelland. Does this sound like people who were not completely sure of what they were looking at to you? Do you believe that everyone under such a tremendous amount of stress would all have the same hallucination?
Regarding the jet effect:
Your quote from Edgewood Arsenal is also addressed in respect to human skulls filled with gelatin not being an accurate representation of live bone. Not that I need a scientific explanation from a mechanical engineer, but I suppose it helps.
The book looks like an interesting read but it leans closer to my point than away from it. Quote:
G: Is it possible to deform a bullet the way CE399 is deformed by firing the bullet into water?
MacP: Probably not. Bullet 399 really isn’t deformed much; a point often made by those who dispute the “single bullet” conclusion. The bullets used in this assassination are much more resistant to deformation than most rifle bullets. The major effect in bullet 399 is “toothpasting”, i.e., a small amount of the lead core has been squeezed out of the jacket base like toothpaste from a tube. This probably occurred when the bullet hit Connally’s ribs at a high yaw angle after it had been considerably slowed by travel through soft tissue (a bullet in a reconstructed firing showed deformation similar to and slightly larger than bullet 399). The bullet would yaw in water, but probably would not “toothpaste” without contact with a hard object.
It’s the final shot that I find most interesting. It appears to me that the bullet that struck Kennedy was not a heavy metal jacket design. It came apart in his head and created a shock wave which blew out a large section of skull. It’s not the lead that needs identifying but the bullet’s jacket. This would prove or disprove a different type of bullet.
I’ve seen demonstration’s of Oswald’s bullet and it tends to pass through an object relatively intact. A thinner jacketed bullet is more likely to fragment and blow an object apart. Also, looking at Kennedy’s head position in frame 312 it was nowhere near the line of site that was needed for Oswald to create the entry/exist wound. The bullet would have had to move at a right angle to exit the right side. There is nothing inside a skull to deflect a bullet or a fragmenting bullet. The exit wound should correspond roughly to the line of site of the entry wound.
I don’t see how you get from the fact that it was heavily jacketed and the neck shot didn’t fragment, to the head shot should not fragment. The neck shot was deformed when it hit a glancing blow to a rib bone after it had been slowed down. The head shot bullet hit skull bone at full speed.
The exit wound did not need to be centered around the line-of-sight bullet path. It seems plausible to me that his head was down, with his face angled to the left, exposing the back top right of his skull to an off-center shot. Since it was off-center, it cracked open more skull bone on the top right. The shock wave inside his skull would propagate out perpindicularly to the line of travel, and it would explode out the top right because the weakened skull at that point was not enough to contain the pressure, in other words, perpindicular to the bullet path.
The shock wave hitting the lower left portion of his skull is would tend to push it down and to the left, but this is just another way of thinking about the jet effect. And I’m not at all convinced that the jet effect explains Kennedy’s body’s motion immediately after the shot, by the way. There seems to be too much inertia there for a bullet to explain, and certainly too much for any shot from the front/right. I think the motion of his body is more plausibly explained by muscular spasms due to his nervous system getting a sudden major overload.
The bullet would have had to move at a right angle to exit the right side. There is nothing inside a skull to deflect a bullet or a fragmenting bullet. The exit wound should correspond roughly to the line of site of the entry wound.
[/QUOTE]
Above, you promised to stop posting if someone proved you wrong. Your contention–that a Carcano “could not have produced such high level of damage, as that is common knowledge that isn’t disputed anywhere”–is patently untrue. Plenty of authorities would dispute your assertion.
Cite of muzzle velocity/muzzle energy: “The Norma factory load for the 6.5x52 is loaded with a 156 grain Alaska bullet at a muzzle velocity (MV) of 2428 fps and muzzle energy of 2043 ft. lbs.”
A muzzle energy of 2,043 ft. lbs is more than powerful enough to inflict such damage. Can you prove that it is not?
Re: the confusion between the Carcano and a Mauser, here’s from Wiki:
“Although this rifle is often called “Mannlicher-Carcano” especially in US parlance, that name was never official, as little as the even less correct moniker “Mauser-Paravicino.” Its official designation in Italian is simply Mod. '91 (“il novantuno”). The name Mannlicher-Carcano is also misleading because the rifle’s bolt action was based on a German Mauser-style bolt action, not the Austrian Mannlicher-style. The Mannlicher designation comes from the fact that the rifle uses a Mannlicher-type magazine system.”
Under stress, people make mistakes. Under extreme stress, extreme mistakes. Confusing a Carcano and Mauser doesn’t seem improbable.
Now, will you honor your promise and stop posting on this silly topic?
Oh, it is patently false! Oh my, I feel like such a fool! Carnac the Magnificent says so. Excuse me while I curl up in the fetal position and shake in fear for an hour or so.
So just where is that part where you prove me wrong? How is it patently untrue? Where are these ‘plenty of authorities’ in which you are referring?
No it isn’t. And furthermore the burden of proof doesn’t fall on me to prove anything one way or the other. It falls on the Warren Commission and their proponents to prove that it can do the damage once a point is raised that it cannot. They are the ones citing that the rifle is capable of the damage. They must account for the discrepancies in their cite. This is a fundamental element in how the justice system works. It is also a fundamental element that would have come up had LHO made it to trial. Again, it is called burden of proof I suggest that you not ignore that.
First of all, it is not a rifle, it is a carbine. Second, it was District Attorney Wade who made the assumption that it was a Mauser.
Which is odd because they do not look alike to anyone that knows anything about the two firearms, like you for instance. I’ve fired them both. One is a 6.5mm, the other a 7.65mm with a slightly higher muzzle velocity. The latter could inflict the demonstrated damage, not the former. Have you looked at the xrays? Fired a rifle? I am not waxing asshole here, I genuinely want to know how you came to the conclusion that you did.
I love how you guys cite extreme stress for every screw up that happened that day (the rifle being identified as a Mauser initially, the initial assessments by the doctors at Parkland Hospital regarding the right occipital-parietal wound as an exit wound). To hear you tell it, the most credible people that were on the scene that fateful Friday were the ones that just didn’t soil themselves. :rolleyes:
… you don’t even know what a rifle is, apparently. It’s like squares and rectangles. Most carbines are rifled, making them rifles. Not all rifles are carbines.
A carbine is a short rifle. That’s all. It tends to be less powerful due to the shortened barrel, but not horribly so.
I see nothing that prevents a carbine from doing the damage as presented.
The fact that it is a carbine isn’t what prevents it from being able to do the damage. The fact that it is a low to medium velocity weapon is what prevents it (also the type of round and caliber). Please tell where I said that the weapon was unable to do the damage because it was a carbine.
