JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots

[twik]

The Hollywood Group consisting of Sydney Wilkinson and her husband and others are examining the z film purchased directly from the national achieve, from a special effects experts perspective.
There is no doubt that the film has had special effects tampering.

I've highlighted this quote. You don't see anything wrong with it? Like, say, claiming to know the conclusions before you start the study?

Profmunkin, if you have any intellectual honesty, you would address the topic you chose for your title, not chase around after every other "anomaly" you can find. Either tell us what you believe was the actual set-up of shooters, and sequence of shots, or admit that you cannot actually come up with anything that fits the facts better than the official story.

[ka9q]

I love when CTs anomaly hunt.

That's all they ever do. It's always the same game: this doesn't look right to me or that's counterintuitive, ergo it must have been a massive conspiracy.

[Jason Thompson]

Bullets deform when they traverse flesh, they mushroom and fragment when they hit bones.

They mushroom when they hit bone head on. They flatten if they hit bone sideways. The bullet that hit Connally was tumbling after passing through Kennedy, as is evidenced by the shape of the entry wound. It never struck a bone head on so it never mushroomed.

That's a thing called physics, by the way. Not that I expect you to be familiar with that...

I am not going to waste anymore time on this until you can catch up on some reality.

And your continued refusal to acknowledge that the two bullet paths and wounds have been duplicated is noted once again. Do you ever plan on addressing that rather massive omission in your arguments?

[DataCable]

A photograph of the base of CE 399 (the so-called "magic/pristine" bullet)

Sure doesn't look near pristine to me.

It is improbable to traverse thru flesh and maintain it's 'pristine' shape
[...]
Ce-399 appears to be in a more pristine shape then bullets test fired for ballistic comparison.

Please provide an example of a bullet fired thru both a rib and a wrist that in any way is comparable to the 'pristine' nature of ce-399

If nothing else stop supporting the 'pristine bullet' theory it really makes a person appear to be a crackpot.
You haven't addressed the problem of the missing extra bullet and too many fragments from the 'pristine bullet' that traversed Connally.

Just post the picture of test bullet that duplicates the feats of the 'pristine bullet' and end the arguement

'pristine bullet' is not possible because no one has ever duplicated it or anything like it.

NOT

PRISTINE

[ka9q]

'pristine bullet' is not possible because no one has ever duplicated it or anything like it.

First of all, that's just factually wrong. See the Discovery Channel program Inside The Target Car for a very close recreation of Oswald's second shot.

Second, many laymen just like you are led astray by their intuitions about probability. Seeming paradoxes, fallacies and misconceptions abound.

Here's an illustration. The chances of any specific person winning the lottery are infinitesmal. However, the chance that someone will win the lottery is typically 100% (depending on how it is designed). So if you're running the lottery, you can't just tell the guy with the winning ticket "Sorry, but your chances were many millions to one. You must have cheated, so we're not paying!"

The assassination didn't have to happen exactly the way it did. It just so happened that JFK was killed instantly and JBC was seriously wounded but survived. JFK could have been killed without anyone else being hurt. Both JFK and JBC could have been killed. Or Oswald might have missed entirely, just as he did with General Walker.

There were perhaps a dozen outcomes, each of which could have been realized in a million different ways: at slightly different times, with slightly different wound locations and a slightly different shape of the spent bullet, and so on. It necessarily follows that each of those million ways had a very small probability of happening -- yet it did happen! So by demanding an exact recreation of the actual shot, you're simply missing the point. Even Oswald himself could not have repeated any of his shots with exactly the same results. Indeed, each of his shots had a very different result. That's how the real world works.

It's perfectly reasonable to ask if each bullet followed all the laws of physics. (Yes, they did). Beyond that, the only reasonable question is this: under the circumstances, did Oswald have a good chance of fatally hitting JFK at least once by firing three shots? Again, the answer is Yes, as has been demonstrated countless times over the years by many marksmen using identical Carcano rifles and target speeds and distances.

And no, they don't have to exactly duplicate the shape of CE399, because that's just one of the many ways it could have turned out. But the aforementioned Discovery Channel program came remarkably close. I recommend that program highly.

[twik]

profmunkin, take a look at bazbear's photo. The bullet is, indeed, damaged, not pristine.

So, in your view, the conspirators knew enough to plant a damaged bullet, but not a bullet that was damaged enough? Why even bother? After all, Connally had, in fact, been shot - you seem to imply that they recovered a second bullet from his body. Why not just leave that?

[profmunkin]

The Hollywood Group consisting of Sydney Wilkinson and her husband and others are examining the z film purchased directly from the national achieve, from a special effects experts perspective.
There is no doubt that the film has had special effects tampering.

I've highlighted this quote. You don't see anything wrong with it? Like, say, claiming to know the conclusions before you start the study?

Profmunkin, if you have any intellectual honesty, you would address the topic you chose for your title, not chase around after every other "anomaly" you can find. Either tell us what you believe was the actual set-up of shooters, and sequence of shots, or admit that you cannot actually come up with anything that fits the facts better than the official story.

You are correct. Although, I know of no way to discuss possible shooters and their locations if we are describing different events. The event, Posters maintain is that which is created within the warren commission report as established by the warren commission and since the warren commission is closed there is no procedure to establish new evidence as valid. Exceptions seems to occur only when new evidence or revised evidence concurs with established story line. By reasoning 26,000 volumes probably would not contain all of the relevant evidence that could be established, after only 26 volumes the chances are that there is much more evidence that could be yet established, evidence that could potentially alter the established story line.

 For instance examples can be presented of witnesses that did not give testimony to the warren commission. Yet the warren commission did not announce that they would persue and accept all witness testimonies, so testimonials were selected, hence any criteria used would inherently be biased and exclusitory. The selection process for evidence other then testimony could also be inherently biased and predisposed. There is also no practical method to insert testimonies or evidence into the record, so they may effectively be disregarded if contrary to established story guidelines.
The questioning of witnesses is also cause for concern because this format gave the warren commission the power to frame the issues and control witness testimony, unimpeded by any defense. Without cross examination a report was synthesized from an exclusive point of view

Selection of testimonies also effectively blocked the insertion into evidence and public record of all unselected witness testimonies.


An unresolvable conflict arises when 'evidence' is attempted to be introduced that is incompatible with the established story line. Since there is no practical method to get an official validation, no new evidence may be accepted that does not concur with established story line. Hence alternative story lines are prohibited from being explored.

Without agreeable guidelines to validate and except new evidence and testimonies, the warren commission report becomes a dead issue, closed to revelations and alternative interpretations.

On this forum not only is warren commission a dead issue, in my opinion, it's content is not open to critical review and has no potential for revision.

Examples posted of FBI destroying documents illustrated a control of evidence.
Examples of FBI influencing witnesses illustrated a control of testimony.
Examples of inaccurate representations of autopsy photo evidence illustrated a willingness on the part of the prosecutors to fabricate evidence.
Examples of prosecutors failure to ask critical questions illustrated a control of testimony
Example of excepting evidence such as 'pristine bullet' on the grounds that it maybe plausable, but unduplicatable, shows a disregard for critical review.
Examples of descenting testimony pertaining to autopsy conclusions shows a disregard for opinions contrary to determined outcome and produces unresolovable conflicts within the report itself.

[Jason Thompson]

Examples posted of FBI destroying documents illustrated a control of evidence.

You didn't post examples, you posted anecdotes.

Examples of FBI influencing witnesses illustrated a control of testimony.

You didn't post examples, you posted hearsay, and worse tried to apply your own interpretation to it despite the words you chose having very different meanings from what was actually said.

Examples of inaccurate representations of autopsy photo evidence illustrated a willingness on the part of the prosecutors to fabricate evidence.

Prove that inaccuracy = fabrication, especially when the photos are also available.

Examples of prosecutors failure to ask critical questions illustrated a control of testimony

Who decides what a critical question is, and why is your view on the matter better than anyone who was involved?

Example of excepting evidence such as 'pristine bullet' on the grounds that it maybe plausable, but unduplicatable, shows a disregard for critical review.

No, it shows an acceptance of the reality of science in matters such as these. There is no way to control the variables to the degree necessary to precisely duplicate the result of any given gunshot. The outcome in terms of the distortion of the bullet was the result of a set of circumstances that cannot ever be duplicated, since quite apart from anything else it involved the passage of the bullet through two living humans, and that in itself can never be duplicated. There is no-one on Earth with precisely the same anatomical configuration as Kennedy and Connally, and therefore no way to precisely duplicate what would happen to a bullet passing through those two men. Your failure to understand how science works and draws defensible conclusions is your own problem, not that of anyone else investigating this.

That said, I will once again note your refusal to acknowledge that you have been told already that the shots and their effects have been duplicated to what would be considered an acceptable degree by any competent investigator.

Examples of descenting testimony pertaining to autopsy conclusions shows a disregard for opinions contrary to determined outcome and produces unresolovable conflicts within the report itself.

You haven't posted examples, you have posted the opinions of less qualified individuals. You have then decided to argue your case based on the qualifications of the man involved in the autopsy, claiming he was unqualified, when he was manifestly more qualified than any of the other people whose testimony you accept without question.

Who here has a problem with critical review?

[twik]

Profmunkin, you say that the bullet is "unduplicatable". What is your statistical analysis of the number of times a bullet can be shot through the proposed path, and achieve an identical result? And how many times have people actually tried?

The bullet in the documentary was not "identical" but it was not smashed or fragmented, as you assume it should be. I'd be much more suspicious if they concluded, "Yes, this bullet is absolutely identical to the first one."

[Chew]

Even Oswald himself could not have repeated any of his shots with exactly the same results. Indeed, each of his shots had a very different result. That's how the real world works.

It drives me nuts when I watch shows trying to recreate the shooting. They all try to get two hits from three shots in 6 seconds. That's not what Oswald was trying to do. Oswald was trying to kill JFK. The recreation should stop as soon as the JFK target is hit in the head. Most experienced shooters would succeed on their first shot, some may require two shots. Do the producers of these shows really think Oswald said to himself, "I think I'll shoot him in the shoulder then I'll shoot him in the head but first I'll miss the limo completely."?

[profmunkin]

Potential to explore a conspiracy, I think not.
Case Closed.

'Treason doth never prosper: what ’s the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason'

That about sums it up.

[Chew]

Personally I prefer haikus.

lone nut sniper's nest
shots fired at the motorcade
back and to the left

[Jason Thompson]

Potential to explore a conspiracy, I think not.
Case Closed.

When you bring something sensible to the discussion we'll explore it. Your inability to understand why it is impossible to duplicate the condition of a bullet precisely is indicative of your entire problem, as is your continuing refusal to acknowledge that the shots and their effects have been reasonably well duplicated anyway. The potential for discussion rests with you and what you are willing to provide, prof.

But I guess it makes you feel better to blame us for it and retire than to actually concede your own faults, huh?

[gillianren]

To be perfectly honest, once I see someone refer to that bullet as "pristine," I know they've turned their critical thinking off.  And it isn't just because the bullet isn't pristine by any reasonable definition.

There is this idea called "loaded language."  That is words which are so full of background or context that they cannot be used without the context behind them being a part of the discussion, even if no one says anything.  And so far as I can tell, that's why the CT community has jumped on the word "pristine" to describe that particular bullet.  And it is only ever described that way in conspiracist literature, and that is the only word they use.  They use it over and over and over again, even though humans don't generally talk about bullets that way.  I mean, think about it.  If you're looking at a box of ammunition, would you describe its contents as "pristine"?  Of course not!  That's ludicrous.

Really, the word conspiracists think they want is "undamaged."  (Again, this is because they've never really looked at the bullet in question, but let it go.)  "Pristine" has a connotation, however, of purity.  Innocence.  A "pristine" bullet is one that, by definition, could not have been used in the commission of a crime.  Not because of any markings or lack thereof, but because, by implication, it could not be anything bad.

Do I think conspiracists think this out?  No.  I think the first person to use it might well have done so, though I'll admit I don't know who that was or when.  But I think the continued use of a word that is both inaccurate and loaded can only be from someone who has surrendered all rational thought to merely parroting the bad research and hyperbolic language of the conspiracist community.  I become certain of that when it's someone who is apparently incapable of even noticing serious rebuttals like, "Seriously.  Watch Unsolved History.  You can see that shot almost perfectly duplicated."

[DataCable]

Example of excepting evidence such as 'pristine bullet' on the grounds that it maybe plausable, but unduplicatable, shows a disregard for critical review.

"Accepting"

Oh, and BTW:

NOT

PRISTINE