JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots

[profmunkin]

Hey, I think you're finally on to something.

Why not go all the way and study all of the Warren Commission testimony before you formulate such definite conclusions? Wouldn't that be more productive than randomly leafing around for a few cherry-picked witnesses that you can quote selectively and out of context to support your predetermined conclusion?

No.
I wanted to see what witnesses experiecned in Dealey Plaza as recounted in sworn testimony. I wanted to determine if these testimonies could be corroborated in ways that I might understand what was experienced that afternoon.

I started with the "Witness at the assassination scene" catagory and read every testimony there
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
I then started and just completed the TSBD
I will next take Parkland Hospital.

"a few cherry-picked witnesses..." review the data.

[ka9q]

The fact that all of the witnesses didn't point to one location as the source of the gunshots, and the fact that one of the locations that they pointed to couldn't possibly have been the source of the shots, means that at least some of the witnesses identified the wrong location as the source of the shots. In other words, they were confused by the echoes.

Not only were they confused by the echoes in Dealy Plaza, most of the earwitnesses were unfamiliar with the sounds of rifle fire. Many first thought a motorcycle had backfired or even that some kids had tossed firecrackers into the street. Only experienced hunters like Governor Connally and Officer Baker immediately recognized the shots for what they were.

Even without echoes, each rifle shot creates at least three distinct sounds from three different directions: the shock wave from the supersonic bullet; the muzzle blast from the rifle; and the bullet hitting its target. Only the muzzle blast seems to come from the position of the gun.

The shock wave from the bullet appears to come from an entirely different direction, namely the position of the bullet at the moment it created the shock wave that you hear. People in different locations will perceive it as coming from different points along the bullet's path, and some will even be off by 180 degrees. Adding to the confusion is the fact that the bullet shock is usually louder than the muzzle blast and arrives before it.

I speculate, but have not verified, that the 'crack' of the bullet will seem to come from the position of the bullet when its velocity relative to the observer (not its actual speed) drops to the speed of sound.

Those who are highly familiar with rifles learn to ignore the bullet shock wave and associate the muzzle blast with the location of the gun. Connally and Baker both correctly identified the direction from which the shots were fired.

I'm sure the witnesses closest to the assassin would have had the best chance of identifying the source of the gunshots.

Indeed. In that category we have Oswald's coworkers on the floor below him, who even heard the ejected shells hitting the floor. And we also have Howard Brennan across the street who actually saw Oswald firing the shots. Isn't it curious how the conspiracists invariably ignore or dismiss these witnesses, relying instead on a few hand-picked distant earwitnesses who were confused by the physics and the acoustics into giving the direction the conspiracist prefers?

[profmunkin]

Not all the jigsaw pieces are going to fit. .

This is not a jigsaw, this is life,

YES...everything fits, when you see the right way.

[Ranb]

what is this protruding from the bottom of this rifle, is it the clip or the magazine?
and if it is the magazine, by comparing photos, this does not appear to be the magazine design I have seen on other photos of the Carcano.

What is going on in this photo?
Does the clip fall out the bottom of the rifle or ejected out the top when the last shell is ejected?

The Carcano that Oswald allegedly used matches what is seen in that photo.  That model uses a fixed magazine and is loaded with an enbloc clip containing cartridges.  The magazine is much larger than the small clip that holds the cartridges together.  One can not be mistaken for the other when seen by anyone familiar with this rifle.



What your arrow is pointing to could be part of the shadow that is on the ground in front of the person holding the rifle.  If it is a gun part, then it is the clip stuck slightly ejected from the magazine.

Ranb

[Ranb]

what is this protruding from the bottom of this rifle, is it the clip or the magazine?

Does the clip fall out the bottom of the rifle or ejected out the top when the last shell is ejected?

I think these two questions display an extreme amount of ignorance from any person who has an opinion on the how JFK was killed.  This information is easy to dig up.  Carcano rifles are very common and cheap for anyone who wants to find out for themselves how they operate and how easy it is to shoot quickly and somewhat accurately.

I used to be surprised at how ignorant most people are about guns when they made various claims about how it was impossible for JFK to have been shot from the TSBD.  But now I understand that many CTer's use ignorance and prejudice instead of simple evidence to come to a conclusion.  The trouble is that they have to expect that those who listen to them are just was willfully ignorant, and many times this is not the case.

Ranb

[Echnaton]

What part of "Weitzman did not examine the rifle" do you not understand?

I can say the same:
What part of "Weitzman signed an affidavit swearing it was a 7.65 Mauser" do you not get?
Weitzman just glanced at the murder weapon of a sitting president, guessed at the identificaton of the rifle and the identificaton scope then testified to these FACTS in an affidavit to be FACTS.

I question the weight you put in the Weitzman affidavit.  It is quite possible that the statement was a recounting of his actions and thoughts when he discovered the weapon.  In that case it would seem to be appropriate to include the identification information even if it was not correct.  Other investigations have accepted a mis-identification as the right reading of the situation, so why is your interpretation better? 

Why should we have accepted Weitzman as the definitive identification anyway.   He personally says he has no doubt about the later identification. 

Why did the Dallas Police announce to the news media that it was a 7.65 Mauser?
Why did the Dallas Police not make a correction till the next day?

Assuming this to be accurate, why does it override all other information on the situation?  Who from the Dallas PD made this announcement? Was it official or was it something a reporter hanging around the Dallas PD overheard and printed?  Remember that at the time reporters (and hangers-on like Ruby) had a pretty much free run of police stations, including the ability to just just go into the file rooms and open drawers.  So in this context tell us why your interpretation is better than those of the professional investigators?

[Ranb]

ETA-Apparently Day removed it later that day at the DPD crime lab, so it must have stuck.

I think that a clip is very unlikely to stick out part way.  A well lubricated rifle or one that is completely dry will eject a clip that is not bent out of shape.  A magazine with lots of grease in it will make a clip stay in, but if a clip starts moving out, then it will most likely keep going.  As far as I know there was not lots of grease in the rifle magazine nor was the clip bent out of shape.

Ranb

[Echnaton]

Why don't you start reading WC testimonies yourself and quit relying on other people to tell you what you should think?

Insulting members of this forum will get you banned quicker than anything else you can do.

[LunarOrbit]

Not all the jigsaw pieces are going to fit. .

This is not a jigsaw, this is life,

YES...everything fits, when you see the right way.

Yes... puzzle pieces always fit if you force them to. And that is exactly what you're doing. You're taking bits and pieces of information and forcing them to conform to your pre-existing beliefs even though it results in a theory that doesn't make any sense. You didn't read the Warren Commission reports and THEN reach the conclusion that there was a conspiracy, you reached the conclusion that there was a conspiracy first and now you're trying to use the WC to support that. It doesn't work that way.

Here are some questions that you need to answer:

1) How can someone standing in front of JFK and Governor Connally shoot them in the back?

2) Why would the conspirators use multiple assassins if they want people to believe there was only one? Why position assassins in any position besides the one they want their patsy  to be caught in? If the trajectories of the bullets lead investigators anywhere besides that one position then the conspiracy would be discovered.

3) Why would the conspirators plant any make of rifle besides the same one their patsy used?

4) Why would the conspirators plant pristine bullets? Or any bullets at all? What do they accomplish by planting the bullets? Aren't the wounds proof enough that the victims were shot?

[Echnaton]

This forum so far has been incapable of examining the evidence provided, then forming opinions based on this evidence.  gillianren as I have explained, it would be folly to propose an alternate story if the set of evidences your believing is true blocks your perception to what I might propose. 

You have this completely  backwards.  We have examined your post and found them to be lacking in a great many things.  You could solve much of your lack of acceptance by simply stating what your believed happened and stating what evidence supports that theory and why your interpretations are better than those of other investigations. 

But we all know that will never happen because you don't have the knowledge and haven't done the work.   

[Chew]

Some notions debunk themselves. profmunkin's proof of a grassy knoll gunman is based on the assumption that the human ear can accurately locate the source of a sound. Anybody older than 1 year old with at least one partially functioning ear knows this is not true. But if it were true and that is the way the world actually worked then the grassy knoll gunman would know it, too, and therefore would not have selected a shooting position on the opposite side of the conspiracy's patsy.

[profmunkin]

I think that a clip is very unlikely to stick out part way.  A well lubricated rifle or one that is completely dry will eject a clip that is not bent out of shape.  A magazine with lots of grease in it will make a clip stay in, but if a clip starts moving out, then it will most likely keep going.  As far as I know there was not lots of grease in the rifle magazine nor was the clip bent out of shape.

Ranb

Yes makes sense.
I wonder why after the last shell was ejected and the clip dropped part way out of the bottom of the rifle that Fritz didn't slide it the rest of the way out so that it could not be dislodged during transport ? The way he is carring it, if this is a clip, the clip looks like it could have easily tumbled out of the rifle.
It raises the question how the clip was be loaded if it was bent.
Is there any evidence that the clip was bent or rusted?
Did anyone mention any problems of removing the clip?

Is it true that the clip must contain 6 rounds to load or is this a myth?

[profmunkin]

Yes... puzzle pieces always fit if you force them to.

The closer one gets to the truth the more things begin to connect and make sense.

Here are some questions that you need to answer:

1) How can someone standing in front of JFK and Governor Connally shoot them in the back?

With a different focus on the evidence it is done.

2) Why would the conspirators use multiple assassins if they want people to believe there was only one? Why position assassins in any position besides the one they want their patsy  to be caught in? If the trajectories of the bullets lead investigators anywhere besides that one position then the conspiracy would be discovered.

There was only 1 shooter
But if the evidence of the trajectories can be controlled, you can also control the position of the assassin.

3) Why would the conspirators plant any make of rifle besides the same one their patsy used?

I have not put any attention on this yet

4) Why would the conspirators plant pristine bullets? Or any bullets at all? What do they accomplish by planting the bullets? Aren't the wounds proof enough that the victims were shot?

The bullet ballistics result in a perfect match to "Oswald's" rifle. Perfect frame up.
The wounds are proof they were shot, yes. 

[gillianren]

Well.  That solves that.  Time to test the ignore list!

[Chew]

There was only 1 shooter
But if the evidence of the trajectories can be controlled, you can also control the position of the assassin.

But according to you the source of sounds can be accurately identified. This contradicts your premise that the evidence of trajectories can be controlled.

3) Why would the conspirators plant any make of rifle besides the same one their patsy used?

I have not put any attention on this yet

Well, then get on it, because it destroys your theory that a conspiracy set up Oswald as a patsy.