ApolloHoax.net

Off Topic => Other Conspiracy Theories => Topic started by: gillianren on April 14, 2016, 02:14:20 AM

Title: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: gillianren on April 14, 2016, 02:14:20 AM
I picked up a copy of the Warren Report at a yard sale years ago.  It's been sitting around being 800+ pages of fairly dense language that I'd see occasionally and think, "Boy, I should get to that."

Well, the other night, I jumped in.  I've only read less than 150 pages, but already, something is bothering me.

How can you read this and still think it was a conspiracy?  If anything, it's getting harder for me to construct a workable conspiracy theory out of the evidence, though I'll concede that the guy on page 99 looks weirdly like Oswald, so maybe if he was the actual shooter, I can imagine witnesses confusing them?  But there are a ton of people who would have to have been confused by details in order for essentially any other conspiracy to hold together.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: Allan F on April 14, 2016, 02:51:42 AM
Some people are just more comfy in their own fantasy than in the real world.

That, and the wish to posess "special" knowledge.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: bknight on April 14, 2016, 08:36:10 AM
I'll second Allan's thought on people wanting to possess special knowledge, as with most CT's.  I have to jolt back to reality every so often and realize this concept with CT's and the why behind their adolescent beliefs.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: Allan F on April 14, 2016, 02:21:55 PM
I used to shoot rifle in competitions. It was a Sauer STR200, 6.5x55R - magazine-fed bolt-action rifle, ring sights, no optics allowed. On one occasion, I shot a 10-shot string in 58 seconds, scored 98 out of 100 on a target 200 meters away. The 10-ring is 12 cm across. With one magazine change (which I fumbled) I still had plenty of time to take 10 aimed shots under competition stress. The guy who won scored a perfect 100.

Point is, at the distance LHO fired his 3 shots, missing would be very difficult. I fired the first 3 shots in less than 10 secs - we were allowed to load the rifle, get into position, aim and hold the finger on the trigger before the clock started.

So about 6.5 seconds between shots - cut 10 secs off for magazine change, and the time was 5.3 seconds between shots. And I wasn't really rushed. It was from prone, unsupported, so getting the magazine in and out was a little difficult. Sitting up, I can easily see aimed shots with 3-4 seconds between them possible.

Our 10-ring is relatively smaller than JFK's head was at 85 meters. And a very overlooked fact no conspiracist ever has accepted is, that if you shoot, you might make an error - or two errors or three - at the same time. And some of those errors can cancel each other out, and what should have been a distant miss, might be a perfect shot. And the conspiracists think that those 3 shots fired somehow should be the average of maybe a hundred shots - or a thousand shots. Because it was a stressfull situation, the rifle perhaps wasn't perfect, there were trees in the way and so on. But IF you fire blind, you MIGHT hit your target.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: bknight on April 14, 2016, 04:39:37 PM
He was such a large person, a nobody could not have killed him---so the story should go.  I don't have the experience with target practice, but I do remember a documentary with a guy in a target stand and he had no problem hitting his target, much like you.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: gillianren on April 15, 2016, 12:30:29 AM
I've now read the part where they talk about the difficulty of the shot, and the agreement is quite clear that it wasn't difficult at all.  I mean, it would be for me, because I have essentially no experience with guns and crappy aim, but neither of those things appear to have been true for Oswald.  Definitely not the former and almost certainly not the latter.  "Pretty good for a Marine" is clearly not "crappy."
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: gillianren on April 15, 2016, 12:31:36 AM
I will say, though, that it's quite clear that the Dallas Police Department handled security in their building very badly.  That building just basically wasn't secure at all, was it?
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: bknight on April 15, 2016, 08:50:02 AM
I will say, though, that it's quite clear that the Dallas Police Department handled security in their building very badly.  That building just basically wasn't secure at all, was it?

Understatement of the week!
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: Sus_pilot on April 15, 2016, 01:11:33 PM
I will say, though, that it's quite clear that the Dallas Police Department handled security in their building very badly.  That building just basically wasn't secure at all, was it?
To be fair, things were a lot different up to the assassination.  Presidents routinely rode open cars to be close to the electorate, and were generally more accessible.

I was at the Grand Hotel in Taipei two weeks ago and the out going president of Taiwan was being given a farewell dinner by the diplomatic corps.  We guests of the hotel were basically just asked to stay a respectful distance In the lobby by the security team, while normal traffic continued to pull up into the parking lot.  Given a similar event at a major hotel in the US, I think the lobby would have been cleared and locked down, and no traffic whatsoever would have been allowed near the front doors.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: Ranb on April 15, 2016, 08:07:41 PM
..... But IF you fire blind, you MIGHT hit your target.
I occasionally run into people online or in person who believe that the "course of fire" in Dealey Plaza that day was difficult for some reason.  None of them were proficient with a firearm.  I always explain that anything under 100 yards is short range for a rifle and that anyone who could make it through Marine Corps boot camp had to be capable of what Oswald did.

Ranb
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: ka9q on April 15, 2016, 09:39:01 PM
Remember that Oswald wasn't a perfect shot on November 22. The Warren Commission concluded that one of his shots completely missed. They couldn't say which one, but subsequent analysis makes a pretty compelling case that it was his first. The target was closest, but it was also moving across his point of view and he was shooting through a tree.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: ka9q on April 15, 2016, 09:41:10 PM
I occasionally run into people online or in person who believe that the "course of fire" in Dealey Plaza that day was difficult for some reason.  None of them were proficient with a firearm.
I never seriously believed the shots were that difficult, but for me the clincher was standing in the actual window (well, the one to the right of it since the actual corner window is glassed off) and seeing the view with my own eyes. Yes, it would have been easy.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: smartcooky on April 16, 2016, 12:21:35 AM
gillianren

When you get to the part about the "single bullet theory" (a.k.a.  the "magic" bullet) give me a call. I can show you that there was no magic.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: smartcooky on April 16, 2016, 02:50:15 AM
..... But IF you fire blind, you MIGHT hit your target.
I occasionally run into people online or in person who believe that the "course of fire" in Dealey Plaza that day was difficult for some reason.  None of them were proficient with a firearm.  I always explain that anything under 100 yards is short range for a rifle and that anyone who could make it through Marine Corps boot camp had to be capable of what Oswald did.

Ranb

This is a target almost identical to the type I  used to shoot at during my Basic Training and in annual qualification shoots for the 20 years I was in our Air Force...  1973-1993

(http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTYwMFgxMjAw/z/PuoAAOSwpdpVbHDi/$_1.JPG)

It is a life size target; the centre rectangle is about 3" wide, and the next is about 6" wide

We used to shoot these...

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/FN-FAL_Calibre_7.62.jpg)
A Belgian made FN-FAL 7.62mm gas operated SLR...notch & pin "iron sights" only!!!

The qualifying shoot was something like this; you had three magazines of 20 rounds each

2 x "warmers" into  the bank behind the target
3 x sighters after which the people tending the butts gave you MPI (Mean Point of Impact) indications to tell you where your shots were falling.

From now on, every shot counted

@ 100 metres
15 shots prone (in your own time)
MPIs
Reload
10 shots standing  (in your own time)
10 shots standing "snap" in 5 two-shot pairs, on the command "Fire"
MPIs
Reload
10 shots rapid fire (15 second time limit)
MPIs
Move back to 200m

@200 metres
10 shots lying  (in your own time)

To pass qualification, you had to score 75% (42/55) by hitting the second to smallest rectangle (or at least nicking the edge)

To be awarded a Marksman's Badge...

(http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/nz/nzaf-marksman.jpg)

You had to score 90% (49/55)

This was not easy, but I qualified every year (as did most people) and even managed the Marksman's Badge about a third of the time. Only once got a perfect score though.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: gillianren on April 16, 2016, 03:00:43 AM
When you get to the part about the "single bullet theory" (a.k.a.  the "magic" bullet) give me a call. I can show you that there was no magic.

Oh, I'm perfectly aware, and even if I weren't, the report does explain the relevant placement and all that.  No diagrams, which would have been helpful if I hadn't already seen them about fifty other places, but anyone who can read the report's description of the angles and still come away believing that the bullet had to do anything unexpected needs to have their reading comprehension checked. 

As to the security of the building, I can almost get where the Dallas PD was coming from, but boy, the way they handled things could so easily have tanked the trial had Oswald lived.  Giving out every little detail of an active police investigation is a bad idea.  No wonder the literature is so full of contradictions; people were clearly telling things to the press before those things were confirmed.  Though Mark Lane has appeared in the bit I've gotten to, clearly lying.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: ka9q on April 16, 2016, 06:58:25 AM
The other thing about the so-called "magic bullet" that's lost on many people is the specific type of bullet Oswald used: copper-jacketed military ammunition. This allowed the bullet to remain intact as it passed through JFK's neck, going on to hit JBC in the back. People are more familiar with soft lead bullets that readily deform and fragment, so they can't understand how a bullet could do all that and still emerge supposedly "pristine" -- though an end-on view of the bullet shows it was anything but.

IMHO, elaborate computer modeling of the geometry was interesting but unnecessary to demonstrate that the bullet that hit JBC in the back had already passed through JFK's neck. JBC had an oval entrance wound, and a bullet that had traveled such a short distance could not possibly do this unless it had already passed through something on the way that upset its stable spin.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: bknight on April 16, 2016, 07:32:05 AM
When you get to the part about the "single bullet theory" (a.k.a.  the "magic" bullet) give me a call. I can show you that there was no magic.

Oh, I'm perfectly aware, and even if I weren't, the report does explain the relevant placement and all that.  No diagrams, which would have been helpful if I hadn't already seen them about fifty other places, but anyone who can read the report's description of the angles and still come away believing that the bullet had to do anything unexpected needs to have their reading comprehension checked. 

As to the security of the building, I can almost get where the Dallas PD was coming from, but boy, the way they handled things could so easily have tanked the trial had Oswald lived.  Giving out every little detail of an active police investigation is a bad idea.  No wonder the literature is so full of contradictions; people were clearly telling things to the press before those things were confirmed.  Though Mark Lane has appeared in the bit I've gotten to, clearly lying.
The diagrams of the actual positions of both men clearly take the "evidence" of the bullet changing directions, which was one of Jim Garrison's main points.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: gillianren on April 16, 2016, 01:04:35 PM
The diagrams of the actual positions of both men clearly take the "evidence" of the bullet changing directions, which was one of Jim Garrison's main points.

Only the faulty ones.  I've seen plenty of diagrams that do take into account the logistics of the jump seat and the angle Connally was probably turned at the time and make it clear that the only changes in angle happen when the bullet has hit something that causes a change in trajectory.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: smartcooky on April 16, 2016, 05:50:37 PM
When you get to the part about the "single bullet theory" (a.k.a.  the "magic" bullet) give me a call. I can show you that there was no magic.

Oh, I'm perfectly aware, and even if I weren't, the report does explain the relevant placement and all that.  No diagrams, which would have been helpful if I hadn't already seen them about fifty other places, but anyone who can read the report's description of the angles and still come away believing that the bullet had to do anything unexpected needs to have their reading comprehension checked. 

As to the security of the building, I can almost get where the Dallas PD was coming from, but boy, the way they handled things could so easily have tanked the trial had Oswald lived.  Giving out every little detail of an active police investigation is a bad idea.  No wonder the literature is so full of contradictions; people were clearly telling things to the press before those things were confirmed.  Though Mark Lane has appeared in the bit I've gotten to, clearly lying.
The diagrams of the actual positions of both men clearly take the "evidence" of the bullet changing directions, which was one of Jim Garrison's main points.


But the diagrams he used were incorrect

1. He did not take account of the fact that in the Presidential Limo (a 1961 Lincoln Continental Convertible) the passenger seating positions are not longitudinally aligned. The front passenger is lower and slightly inboard (left).

2. At the time of the second bullet (the first one to hit JFK) Governor Connelly was turned to the right (probably because he heard the first shot come from behind him to the right.

When you take account of these two facts... voila!

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/SBT.gif)

The need for a "magic bullet" evaporates. It travels "through and through" JFK's neck, "through and through" JBC to the left of his armpit,  "through and through" his wrist and embeds into his lower thigh in pretty much a straight line!

NOTE: No 2 above is probably quite a good indication that shots did not come from the infamous grassy knoll, otherwise JBC might have turned to his left, not his right.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: bknight on April 16, 2016, 06:19:59 PM
Perhaps I was not clear in my meaning.  The accurate diagram of the body placement completely destroyed Jim Garrison's belief and description of the bullets trajectory.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: gillianren on April 16, 2016, 07:14:45 PM
Maybe you meant "take care of"?
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: ka9q on April 17, 2016, 12:07:28 AM
NOTE: No 2 above is probably quite a good indication that shots did not come from the infamous grassy knoll, otherwise JBC might have turned to his left, not his right.
Which is strong evidence that the first shot missed, because that's what caused JBC to turn to his right. I think he was just starting to turn back when he got hit by the second shot, though he may not have realized it instantly. Strange as it seems, apparently it's common for people to get shot and not immediately know it. IIRC, for JBC that happened on his next breath, when he felt excruciating pain as his now-broken ribcage expanded.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: gillianren on April 17, 2016, 03:11:05 AM
Wait, wasn't the grassy knoll to their right?  Or have I gotten directions mixed up?
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: ka9q on April 17, 2016, 04:35:47 AM
Wait, wasn't the grassy knoll to their right?  Or have I gotten directions mixed up?
Elm Street is a sharp left and then curves right as it goes downhill, so the infamous Grassy Knoll (specifically the spot west of the pagoda where the "second shooter" was alleged to be) was more like directly ahead of the limousine immediately after the turn, when the first shot occurred and JBC turned to his right to look for the source.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: bknight on April 17, 2016, 09:55:19 AM
Wait, wasn't the grassy knoll to their right?  Or have I gotten directions mixed up?
Elm Street is a sharp left and then curves right as it goes downhill, so the infamous Grassy Knoll (specifically the spot west of the pagoda where the "second shooter" was alleged to be) was more like directly ahead of the limousine immediately after the turn, when the first shot occurred and JBC turned to his right to look for the source.
As did the secret service agents in the motorcade did.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: smartcooky on April 17, 2016, 04:28:36 PM
Wait, wasn't the grassy knoll to their right?  Or have I gotten directions mixed up?


Yes it was, but perhaps I didn't explain it well,

JBC turned right around to his right so that his head was facing in the direction of the TSBD where the shots came from.

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/JFK-JBC-Zapruder.png)

If the shots had come from the grassy knoll, which was ahead of them and to the right (and assuming that it was the shooter JBC was looking for) I would have expected to see him looking more or less towards the camera, i.e about 45° left of where he was looking, as Zapruder was standing at the end of the pergola nearest the grassy knoll. Zapruder would have been directly in line with any shooter there.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: gillianren on April 17, 2016, 10:35:03 PM
Well, yeah, that's why I was confused.  He definitely would have been looking straight at Zapruder if he'd heard shots coming from the theoretical grassy knoll shooter, who was allegedly behind Zapruder.  Who, as I recall, thought the shots were coming from the TSBD and definitely didn't think they'd come from over his shoulder.  Either way, though, it's not Connally's left.  I was confused by that.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: bknight on April 18, 2016, 10:54:55 AM
Actually Zapruder's position is slightly forward and left (in relation to Grassy Knoll, behind)of the alleged Grassy Knoll position
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/an-interactive-3d-model-of-the-jfk-assassination-site-grassy-knoll-and-all-180947812/?no-ist
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: Allan F on April 18, 2016, 11:28:43 AM
NatGeo has done some investigation, and has apparently discovered some details in old photographs, which show a defect in a traffic light after the shooting, which might be the first bullet impact. That traffic light has since been replaced, so there is no way to verify if it was a bullet impact or not.

The traffic light was just below LHO's position, and it could very well have been in the path of the first shot.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: bknight on April 18, 2016, 11:41:56 AM
NatGeo has done some investigation, and has apparently discovered some details in old photographs, which show a defect in a traffic light after the shooting, which might be the first bullet impact. That traffic light has since been replaced, so there is no way to verify if it was a bullet impact or not.

The traffic light was just below LHO's position, and it could very well have been in the path of the first shot.
Do you have a link to the video?  All I got was a bunch of stills and from the look of the stills any shot to the traffic signal would have happened way too early for the reactions of those that heard the shot.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: smartcooky on April 18, 2016, 03:57:20 PM
NatGeo has done some investigation, and has apparently discovered some details in old photographs, which show a defect in a traffic light after the shooting, which might be the first bullet impact. That traffic light has since been replaced, so there is no way to verify if it was a bullet impact or not.

The traffic light was just below LHO's position, and it could very well have been in the path of the first shot.
Do you have a link to the video?  All I got was a bunch of stills and from the look of the stills any shot to the traffic signal would have happened way too early for the reactions of those that heard the shot.

IIRC it was towards the end of this programme..."JFK: Lost Bullet"

Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: Allan F on April 18, 2016, 05:00:03 PM
Sorry, no. I have seen it twice on TV.

Edit: It is likely to be this:
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: bknight on April 18, 2016, 10:34:30 PM
Yes that was it along with all the Chinese commercials.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: smartcooky on April 19, 2016, 01:33:40 AM
I think the idea of a shooter on the grassy knoll (or behind the stockade fence) is a ridiculous one, and here's why.

When a sniper wants to shoot at a moving target, the position and movement of which is predetermined as in the JFK Limo, he is going to choose a firing point that gives him the least lateral and vertical movement, ie, he wants the moving target to be as near stationary as possible from his perspective. In that regard, the ideal firing point would be one where the target is either moving directly away from him or directly towards him.

(http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/01851/jfk-sun-outline-fi_1851797a.jpg)

The second floor window on the corner of the TSBD would probably have been technically the ideal spot, except that the trees on the outside just after the corner of Elm Street would likely block the view directly down Elm Street. Its also too close to the ground; people are likely to spot the sniper.   

Going up to the Sixth Floor fixes those problems, but introduces one of its own, the need to track the target vertically. However, tracking a rising or falling target is much, much easier that tracking a target that is moving left to right or right to left.

The Grassy Knoll, however, is low to the ground and there are a lot of people around, which will increase your chances of being spotted before you start shooting. They will also be deafened by the gunshots and are sure to spot you once you do fire your first shot. Also, you are close to the target and on the inside of a slight bend. That would make the target most difficult to track as it is almost at its maximum left to right speed. Even worse, there, there are bystanders around, and they may not be stationary... you can't predict what they will do as the Presidential Limo approaches. One of them could pass through your firing line as you track the target. You are trying to shoot JFK and you will only have a couple of opportunities to do so; you won't want to waste them hitting bystanders.

I conclude that the Grassy Knoll/Stockade Fence area is just about the worst possible place in Dealey Plaza to shoot at the Presidential Limousine and no sniper who knew what he was doing would choose it. Instead, I think a sniper would choose exactly what LHO did. It was the best spot with the greatest chance of success.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: gillianren on April 19, 2016, 01:35:39 AM
I mean, across the street would probably have been worse.  Not even any shelter.  Have you heard the idea that the gunman was in a storm drain?  My favourite part is the suggested storm drain that wasn't even there in 1963.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: bknight on April 19, 2016, 08:24:03 AM
I mean, across the street would probably have been worse.  Not even any shelter.  Have you heard the idea that the gunman was in a storm drain?  My favourite part is the suggested storm drain that wasn't even there in 1963.

I don't know whether or not the storm drain was there or not, but yes I have heard of the theory of the shooter in the drain.  IIRC it was from an old French guy that had Mafia connections, relating his story in pieces to a reporter making a program considering JFK's assignation.  The shooter was alleged to use "exploding" bullets for maximum damage.  One of the problems with a frontal shot is the head wound does not have a configuration for a front shot, only from the rear.  But then I'm not a CT with all sorts of "explanations" for oddities.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: gillianren on April 19, 2016, 12:41:37 PM
I saw it on an episode of Unsolved History, on the Discovery Channel.  One storm drain hadn't existed yet, and the other just didn't let you even see the motorcade properly, much less shoot anyone riding in it.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: bknight on April 19, 2016, 12:50:03 PM
I saw it on an episode of Unsolved History, on the Discovery Channel.  One storm drain hadn't existed yet, and the other just didn't let you even see the motorcade properly, much less shoot anyone riding in it.

Now that you brought that back up, I do remember a similar show several years ago that had the same conclusion no shot was possible from that position.
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: Ranb on April 19, 2016, 09:24:43 PM
When a sniper wants to shoot at a moving target, the position and movement of which is predetermined as in the JFK Limo, he is going to choose a firing point that gives him the least lateral and vertical movement, ie, he wants the moving target to be as near stationary as possible from his perspective. In that regard, the ideal firing point would be one where the target is either moving directly away from him or directly towards him.
I tried to explain this stuff to a loser called Craig Roberts.  He is prostituting himself to sell his book called Kill Zone.  http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Zone-Sniper-Looks-Dealey/dp/1494985667/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1461115320&sr=8-1&keywords=kill+zone+roberts  He calls the point where JFK was shot the least favorite of his engagement points.  He preferred directly in front of the TSBD.  Roberts is a fool.

Ranb
Title: Re: Reading the Warren Report
Post by: bknight on April 19, 2016, 11:38:09 PM
When a sniper wants to shoot at a moving target, the position and movement of which is predetermined as in the JFK Limo, he is going to choose a firing point that gives him the least lateral and vertical movement, ie, he wants the moving target to be as near stationary as possible from his perspective. In that regard, the ideal firing point would be one where the target is either moving directly away from him or directly towards him.
I tried to explain this stuff to a loser called Craig Roberts.  He is prostituting himself to sell his book called Kill Zone.  http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Zone-Sniper-Looks-Dealey/dp/1494985667/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1461115320&sr=8-1&keywords=kill+zone+roberts  He calls the point where JFK was shot the least favorite of his engagement points.  He preferred directly in front of the TSBD.  Roberts is a fool.

Ranb
As are most of the CT's.  I think that smartcookie is correct, when the target is moving more or less in line and just needs leading in one direction, instead of the two or more right as the vehicle is turning.  If the theory of the lost bullet is correct an attempt was made once the vehicle were again moving straight and closer.