Author Topic: Reading the Warren Report  (Read 4035 times)

Offline gillianren

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1473
    • My Letterboxd journal
Reading the Warren Report
« 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.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline Allan F

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 740
Re: Reading the Warren Report
« Reply #1 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.
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline bknight

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2123
Re: Reading the Warren Report
« Reply #2 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.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Allan F

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 740
Re: Reading the Warren Report
« Reply #3 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.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2016, 02:26:07 PM by Allan F »
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline bknight

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2123
Re: Reading the Warren Report
« Reply #4 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.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline gillianren

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1473
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Reading the Warren Report
« Reply #5 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."
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline gillianren

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1473
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Reading the Warren Report
« Reply #6 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?
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline bknight

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2123
Re: Reading the Warren Report
« Reply #7 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!
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Sus_pilot

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: Reading the Warren Report
« Reply #8 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.

Offline Ranb

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
Re: Reading the Warren Report
« Reply #9 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

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2833
Re: Reading the Warren Report
« Reply #10 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.

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2833
Re: Reading the Warren Report
« Reply #11 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.

Offline smartcooky

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1394
Re: Reading the Warren Report
« Reply #12 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.
► What you can assert without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence
► When you argue with idiots you risk being dragged down to their level and beaten with experience.
►"Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition

Offline smartcooky

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1394
Re: Reading the Warren Report
« Reply #13 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



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...


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...



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.
► What you can assert without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence
► When you argue with idiots you risk being dragged down to their level and beaten with experience.
►"Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition

Offline gillianren

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1473
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Reading the Warren Report
« Reply #14 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.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates