JFK Assassin's Rifle

[B Strong]

This is hilarious. There is always someone that excepts whatever he/she has been fed. This person believes it to be unequivocally true, and that he/she is of the utmost intelligence for believing what he/she has been told. He/she also believes that they are the one to decide whether any evidence in the matter is legitimate or spurious.


As for having "a pretty long history here at CG to fall back on." What does that have to do with knowing if the JFK assassination was a conspiracy?


L.H. Oswald supposedly also tried to kill General Walker before the Kennedy assassination.
.

It has everything to do with being accused of being a government shill. That was the allegation earlier in this thread and I answered it as you noted. That you don't know what the context for my post was is your problem

I don't "except" what someone tells me. I "accept" something if and when the information and evidence that I have at hand leads me to determine that said facts establish a viable explanation wrt a given incident.

The fact that you don't understand where the burden of proof lies is similar to your misunderstanding of my post - it's your problem. Marina Oswald testified before the WC that LHO admitted his involvement in the Walker assassination attempt. Perhaps you missed my earlier post in this thread with her testimony and a link to those pages of the WC report.

[dfletcher]

This is hilarious. There is always someone that excepts whatever he/she has been fed. This person believes it to be unequivocally true, and that he/she is of the utmost intelligence for believing what he/she has been told. He/she also believes that they are the one to decide whether any evidence in the matter is legitimate or spurious.

As for having "a pretty long history here at CG to fall back on." What does that have to do with knowing if the JFK assassination was a conspiracy?

L.H. Oswald supposedly also tried to kill General Walker before the Kennedy assassination.

I'm not sure what to make of your 2nd sentence - the CT folks are the folks who "except" what is said about the event.

Can you point to "evidence" that supports a conspiracy, if so please do. Be specific. Let's look at the "6mm bullet hole" in the back of the President's head for example.

Does about "6mm" refer to a bullet hole in flesh or in bone? I'm not a doctor, but I've seen bullet wounds in flesh to include my own and know an exact measurment is difficult. What about beveling and the direction of bullet & bone fragments in tissue - what do those tell us, if anything, about the wound and point of origin? I've actually learned a thing or two, reading what Baden or Hume, even Wecht have written about the case. The folks who haven't learned, the ones who are limited by their own imagination and preconceived notions, are the CT folks.

Like it or not people assess what is evidence and what is not evidence. Testimony of the doctors who did the autopsy, folks who were in the motorcade and saw the event, the police and others - their testimony is assessed, that's as it should be. The CT folks take 2nd or 3rd person information, spin it and use it as they see fit. Nevermind, for example, that Marina Oswald on 4 separate occasions affirmed se took those pictures. Never mind that she affirmed he owned the rifle, that he returned in haste with the rifle on the night Walker was shot at and missed. Some fellow selling a book looks at photocopies of the pictures, renders an opinion and that is believed?

Regarding the "I've been here for a while" that of course means nothing regarding knowing the event, however the suggestion has been made by a few CT folks that plants exist for the opportunity to beguile folks into believing the government version. I think most would see that as foolish, it also goes to just how empty must be their case for conspiracy.

[dfletcher]

Stick to the topic you guys. No fruity tooties here

I think the question has been asked and answered. I own the same rifle and scope. I know first hand the bolt can be manipulated within the timespan of the shooting. The rifle is accurate and strong and I would remind people, the rifle was only about 20 years old at the time of the shooting.

These folks did an about 1 hr show on the event. I always advise to remember "it's only TV" but the results are interesting. I think people should be aware of the difference between "evidence" and "information".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13wfsdACktk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZRUNYZY71g

People can take in information and decide what it means, if anything.

[navydad2010]

Face palm? Haw familiar are you with the FACTS?

The measurement was made at autopsy, at a time when LHO was alive and in custody. They should have done a better job but had no way of knowing people were going to be claiming conspiracy 50 years later.

The actual entry reads "approximately 6 mm."

Approximately means...approximately. It doesn't mean exactly.

The projectile was 6.5 mm, which is a HALF MILLIMETER difference between the diameter and the measurement labeled "APPROXIMATLEY". Do you know how small a half millimeter is? Do you disagree that if I say approximately 20 mm, and you whip out a caliper and say "ah HA! You are WRONG. It's not 20mm, it's 20 and a HALF Millimeters," you'd sound like a pedantic tool?

Where's the big mystery? Where does the face palm come from?

I dunno, but if I bragged in my screen name about the awesome education I got from a top notch military school, I'd be less inclined to play the fool card, methinks.

I do believe that the object making the hole cannot be ANY bigger than the hole it makes. That said, if that 20mm hole was made with a 24mm object I'd still have a point. jus sayin'

[Citadelgrad87]

I dunno, but if I bragged in my screen name about the awesome education I got from a top notch military school, I'd be less inclined to play the fool card, methinks.

I do believe that the object making the hole cannot be ANY bigger than the hole it makes. That said, if that 20mm hole was made with a 24mm object I'd still have a point. jus sayin'

Inferiority complex much? I didn't brag about anything. It's my username. I went there and graduated that year. If that makes you feel inferior, or jealous, that's on you, that's not me bragging. Projection is what you are doing.

Nor did I play the fool, I dominated you with common sense.

Why exaggerate and use a 4 mm difference in your example?

Stick to the topic, the word used is APPROXIMATELY. "Approximately 6 mm. What does that word mean to you? Seriously, what does approximately mean to you? Does approximately 6mm mean "exactly 6mm" to you? Because that's not what the words chosen mean.

Is a half millimeter difference between an approximation and an actual measurement significant to you?

I'll answer that for you. It's not in any way significant, except that you've decided to believe in a conspiracy, so you cherry pick garbage like this and pretend its significant by ignoring the plain meaning of the words chosen.

[B Strong]

I dunno, but if I bragged in my screen name about the awesome education I got from a top notch military school, I'd be less inclined to play the fool card, methinks.

I do believe that the object making the hole cannot be ANY bigger than the hole it makes. That said, if that 20mm hole was made with a 24mm object I'd still have a point. jus sayin'

To put this argument in contrast, take a look at two pistol caliber rounds, .38 Super and the 9 x 23 mm

The Super is 9 x 22.5 mm, semi rimmed.

The 9 x 23 mm, rimless.

You can run 9 x 23 through a good quality .38 Super w/ 100% reliability - that .5 millimeter difference isn't enough to effect function.

A .5 mm difference in measurement on flesh and bone does not a conspiracy make.

Occam's razor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

[navydad2010]

lol you ever read what you write?

didn't think so!

Carry on smart guy.

[Citadelgrad87]

lol you ever read what you write?

didn't think so!

Carry on smart guy.

Lol, do you ever address the substance of what is written instead of hiding behind emoticons?

You have issues with your perception of your own intelligence. You apparently don't think you are smart, because this is twice in a row you changed the subject from what was being discussed to attack someone else's intelligence. A clear indicator that you don't think you're up to the discussion, and your refusal to address any point confirms this.

[B Strong]

lol you ever read what you write?

didn't think so!

Carry on smart guy.

In weighing the evidence of the 6 mm entrance wound v the 6.5 mm diameter of the projectile, which is the more probable scenario?

1. Conspiracy, all types.

2. Human error.

I'll go with number 2.

[Citadelgrad87]

In weighing the evidence of the 6 mm entrance wound v the 6.5 mm diameter of the projectile, which is the more probable scenario?

1. Conspiracy, all types.

2. Human error.

I'll go with number 2.

"Approximately 6mm" is the notation. To me, 6.5mm IS approximately 6 mm. We are talking the difference of the thickness of 2 business cards.

This is another example of people emotionally invested in a position cherry picking, without explanation, to support the conclusions they reached before they reviewed the evidence.

[Gem1950]

Please, somebody, shut this thing down. NOW!

For the uninitiated, we have a situation here that will continue as long as there is the last word to be gotten/had. We have a couple of hominids in cubicles castigating anyone who dares to question authority - on this subject, for now anyway. They read from scripts and will never go away. Once you respond to them it's all over. It's like pulling a thread on a sweater - it goes on and on until there's nothing left. Experts agree - Acknowledging the nopers gets the discussion nowhere.

Don't pull that thread people!



...Or covered up!

[Citadelgrad87]

Please, somebody, shut this thing down. NOW!

For the uninitiated, we have a situation here that will continue as long as there is the last word to be gotten/had. We have a couple of hominids in cubicles castigating anyone who dares to question authority - on this subject, for now anyway. They read from scripts and will never go away. Once you respond to them it's all over. It's like pulling a thread on a sweater - it goes on and on until there's nothing left. Experts agree - Acknowledging the nopers gets the discussion nowhere.

Don't pull that thread people!

Only those who seek to hide something call to shut down discussion.

Your side is making a terrible showing, you in particular have resorted to simply posting semi random photos to "support" your side.

You fear the light of knowledge.

[navydad2010]

Too funny...seems that this lil guy really trips your trigger. But I have issues with my intelligence.. good one. Still have not heard an explanation why in a scientific finding such as an autopsy that approximation is an acceptable measure of anything. However if a 6.5mm projectile made a 7mm hole that would be believable. But a 6.5mm projectile making a 6mm hole not so much. Kinda sounds like the science behind global warming.. er .. cooling.. it's a consensus!!.. got it.

Just for youCD87!!
XOXO

[Citadelgrad87]

Too funny...seems that this lil guy really trips your trigger. But I have issues with my intelligence.. good one. Still have not heard an explanation why in a scientific finding such as an autopsy that approximation is an acceptable measure of anything. However if a 6.5mm projectile made a 7mm hole that would be believable. But a 6.5mm projectile making a 6mm hole not so much. Kinda sounds like the science behind global warming.. er .. cooling.. it's a consensus!!.. got it.

Just for youCD87!!
XOXO

Keep dancing. Avoid the clear questions.

What does "approximate" mean to you in the phrase "approximately 6 mm"?

Is "approximately 6mm" the same as "exactly 6mm" to you?

If it is, why do you intentionally, and dishonestly, change the meaning of plain words to support your conclusion?

What range of measurements would acceptably fall within the label "approximately 6 mm"?

Because you are clearly intentionally changing the meaning of the words used, and are insisting on interpreting "approximately" to mean "exactly" by repeating a 6 mm hole can't be made by a 6.5mm projectile over and over as if repetition lends weight to your argument.

A 6.5 mm hole is the same as an approximately 6 mm hole to any rational person.

But keep dancing. You've got me on the ropes.

[chuckdc]

Too funny...seems that this lil guy really trips your trigger. But I have issues with my intelligence.. good one. Still have not heard an explanation why in a scientific finding such as an autopsy that approximation is an acceptable measure of anything. However if a 6.5mm projectile made a 7mm hole that would be believable. But a 6.5mm projectile making a 6mm hole not so much. Kinda sounds like the science behind global warming.. er .. cooling.. it's a consensus!!.. got it.

Just for youCD87!!
XOXO

That would be true.. if tissue weren't elastic, and didnt snap back into place. Try pushing a 6.5mm blunt probe through something stretchy and see.. the remaining hole will more often than not be smaller than 6.5mm. Entrance wounds are made by tissue being pushed by the bullet. The tissue stretches till its elastic limit, then breaks. after the break, it pulls back to as near the initial position (before disruption) as possible.